|
POLITICAL DIARY
Nuclear Controversy
SEEK SENSE OF PARLIAMENT
By Poonam I Kaushish
New Delhi, 30 October 2007
India’s endemic crisis of casualness has
created another problem. A basic issue of critical importance
to the future of our democracy, thrown up by the controversy
over the Indo-US nuclear deal, has not received the attention
it deserves: Is Parliament supreme vis a vis the Executive or
is it not supreme? The Constitution is crystal clear in the
matter. Article 75(3) provides: The Council of Ministers shall
be collectively responsible to the House of the People or the
Lok Sabha as it is popularly known.
The issue popped up initially when the UPA Government
announced its willingness to hold a debate on the nuclear
deal. The BJP-led NDA welcomed the debate but demanded a vote
at the end. This was not acceptable to the Government. The
matter came up again when the Government agreed to set up a
Committee with the Left to resolve differences. The BJP
objected and demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee to whet
the deal. The Government again said no and an angry BJP
thereafter stalled the monsoon session.
Debate But No Vote
The Left, which has threatened to pull the rug time and again,
wants Parliament to debate the deal but not vote on the motion
as it would leave it with no elbow room for manoeuvre. Either
it would have to vote against the deal, which would mean
bringing down the Government. Or, it would simply have to walk
out of the House, which would mean losing credibility and
making a bigger laughing stock of themselves.
Top leaders of the UPA’s major allies ---- NCP’s Pawar, DMK’s
Karunanidhi and RJD’s Laloo too rubbish all talk of a vote.
That would constrain them to affix their seal of approval or
disapproval, notwithstanding tall talk of misgivings about the
deal. It could also result in a loss of power and patronage,
which none wants at any cost.
The Congress expectedly opposes a vote. It knows only too well
that a majority in the Lok Sabha, including the Left, is
opposed to the deal. Any vote would surely lead to the
Government’s exit. Hence, the emphasis on a debate without a
vote. But then the Opposition justifiably asks: What purpose
will a toothless debate sans voting serve?
Summon Parliament
It is, therefore, high time that the Government carries out
its responsibilities honourably. It should summon both the
Houses of Parliament without further delay. This could be done
by either convening a special session forthwith or by
advancing Parliament’s winter session, with at least a week
earmarked solely for a full debate on the nuclear deal.
All parties, groups and MPs eager to participate in the debate
must be provided adequate time to have their full say.
Following which, ideally, the motion should be put to vote so
as to leave no scope for any doubt about the will of
Parliament. If the Government is still hell-bent against a
vote, it should at least seek the sense of the Lok Sabha,
which could be done without jeopardizing its own existence. If
the sense is for the deal, the Government should go ahead. If
not, the deal must be called off.
Parliament Supreme
True, the Constitution does not specifically require the
Government to take prior parliamentary approval for conducting
the affairs of the State, including foreign policy, and seek
ratification of international agreements. Nevertheless, in our
democracy, Parliament is supreme vis a vis the Executive. The
Government is answerable to it every minute of its existence.
Interestingly, former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramaniam too is
of the same view. He has asserted in a newspaper article that
absence of a legal dispensation requiring Parliamentary
approval of major matters “is merely a technicality.” He adds:
“Every major policy step presupposes parliamentary support or
consent. There cannot be room in a democracy to embark on
policy matters perceived to be of importance, without the
tacit or actual concurrence of Parliament.”
Not just that. He adds: “If the Prime Minister had taken this
step earlier, the present impasse could have been avoided.
Either he was naďve or was ill-advised. But at least the
Congress, which has ruled the country the longest and has vast
experience of government, should have followed the correct
path and got Parliament’s concurrence.”
Nehru & Foreign Policy
Especially as India’s foreign policy is not the sole
prerogative of any single party, or a coalition Government. In
the present case too, what is at stake is India’s foreign
policy and India’s nuclear deal, not that of the UPA. Time was
when India’s foreign policy was bi-partisan under Nehru and
Indira Gandhi. Wherein both sides of the political spectrum
were agreed on basic issues. There was thus no occasion for
successive Governments to seek prior Parliamentary approval.
The same does not hold good today. There are sharp differences
on foreign policy. What is more, the UPA Government lacks a
clear mandate. It is essentially a Government of post-poll
opportunistic alliances. The Prime Minister is welcome to
claim that the UPA enjoys a majority mandate and is,
therefore, entitled to go ahead with the deal. Nothing could
be farther from the truth.
The Congress won only 143 seats in the Lok Sabha of 545
members. A simple majority totals 272 MPs. To make up the
shortfall of over 130 MPs, the Party allied with the Left and
smattering of regional outfits to form the Government. The UPA
could have claimed a majority mandate had it gone to the polls
as a united front. But it did not.
Majority MPs Oppose Deal
Questionably, can a Government which did not secure a proper
majority mandate commit future generations of Indians to a
deal which is opposed tooth and nail by a majority of the
parties and groups in Parliament? Clearly, it would be right
and proper for the Government to push ahead with the deal only
if a majority favours it. Thus the least that the Government
must do is to seek a sense of the Lok Sabha.
The Congress takes great and understandable pride in harking
back to Nehru’s legacy time and again. Yet it conveniently
forgets the supreme respect India’s first Prime Minister gave
to Parliament. On one occasion, he even came to the Lok Sabha
to request permission to leave New Delhi to attend a meeting
of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in London when
Parliament was in session. Such was his great respect for
Parliament.
Nehru’s Views On Parliament
Nehru need not have done so. Neither was it a Constitutional
requirement nor did the rules of Parliament enjoin upon the
Prime Minister to seek Parliament’s prior approval for going
abroad. However, Nehru did so as it was the right thing to do
vis-ŕ-vis the highest temple of democracy. Today, even junior
Ministers think nothing of departing without notice!
Nehru wanted India and its Parliamentarians to always draw
inspiration from Britain, which works out its democracy
admirably even when, unlike India, it has no written
Constitution. Westminster functions on the premise of what is
done and what is not done. Consequently, any Minister who
comes under a cloud resigns because that is the right thing to
do. No one demands a commission of enquiry or talks of the law
taking its due course.
Merely because our Constitution or laws do not provide for
prior Parliamentary approval before an international treaty
like the nuclear deal is signed does not mean that the
Government is scot free to do whatever it wants. Our
Constitution does not, for instance, pointedly enjoin upon us
Indians to speak the truth and nothing but the truth. Does
that mean we can merrily tell lies and damn lies?
Take Sense Of House
Clearly, it is time that Parliament is summoned soonest and a
sense of the Lok Sabha, the House of the People, ascertained
on the deal. The Prime Minister need not worry about any loss
of face. He should know that in a Cabinet form of Government,
the PM is only the first among equals. Appropriately, he took
the deal to the Cabinet and secured its approval. It is not
his fault if his fair-weather allies have now chosen to desert
him and undermine the coalition dharma.
Neither should the UPA worry that its Government would fall if
the sense of the House, which is an implied vote, goes against
the nuclear deal. After all, to quote Manmohan Singh: “The UPA
Government is not a one issue Government”…. It would merely
have “to live with certain disappointments…. and move on to
the next….”
In sum, the UPA Government must take immediate steps to end
the paralysis that now grips its functioning by having a full
and detailed debate on the nuclear deal. The NDA, for its
part, must cooperate and take note that the country has had
enough of irresponsible stalling of the Houses. Every party,
group must be given full opportunity for a threadbare
discussion of the deal. Parliament must be enabled to express
itself forthrightly. Either it is supreme vis-ŕ-vis the
Executive or it is not. We cannot have it both ways! ---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
E-Mail :
newseditor@sarkaritel.com
|
