We are so used to parliament not functioning, that when it does debate, we suddenly wake up to the latent skills of our MPs (yes, there is much. much more to our netas than the stereotype of them being idle and/or corrupt). The first four days of the winter session of parliament have seen parliament debate Ambedkar and the constitution and the issue of ‘rising intolerance’. For once, the debate has been free of repeated adjournments and disruptions: almost every party has had a fair chance to make its voice heard. That the prime minister flew down from the climate summit in Paris and went straight to the Rajya Sabha is even more reassuring: one of the criticisms of Mr Narendra Modi is that he doesn’t spend enough time in parliament. Maybe, it’s the defeat in Bihar, the compulsions of getting crucial legislation passed, or maybe it’s the advise of his well-wishers, but we have seen signs of a more accommodating prime minister in this parliament session. That he even hosted Sonia Gandhi for tea is a sign that he desperately wants to push through the Goods and Services Tax by getting the opposition on board. Whether the opposition responds favorably is still uncertain: tit for tat politics is still the mantra for some.
The quality of the speeches have been uneven: Sitaram Yechury gave a standout speech on the constitutional responsibilities of our lawmakers; Arun Jaitley was equally skilful when he spoke of the constitution and democracy (he even quite expertly brought in the Emergency of 1975 without naming the Congress); Anand Sharma and Jyotiraditya Scindia shone for the Congress while the prime minister was statesman-like in his responses. In the intolerance debate, there was plenty of aggression: Meenakshi Lekhi and Kiron Kher from the BJP showed us how articulate women MPs can make an impact in a male-dominated legislature; Rahul Gandhi seemed to have taken plenty of Red Bull before he spoke spunkily; there were delightful cameos by Asauddin Owaisi (when I attack the Congress I am communal, when I target the BJP I am anti-national, he says), Shashi Tharoor (who even broke into shudh Hindi while claiming that a friend from Bangladesh told him that India appears safer for cows than Muslims) and the outstanding historian Sugato Bose (who brought tears to the eyes when he reminded us of the 1945 Red Fort trial and the war-cry Lal Quile se Ayi aawaz Sehgal, Dhillon, Shahnawaz). Even the less articulate MPs haven’t baulked at the idea of speaking their heart out (as one of them remarked to the speaker, I don’t know when I will get to speak next, so please don’t stop me this time). The ‘intolerance’ debate maybe riddled with hypocrisy: almost every party has at some stage or the other demonstrated its cussedness in public life, but it was still a significant one, and way better than street protests over whether one should return awards or not.
All of which brings me to my central point: why cant we have more and not less of such parliament jousts? Why, for example, cant parliamentarians debate climate change next, or the price of pulses? I have always found it strange that the same MPs who wend their way almost ritually to television studios in the night seem reluctant to share debating space in the day. The debates may not change certain realities: we will still have instances of intolerance, the air in Delhi will remain polluted, containing pulse prices will always be a challenge. But talking in parliament is always better than walking out. It isn’t even about who wins or loses the debates in parliament, it is in the end recognizing the spirit of parliamentary democracy by respecting the institution that is crying out for its dignity to be restored. Let me just say: yeh dil maange more!
