Month: August 2019

While Opposition members have often used standing committees to prolong decision-making by a ruling dispensation, Modi Government’s bulldozing important Bills without scrutiny does not bode well for democracy

When India replicated the Westminster model and introduced the system of Parliamentary standing committees in the early nineties, the basic purpose was to ensure an in-depth scrutiny of proposed laws and budgetary proposals as it was felt that these were often not discussed at length in Parliament due to paucity of time.

A conscious decision was taken to keep the press and public out of these committee meetings so that members were not obliged to take a partisan stand which is the case when legislation is debated on the floor of the House. A free and frank discussion, it was felt, allowed MPs to offer constructive suggestions which would help strengthen and improve a particular legislation.

This system has worked so far. But the incumbent Modi government has been particularly reluctant to refer legislative Bills for scrutiny to Parliamentary committees. The number of Bills which were sent to committees for detailed deliberations dropped to 26% during Modi’s first term. In contrast, the figures for the earlier two Lok Sabhas was a healthy 60 and 71%. The Modi government is yet to open its account in the ongoing Parliament session.

A defanged and divided opposition has looked on helplessly as the Modi government ensured the passage of 20-odd Bills in the first session of the new Lok Sabha without sending even a single one to a Parliamentary committee. These include the amendments to the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, the legislation criminalising triple talaq and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill to name a few.

The opposition has registered its protest but these have been ignored by an emboldened Modi government which has used its numerical strength in the Lok Sabha to push ahead with its legislative business.

Realizing that the opposition does not have the numbers or the will to challenge it, the Modi government unilaterally extended the Parliament session dusted up all its old Bills and rushed ahead with their passage. Brushing aside the opposition’s objections, Bharatiya Janata Party leaders maintained that the Bills which had been tabled for passage were not new but those which had been pending since the last Lok Sabha.

Unlike his predecessors, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is particularly averse to referring important Bills to Parliamentary committees. The showman that he is, the Prime Minister wants to set a record for the most productive Parliament session. Second, he wants to take advantage of the disarray in the opposition ranks to literally bulldoze legislation through Parliament. More importantly, Modi does not want any hurdles which can delay the passage of Bills.

Past experience shows that scrutiny by a Parliamentary committee is a time-consuming process. This can impact decision-making as opposition leaders, who head these committees, use it as a political tool by prolonging the deliberations. This is exactly what happened when the Manmohan Singh government was in power. Two of its flagship legislations- the Right to Food Bill and the Land Acquisition Bill – were deliberately delayed by the Parliamentary committees then headed by BJP leaders. Since the reports of the committees were submitted virtually towards the end of the government’s tenure, the Centre did not have sufficient time to implement the legislation and take electoral advantage of its “pro-poor” programmes.

Clearly, Modi wants to avoid a similar situation. Not only is he intent on making a big splash by ensuring the smooth functioning of Parliament, the Prime Minister does not want any roadblocks in the implementation of his government’s agenda which can damage his personal image as a decisive leader. More importantly, Modi wants to use the session to remind the opposition about its diminished strength and the government’s massive majority in the Lok Sabha. Unlike the past, no effort is now made to reach out across the political aisle and establish a working relationship with the opposition. The divide is all too clear as the BJP believes dialogue with its opponents is unnecessary.

On its part, an enfeebled has objected to the government’s attitude. It has accused Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah of showing scant regard for Parliament and treating it like the Gujarat assembly where the Modi-Shah duo had acquired the reputation of pushing through the government’s legislative business without adequate debate. But to little avail.

Besides the fact that the opposition is in a hopeless minority in the Lok Sabha, it is also a divided house, having also lost the edge it enjoyed in the Rajya Sabha in the Modi government’s first term when it had the numerical strength to challenge the treasury. The ruling alliance has since bridged the gap and is now close to a majority in the Upper House following a series of defections from the opposition ranks. Former Prime Minister Chandrashekhar’s son Neeraj Shekhar, Congress leader Sanjay Sinh and four members of the Telugu Desam Party have switched loyalties to the BJP, swelling its tally.

At the same time, the BJP has succeeded in driving a wedge in the opposition thanks to some deft floor management. This was evident during the voting on the triple talaq Bill when the BJP managed to get the support of the Biju Janata Dal while made sure the Bahujan Samaj Party, the People’s Democratic Party, YSR Congress, the Nationalist Congress Party and the Janata Dal (U) were not present during the vote.  

From all accounts, the pattern set in the first session of the BJP government’s second term will become the norm. It is clear that the future of Parliamentary democracy is in peril as Modi has made it known that he does not like being questioned or opposed.

]]>

The current set of democratically-elected leaders have little understanding of the deep contradictions of global order, or their own conflict-ridden societies

The circle is now complete. Major democracies — the ‘oldest’ (Britain), ‘greatest’ (the United States) and the ‘largest’ (India) – all have elected populist, aggressive government leaders. This sounds the death-knell to whatever is left of political liberalism.

They all want to make their respective nations ‘great’, which is fine. But they stand charged with using divisive methods at home and adopting protectionist and exclusivist measures abroad.

The ‘greatest’ is erecting walls, wooing North Korea while winking at Russia and China and threatening Iran, the bête noire in West Asia. The latest muse is Imran Khan who must keep the Afghan door ajar to facilitate an American flight faster than Vietnam.

The ‘largest’ is calculating a $5 trillion economy and become a ‘guru’ to the world. But on the ground, it protects its bovine population in a mix of death to those who kill or tan it, but profits for those who export it.

‘Outsiders’ and those not in sync with the majoritarian agenda are asked to leave. Someone ordained: “go to the moon” – and this is not inspired by Chandrayan 2, the moon mission.

As their number mounts, finding a common thread becomes difficult. But their varying agendas using race, religion, region, ethnicity, colour, besides trade and global concerns like the climate change, has become the new normal. It has pushed the world further to a restless and triumphant political right.

The democratic distinction that they give themselves but deny to others is blurred. Vladimir Putin recently said: “the liberal idea” had “outlived its purpose.” The growth of populist movements throwing up ‘nationalist’ leaders and political parties across the world suggests he is correct.

Long before Donald Trump, these movements brought to power Viktor Orban (Hungary), Erdogan (Turkey), Duterte (the Philippines) and Matteo Salvini (Italy); with populists sharing power in Poland, Austria, Slovenia, Finland and Estonia. In France and Germany populist parties are set to play an increasing role in coming years. Brazil’s Bolsanero is a latter day addition – and more are coming.

Xi Jinping and Abe Shinzo would fall in that category.  So would Benyamin Netanyahu and a common friend of them all, Narendra Modi.

The latest is Boris Johnson. His aggressive Brexit advocacy is part of the same isolationism.

“I’ll make Britain great again’, Johnson says, distinctly echoing Trump. For a former journalist and editor of prestigious journals, he is being unoriginal. But then, he feels close to Trump and despite Trump’s past fusillades against him, they (add Imran, too) are now a mutual admiration society.

Johnson, a biographer of Winston Churchill, sees himself in that leader. But times and contexts change. As Economist says, like Churchill, Johnson has also inherited Britain’s worst crisis since World War II. Brexit, Britain’s self-goal, could do or undo him, with deep repercussions either way.       

To be fair to Boris, strictly going by promises made last week, he has defied many things that Brexit crusade has been about. Many Britons have viewed it from racism and anti-immigration prisms. Brexit was about reductions in future. But Boris has said he will make legal half-a-million illegal or unregistered immigrants, introducing a number system with some compassion.

Boris, given his Turkish ancestry, perhaps, has done better than Trump who, although of German descent, wants ‘outsider’ to quit America. Sustaining Britain’s inclusive approach, he has a Pakistani Muslim to manage finance and a via-Africa Indian woman to pilot the immigration and counter-terrorism policies. Only time will tell how Britain holds out against the global illiberal avalanche.

There is hope, perhaps. As an Urdu expression goes, “umeed par duniya kaayam hai,” (hope sustains life).  Post World War II, whatever be their political belief, people could aspire for a better future. That hope is sinking with the advent of this century.

Unwelcome, migrants are ghetto-ed and ill-treated, if not killed. No trade union rights. No dissent. Not even disagreement. Even elections, with varying degrees of democratic processes, are only hurtling people in one direction. Humans live by hope. But there is no utopia to live for.     

Sadly, the current set of our leaders have little understanding of the deep contradictions of the global order, or their own conflict-ridden societies. They engage in politics of name-calling and sensationalism, Trump’s boast that he could kill 10m Afghans, but won’t, is a classic example.

If truth be told, this didn’t’ begin with Putin or Trump. From the 1980s onwards beginning with the Reagan-Thatcher combine, ruling classes all over the world presided over a period of psychological repression. A new normal was propagated through media, education and other means — that a world free of exploitation and injustice is impossibile. Inequalities are increasing, and are justified.

By the 1990s, younger generations had come to believe that There Is No Alternative (TINA). They were told that the idea that we share of collective interests is simply hogwash. It was explained in the name of individual liberty and advancement.  

Liberalism is probably more challenged in India today than anywhere else because the country is the most diverse. Self-proclaimed custodians of caste and religion enjoying tacit political support are dictating people who they must meet, converse with, befriend and marry, what they should eat, wear, watch or read, whether or not they can use mobile phones, and even where they can go and when.

Aided by a corporate-owned media driven by profits and eyeballs, a public culture of hurt sentiment, violation of honour, with social and political license given to react to it in any brutal manner possible has been created. This climate of fear affects artists, intellectuals and even ordinary persons in public conversations.

Most founders of the Indian Republic (Nehru above all) aspired to create a liberal society. They did not foresee the extent to which it would, over time, evolve in a decidedly illiberal direction. Today, Nehru is a swear-word.

Here again, if truth be told, this did not begin yesterday. The political forces claiming to lead, and thriving on, a liberal ethos – the Congress, the communists, the socialists and the likes – themselves adopted illiberal courses and have now yielded space to those they fought. They are only whining today, unable to unite and fight back.

Mercifully, societies are not monoliths. Whenever and wherever a new draconian normal takes root, there are always forces who speak out for the oppressed. But as ordinary people increasingly become integrated into a digital political sphere in which melodrama rules, states and corporations will become more adept at manipulating ‘public opinion’. Already, those opposing it are being termed seditious.

Is it, then, the end of liberalism the world over? This is, like asking at the spiritual level: is it the end of Kalyug, the ultimate downfall?

Academic-journalist Pratap Bhanu Sharma says the end of liberalism is announced very frequently globally. “It’s almost like a recurring theme that there is a fundamental infirmity that makes it periodically vulnerable.”

This eludes a clear answer – if there is one.  

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>