 |
|
| Kathmandu, Friday March 07, 2003 Falgun 23, 2059. |
|
Democracy - UP type
The 400 and odd legislators of India’s
biggest state Legislative Assembly should consider themselves lucky as none of them was
hit or wounded in an hour-long tension-filled session. But the democracy and parliamentary
norms were the biggest casualty. The practice, followed by the House in transacting
business in Uttar Pradesh (UP), has not only agitated the UP politicians, but has also
attracted the concern in central parliament.
Fearing that UP Chief Minister Mayawati’s
instruction to her camp followers to contribute to the party (Bahujan Samaj Party) from
what they earn out of shady deals, which now forms a part of video camera, would dominate
the House proceedings, all the normal procedures were curtailed in the most
unconstitutional manner. The Governor’s speech to the joint session of the
legislature, an annual practice to reveal government’s major policies, was declared
passed by the chair without allowing any debate or amendment to it. Similarly, the budget
was adopted without allowing any cut-motion or debate. A state government has to resign if
any of the two—policy testament or the budget—are rejected during the voting,
which comes at the end of prolonged debate in which the government response is an
essential part.
The Chief Minister, who gave a free hand to her
party’s MPs and legislators to collect money by any means—fair and
unfair—seeking part of it for her own or party’s sake, muzzled the right of the
House to debate on the issue and censure her. The House was adjourned sine die. Although
the Speaker of the House had taken adequate measures to minimise the possibility of
violence in the House, his act—declaring the speech and budget passed and then
adjourning the House—caused much more injury to the institution and practice of
parliament and democracy.
But UP’s shadow would chase Delhi’s
power corridor. Mayawati’s BSP government survives on BJP’s support, which leads
the coalition at the centre. The opposition has been demanding that the
‘corrupt’ Mayawati government should be sacked and central rule be imposed in
the state. If the BJP does not, it would be charged with defending Mayawati’s
‘corrupt deals’ and the manner in which the House was conducted to suit her
interest in UP. The fact that UP Assembly Speaker belongs to the BJP will make the charge
stick on the BJP, which once gave the slogan of ‘probity in public life’.
Nevertheless, subsequent compromises made by the BJP in the centre and states on the issue
of probity in public life indicate that the line, which divides BJP from the rest, is not
so firm but unequivocal defence of Mayawati would make the central government a much
vulnerable target as ‘corrupt’ or an ally of corruption. But much will depend on
how such parliamentary aberrations or corrupt practices would be rectified. |
