Is it a PM-mukt Parliament?

“Jab jawab bachche de sakte hain to daddy kyun?” asked union minister Babul Supriyo on Tuesday, in response to the Opposition demand in the Rajya Sabha that the Prime Minister should attend the House and hear the debate on demonetisation. Officially Bharatiya Janata Party has taken the position that Leader of the House and Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is competent enough to reply to the debate and points raised by the Opposition; and in any case the Opposition had no business to dictate who the Government would field.

Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Rajiv Pratap Rudy told National Herald, “The opposition is only trying to use this as an alibi for disruption.” Asked why the Prime Minister could not attend the upper House and speak since he did address the BJP MPs on Tuesday morning in the Parliament House, Rudy quipped, “ Let the House go on, let the debate resume—but this should not be used as a pretext to disrupt the House”.

With the BJP having done well in the byelections, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday evening launched a blistering attack on the critics of demonetisation, accusing them of defending the corrupt and of speaking in favour of black money. Bolstered by the election results, the PM ruled out any concession or compromise on corruption. “Why do we have to accept corruption,” he wondered aloud while speaking at a book-launch in the national capital, covered predictably and extensively by TV channels.

PM absent for many important debates

But this is precisely what the Opposition is finding difficult to swallow. Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi summed up the sentiment when he asked why the Prime Minister could address a rock concert, speak at political rallies, media events and on television but refuses to speak in Parliament. CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury attributed it to the Prime Minister’s arrogance. Several Opposition MPs National Herald spoke to felt that the Prime Minister was not used to listening to criticism or facing inconvenient questions.

That still does not quite explain the Prime Minister’s absence from Parliament. During the first five days of the winter session, he has rarely been seen in either House. Even earlier, in August this year the crucial GST (Goods and Services Tax) Bill was discussed, debated and passed by Parliament without the PM being present. He was again conspicuous by his absence during discussions on Kashmir, atrocities on Dalits and on the dismissal of state governments in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

Could it be the Prime Minister’s contempt for specially the Rajya Sabha ? While the PM can arguably watch debates in the House on TV while sitting in his own chamber and while doing other work, the argument, if accepted, can be extended to other ministers and members as well. Why indeed would the British House of Commons evolve a system called the “PM’s Question Hour” every Wednesday when the House is in session, allowing MPs to put questions directly to the PM and seek an answer ? Surely attending Parliament involves not just speaking but also listening and replying to inconvenient questions? But the Indian Parliament appears reluctant to innovate and break the mould.

Ironically, while in Opposition the BJP laid great store by the presence of the Prime Minister in Parliament. Arun Jaitley while speaking on Manmohan Singh’s prolonged absence from parliament in its winter session in 2009 held that it had dented the ‘Parliamentary accountability of the Government’. Even the media criticised Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in 2013 for their allegedly poor attendance (77% and 47% respectively) in Parliament in 2013.

In fact the Opposition had forced Manmohan Singh to speak on the economy and the sliding value of the rupee in August 2013, when the rupee slid to Rs 66 to one dollar. Ironically again, on November 21, 2016 rupee had slid lower but without the kind of clamour one saw in 2013. Manmohan Singh, lampooned viciously by the BJP for allegedly not speaking on crucial issues, had in fact a far better record in Parliament than Narendra Modi , intervening on wide ranging issues including the case of Italian marines, the nuclear deal with the US and the Batla House encounter.

The first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru is known to have been a stickler for attending the Question Hour in Parliament. While there was little opposition then as now, Nehru would still sit through searing attacks on him by opposition stalwarts like Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and reply, not contemptuously or with a speech laced with bitterness and satire but with reason, wit and humour. Narendra Modi appears particularly incapable of emulating the act.

Uttam Sengupta is Executive Editor of National Herald. He tweets at @chatukhor. Inputs by Sebastian PT @sebastianpt7