WHEN the BJP did not press for a division after the majority voice vote supporting the United Front (UF) Government on June 12, not an eye brow was raised. It was too well known that the 10-day-old H.D. Deve Gowda ministry would have no problem proving its majority in the Lok Sabha.
But now that the Government has got its majority, the sailing is not going to be as smooth for Gowda. For his 13-party ruling federation, the art of compromise would define the art of survival.
Much before the outcome of the promised investigation into the Rs 133-crore urea import deal which has now resulted in former prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's son Prabhakara Rao and others being questioned, Gowda almost gave a clean chit to father and son. After all, Rao still leads the Congress with 142 members, whose support is crucial for the Government's survival. And with the budget session of Parliament likely in July, keeping the Congress in good humour is all the more necessary.
With the number of scandals multiplying and Rao personally figuring as an accused in at least two—the St Kitt's signature forgery case and the Jharkhand MPs' bribery case—Gowda would have problems both in concealing and revealing them in Parliament. The Prime Minister has failed to respond convincingly to BJP leader A.B. Vajpayee's charge that it was his Government which allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation to appeal in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's directive to name Rao and some of his associates in the JMM MPs' bribery case.
However, Rao came to Gowda's rescue. "Let this Government tackle the issue of corruption in whatever manner it wants to," he said. "We are in agreement with most of the issues in the common minimum programme of the United Front and we extend support on the basis of those issues." The UF's common minimum programme, which purports to accommodate even the Left Front's views, supports Finance Minister P. Chidambaram's plans to open up the insurance sector—something that the Left had opposed tooth and nail during the Rao regime. "The Congress will support this Government for five full years. If it falls, it won't be because of the Congress. We have a major say in governance. After all, it's our policy," Rao added.
In a way, Rao has carved for himself the role of a patron saint for the new Government. At the same time, what he said was a warning to the Government as well as a counter to the BJP accusation that the UF and the Congress have entered into an unprincipled alliance for the sake of power. "So far, not a single member from the Congress has laid down a condition either on policy matters or on the issue of corruption," said Gowda. He added that there would be no compromise on any corruption cases, even if it means having to quit power. "From the day I acquire majority in the House, anything that I do will come under the scrutiny of Parliament as well as 900 million people."
Rhetoric and political compulsions rarely meet. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister's assertion regarding legislative scrutiny is good at least for the future of Parliament. The new Government's tenure begins with the Prime Minister's commitment to enforce executive accountability towards Parliament—something that was visibly on the wane, especially during Rao's years as prime minister. Rao had earned the sobriquet of 'absentee prime minister' as he would often avoid coming to Parliament or giving the House even promised information, such as on the progress in the Bofors investigation.
But, given its composition, the 11th Lok Sabha will require a much more delicate and balanced approach—both from the Government and the Chair—for smooth functioning. The Prime Minister's commitment to absolute accountability can work only when the House functions in order, and as per rules and conventions.
The Gowda Government set a precedent when it proceeded without taking up the motion of thanks to the President's address to the joint session of Parliament and the session was prorogued. In fact, a government's fate is generally linked with its ability, or lack of it, to have the motion passed and at least one government—the one led by Chandra Shekhar—has announced its resignation on the floor of the House after the prime minister admitted that he did not have enough support to have the motion passed. The precedent set by the UF Government, parliamentarians believe, may give the executive a handle to curtail MPs' rights in the future.
But more than this aberration, the House which has an unprecedented number of 32 political parties, with at least half-a-dozen regional ones participating in the coalition, would see regional demands raised at the same pitch as national issues. In the process, even single-member parties would seek opportunities more aggressively than before to raise issues pertaining to their areas. "It will not be possible for me to give one-member parties the opportunity to speak on every issue," Speaker P.A. Sangma told Jayanto Rongpi, a member belonging to the Autonomous State Demand Committee of Assam, when he sought time to speak on the confidence motion. Rongpi walked out in protest after Sangma, a fellow North-easterner, warned him "whether you get a chance in future depends on your behaviour".
NORMALLY, the members of the House are respectful to the Chair. But the new House has shown a tendency that puts a spell of doubt on that tradition. Some members of the BJP were upset with Sangma when he, in his attempt to calm down the saffron brigade while they were briefly on the treasury side, asked them to sit down saying "your prime minister (Vajpayee) is speaking". Ram Kripal Yadav, a Janata Dal member from Patna, sprang up from his seat and threatened to harm BJP's Rita Varma physically if she continued quoting from the Patna High Court judgement which criticised the Laloo Prasad Government's role in the fodder scandal. Senior member Chandra Shekhar—despite his support to the UF Government—was the only one to demand that the erring member be admonished and sanity restored in the House. "We are doing a 'great' thing. The entire country is watching us," a saddened Speaker said. But the admonition never came.
Ram Kripal Yadav was not the only one to depart from the norm. When senior CPI member Indrajit Gupta, in his criticism of the BJP, quoted from RSS ideologue M.S. Golwarker's book suggesting that the Muslims should be given second class treatment in India, the BJP side chorused—"what is wrong in that?". And as Mulayam Singh Yadav called the BJP "fascist", he was called "Babar ka Aulad" (progeny of Babar).
Then there is Phoolan Devi on the ruling side, in the company of the likes of Pappu Yadav. And Anand Mohan Singh—another member with a criminal record, who is extending support to the BJP—has even threatened to have hands chopped off if members of the rival party harass him in Parliament. Sahibuddin, a JD member from Bihar with scores of criminal cases including a murder case pending against him, now enjoys Parliamentary immunity.
It would be impossible to expect the human element in Parliament to be under total control unless the members change their profile to make the House an effective forum for debating people's problems and making laws. This can happen only if their respective parties move in that direction.
The Prime Minister's promise that Parliament would once again be restored to the role of debating poverty, hunger, social and regional disparities and his talk about an accountable executive might be meaningless if the institution does not lend itself to reform in this regard.
Given its minority character, the internal contradictions in the 13-party coalition and the Congress party's more than doubtful record of being truly 'unconditional' in its support, the Deve Gowda Government is sure to face trouble on practically every crucial front in the days ahead. But if this situation helps revitalise Parliament, it could perhaps be the biggest contribution of the minority Government. But will the legislature's gain be at the executive's cost?
Tags