No-confidence motion, suspensions, Manipur: Why the monsoon session of Parliament got stormy

Parliament’s monsoon session, which began on July 20 on a stormy note with the Opposition raising the Manipur issue, ended on August 11. The session witnessed 17 sittings over a period of 23 days. It witnessed a three-day long debate on the no-confidence motion. Many Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, attacked the government while Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah took on the Opposition. The monsoon session was historic in many ways, says Akhilesh Singh, political editor, the Times of India, Delhi. The bills passed will be recorded as historic for being the ones passed for the last time from the old Parliament building. The debate on no-confidence motion lasted three long days. Many MPs made speeches on Manipur violence, which has shaken the entire country. The Prime Minister spoke on Manipur violence, while home minister Amit Shah gave a detailed account of the occurrences there. The Prime Minister said he visited the place almost 50 times and his ministers more than 400 times. What happened in Manipur is shameful, but the concern shown by all the parties in our Parliament is a good sign. Earlier, the Northeast has witnessed many violence — Bodoland, Kuki-Naga, Chakma. But at that time people were not as sensitive as they are now because the leaders now take a serious note of the issues in the Northeast. With such a concern, solutions will come faster. The debate in Parliament over the Manipur violence will definitely find a solution to the crisis soon. Was there any occasion in the past when the Opposition moved no-confidence motion, but was absent during voting? It was unusual this time. Journalists consulted each other and none could recall such an incident. Gaurav Gogoi from the Congress moved the no-confidence motion, and when the Prime Minister gave his reply, the Opposition walked out. This was unprecedented. After the Prime Minister’s speech, the Opposition could have expressed its dissatisfaction. The no-confidence motion was passed against the government. The Prime Minister, in his speech, explained that he needed to explain why the no-confidence motion had no merit. He later spoke on Manipur, but by then the Opposition parties had walked out. It was surprising that the no-confidence motion that was moved by the Opposition, was rejected by the House in absence of the leaders who moved it. The Chair suspended many Opposition MPs for misconduct. The Opposition says it was a ploy to silence them. Shouldn’t MPs have the liberty to express their independent views? Yes, of course. They should and do have the liberty. And, they spoke their heart during the debate. No restriction was put on them. But they, too, must follow the rules. This was one of the most acrimonious debates and proceedings we have witnessed in the past. It had many disruptions. Many remarks had to be expunged by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman because the language was unparliamentary. The Chairs — be it Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankar or Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla — explained that it’s the last option they exercise. When the bill was proposed by Gaurav Gogoi, the next big speaker from his side was Rahul Gandhi. The Congress had lost its quota of time. The Speaker, from his discretionary quota, gave Adhir Ranjan the time to speak on the no-confidence motion. He used some words for the Prime Minister that were unparliamentary. When parliamentary affairs minister Pralhad Joshi demanded an apology, Adhir Ranjan refused. He was disqualified and his conduct was referred to the privileged committee. There was a fight between Adhir Ranjan and Virender Singh Mast, a BJP MP. Mast apologised but Adhir Ranjan refused, due to which he was suspended. Raghav Chadha was accused of framing a panel against the National Capital Territory of Delhi Bill. Five MPs complained to the chairman, after which he was suspended pending investigation against him. We should take a lesson from what happened in the monsoon session, because it impacts productivity. The entire country’s precious time gets wasted. When a good, productive debate happens, it generates ideas and value can be added to the content of legislation. But this session was paralyzed due to so many disruptions and adjournments. Monsoon session also witnessed the return of Rahul Gandhi after his suspension was withdrawn. Was he able to utilise his time in Parliament? Rahul Gandhi was disqualified as an MP because of a criminal defamation case. While the session was on, his conviction was stayed by the Supreme Court, and he was reinstated as MP. It was a good comeback for the Opposition because he has been the rallying figure for the entire Opposition. He spoke about the success of Bharat Jodo Yatra, his opinion about the country that he personally saw, and his knee problems. He later spoke about Manipur. He could have avoided using the language that he used. It resulted in the BJP and its supporting parties objecting to it. The House was disturbed, and finally his remarks were also expunged because the Speaker found it unparliamentary. Rahul Gandhi should have utilised those 10 to 12 minutes allotted to him in a better way. The last day of the monsoon session witnessed the introduction of three laws. If implemented, it will result in a paradigm change in the Indian legal administrative system. Did this come as a surprise to you? What’s your assessment of the likely changes? The three laws have been drafted over the past four-and-a-half years. Many committees were formed. NLU, Delhi, vice-chancellor was head of the committee. Judges and IPS officers were consulted, and 42 MPs have given their opinion. The entire exercise was kept under wraps. Journalists got to know about the new legislation the day it was tabled. This is a success for the government as it did not let anything leak out. Both, the existing legal system, and the Parliament building, are seen as legacies of the colonial era. Coincidentally, this was the last legislation in the old parliamentary building. It’s interesting that when the session starts in the new Parliament building, these laws will perhaps be the first to be introduced and passed. It can be seen as a good beginning, because the Indian laws are archaic and have been existing for more than two centuries. The existing laws, which have been drawn from the colonial era, are meant to punish. The new laws are meant to bring justice to a victim and make trials speedy. “Dund” (punishment) has been removed and “nyay” (justice) has been inserted. Audio Production: Sahil Gupta