To understand the decline in parliamentary standards as an institution of executive accountability, one only needs to look at the questions allowed on the floor and the quality of the answers given to them. The analysis clearly shows that parliamentary debate has shrunk to the point of being incomprehensible. Questions that were once allowed are increasingly being rejected on various pretexts. The metaphors used to reject questions range from “sensitive issues” to “hypothetical proposals” to “policy issues too large to be addressed within the scope of the answer.”
It is worth considering why such positive constraints were not in place a decade ago.
The media has embarked on an effort to unravel the ever-changing construction cost figures for the new Parliament building. Till 2021, the government, in its replies to various questions posed in the Rajya Sabha, had proudly revealed that the estimated construction cost of the building was Rs 9,710 crore. Fast forward to 2023, and when this writer asked about the actual cost incurred on completion and the next phase of work, there was a sudden silence. This sudden silence was pure theatrical. It became inappropriate to discuss the final construction cost as “one should not take up matters which are under the control of any body or person not primarily responsible to the Government of India”. Wasn’t it approved by the Cabinet as part of the Central Vista project?
I asked for details such as the number of Internet shutdown orders issued in the past three years, their distribution by state, etc. This simple question was rejected on the grounds that “information on matters that are essentially confidential should not be sought.” Indeed, does the public need to know how often the Internet is shut down? It is far better to leave such minor details shrouded in mystery, lest transparency upset a delicate dynamic.
Similarly, details of oil imports are too “secret” and “sensitive” for answers in Parliament, but it doesn’t matter that the same details are regularly leaked to the media.
Then there is the strange case of a question about facial recognition technology and biometric attendance systems in public institutions. The question of whether the government uses such technology or whether it has ever sought legal opinion or conducted a cost-benefit analysis before introducing it did not elicit a proper answer. The answer is by no means straightforward. The question was summarily dismissed for daring to “ask for the solution of a hypothetical proposition.” Hypothetical? Of course, the reason for dismissal is all the more contradictory given the simplicity of the question, but, dare I say it, it is convenient.
Let’s not forget the best achievements. 2021 Census Delay A series of bylaws disallowed the subject, with the rather convenient explanation that it “induces inferences, invites expression of opinion and concerns primarily the State Governments.” However, it is odd that the initiation of a census, a matter which belongs entirely to the sole domain of the central government, should suddenly be portrayed as a State issue. One would think that the States have suddenly been empowered to schedule the conduct of a nationwide census.
Finally, a key point in government disclosures is the question regarding the applicability of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). PM CARES Fund PM CARES has been rejected on the grounds that it is “not a concern of the Government of India”. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ 2020 Office Memorandum clearly states that PM CARES falls within the ambit of the fund set up by the Central Government for socio-economic development and relief, but this has been ignored.
Equally worrying is the quality of the answers given to questions on the floor. Not giving a straight answer to any question seems to be the prevailing mantra. The government seems to have perfected the art of evasion that merits, if not applause, then at least slow clapping.
When the author enquired about vacant posts in Indian Railways, the response was related to recruitment. Like a speeding train in dense fog, the answer was elusive. Curiously, many of these questions used to get quick and direct answers.
Even Nitin Gadkari, who has consistently stood out for giving clear and relevant answers to both written and oral questions, seems to have succumbed to this new trend of semantic avoidance, at least when it comes to his written answers.
Then there’s the Ministry of Education. When asked about the representation of SC, ST and OBC categories among practicing professors in higher education institutions, the ministry decided to play an elaborate game of whitewashing on the issue. In one of its responses last year, it had mentioned the total number of professionals registered on the Professor of Practising (POP) portal. But even that figure has mysteriously disappeared in this response. Perhaps the ministry thought that the more it whitewashed, the less people would notice the glaring omissions.
The recent parliamentary session has taught us that evasion is alive and well in the corridors of power. The impacts of this decline are manifold. At its core, the decline in parliamentary debate undermines the ability of lawmakers to effectively perform their oversight function. When questions are denied or given inadequate or evasive answers, scrutiny of the executive is weakened.
The decline in the quality of parliamentary debate is a serious problem that undermines the very foundations of democratic governance. As the primary forum for holding the executive branch to account, Parliament must regain its role as a bastion of transparency, scrutiny and debate.
The author is Rajya Sabha Member of the CPM. Contributions by Aneesh Babu
