Suspension of 25 Congress MPs - non democratic?

Suspension of 25 Congress MPs - non democratic?

Introduction:

The monsoon session of Lok Sabha began with nothing more than protest and chaos and continued to fail at passing key bills. The sessions were neither dormant nor productive. The government was being blamed for not being able to handle proceedings or making the house functional. Finally, the ruling government found a way to stop the chaos so that a majority of non-controversial-by-party members could sit with the rest of opposing members (now in fear of meeting the same consequences as the 25 others dragged out) and pass some key bills. Lok Sabha speaker Sumitra Mahajan suspended 25 Congress MPs for five days for disrupting proceedings as nine opposition parties decided to not let the house function. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have marked the day as a black day for Indian democracy, sporting black bands, crying foul over dumb ears. Lalit Modi controversy and Vyapam scam was the reason behind the protests by the suspended MPs and other opposition parties that joined hands now. They wanted resignation of top BJP MPs but instead landed with their own suspension letters. Is it non-democratic injustice to prevent their own members or a solution of undying problem of making Lok Sabha function in peace?

A right measure:

1. Monsoon session began on 21st July and since then hardly any work has been done as both houses stood disrupted in chaos of Congress members being disruptive over Lalit Modi and Vyapam Scam. Government was being ridiculed for not being able to make the house functional peacefully. When else will you legislate if not in a house full of the greatest majority of your own members? They simply used the power entrusted upon them by suspending the disruptive members to make the house functional again. Why do we have to play blame game all the time, if the government does nothing and even if the government does anything at all?

2. The protest by Congress was beginning to grow larger as more and more parties joined hands at disrupting the houses. Trinamool, Nationalist Congress Party, CPI(M), Aam Aadmi Party and Janata (Dal) United together stood to boycott Lok Sabha. There was no way the houses could be functional with such level of mass protests and chaos inside. A step had to be taken and this just seemed appropriate after the speaker warned these disruptive members not to show placards and return to their seats but to no effect.

3. The protesting team of parties with members who were not the least bit interested in listening to the speaker had already become a threat who would impede a host of pending legislations, which also included the very necessary goods and services tax, since experts had warned that falling investments and the flagging pace of reforms could deter India’s growth. These 25 members silenced for the next 5 sessions would do more good than harm.

4. Rule 364 (A) justifies the suspension of these members and hence it cannot he called non-democratic. The rule says, "In the event of grave disorder occasioned by a member coming into the well of the House or abusing the Rules of the House persistently and wilfully obstructing its business by shouting slogans or otherwise, such member shall, on being named by the Speaker, stand automatically suspended from the service of the House for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less."

5. This wasn't the first time when the house was being disrupted in such a manner by Congress members. Last week, the house witnessed yet another Congress member, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury banging placard on speaker's table. He was immediately suspended but this did not seem to be a lesson enough to stop chaos in the house by other congress members. Congress should have seen this coming already instead of being a bunch of fools for the following sessions too.

6. The resignation of the ministers demanded by the opposition is inappropriate in the absence of any police complaints, court observations or prime-facie case against them. Giving in to their demands would be inappropriate without legal proceedings on them and the house had to be functional which the protesting members were not ready to understand.

A non-democratic measure:

1. It is not just opposition calling for the resignation of the ministers involved in the scam but the entire nation angry over the government favouring the wrong doers. Letting go of this matter would not solve it and the opposition had every rights to question what the government is doing about putting the accused in their right places. The opposition, is in fact, created with the very purpose of keeping the ruling government within their limits of judiciary but the government seems to have totally ignored their pleas.

2. MPs in India seems to be only enjoying the power and money they are given. They work only 75 days in comparison to 150 days in the British Parliament and 200 days in the U.S. Congress and that too is disrupted with such nuisances to which the government does not pay any heed. The tomfoolery over Lalit Modi case is showing the weakness of Modi government and its inability to deliver to a country that voted in the greatest ever majority to this party they thought would free them from scams and corruption. Instead of simply punching out opposition with power, it would be more respectful of the government to shut their mouths with justice in the Vyapam case.

3. To be very obvious, this is not the first time when an opposition party tried to disrupt the functioning of the house. It had happened during the rule of erstwhile NDA under Atal Behari Vajpayee and during UPA government too but none of the times any member was suspended. This action by the speaker who might be under pressure from the government is a telltale of escaping the blames and delaying justice. Digvijaya Singh calls it "basic difference between a democratic leader and a dictator."

4. Sushma Swaraj, Vasundhara Raje and Shivraj Singh have been accused to be linked to the scam that destroyed lives of many. The government should not try means to escape the concern that needs to be addressed straight away. Suspend if you cannot do with confrontation of the issues at hand is not a means expected from a party with a whooping majority in Lok Sabha.

Conclusion:

The matter at hand seems to be delayed and ignored for justice and concern is raised even in the minds of those that voted for the government with a majority that has given them the power of dictating for the next few years. However, disrupting the session that are meant to pass essential bills for the growth of our country is not a good act either. Hampering the sessions and wasting them is nothing in favour of the country - both the parties need to understand this. Ruling government has to understand that in a democracy you cannot escape questions that concern the interests of public and opposition has to understand that it cannot achieve anything at all by trying to disrupt the proceedings of important sessions.