|
Democracy and
Anger
When socially
conscientious filmmaker Saeed Akhtar Mirza made the movie Albert
Pinto Ko gussa kyon aata hai in the early eighties, he was
giving expression to the building anger in new
India.
Having boarded the bus of internationalization of the economy, for
the neo-Indian sportspersons, businessmen, scientists and
politicians, there is no looking back. Nobody can wait for
tomorrow. Success must come yesterday.
This is the
causa prima for abuse amongst players and street performance in
the Indian parliament today. Like in the movie, Albert Pinto who
starts day dreaming of owning expensive cars, every player wants to
get rich, quick. Every politician wants to get rich, quick. Every
party person in parliament wants to impress his party leadership,
not with intellect and debating skills, but with lung power, for
that is what gets reported.
Discipline,
Decorum and Dignity of the Indian Parliament is at grave risk. The
Speaker of the Indian parliament, Somnath Chatterjee, desperate to
instill sense into the opposition about running parliament has
sought action against 32 members for their improper behavior on the
floor of the house.
High standard of
debate require high standards of democracy and statesmanship. In a
country where inner party democracy and a wholesome debate on
important issues confronting the country are held in a cursory
manner, suddenly for the octogenarian leader to expect better
behavior is like expecting the moon.
The
Westminster
model adopted by India carries with it the constraints of democratic
functioning. Sir Winston Churchill in one of the speeches on the
theme "The Present Decline of Parliamentary Government in Great
Britain" delivered on 5 March 1931 painfully stated, "The House of
Commons as a vehicle of the popular will has steadily declined in
public repute..." and "I am deeply anxious that its walls shall not
be undermined by slow decay or overthrown by violent
battering-rams".
The input from
Punjab
to the Indian parliament is distressing. The Shiromani Akali Dal,
the oldest political party of the Sikh people is prone to sending
political novices and ‘extras’ to the Indian parliament as their
representatives. But for some exceptions like Bhai Sahib Sirdar
Kapur Singh, Amar Singh, Simranjit Singh Mann and in some stray
cases, Hukam Singh and Tarlochan Singh, Sikh parliamentarians are
known for their silence than for their speeches. The right-wing BJP
-the friends of the Akali Dal, are distinguished for fighting,
squabbling and arguing, but certainly not debating.
When the
vice-president of
India, Hamid
Ansari deplored the declining credibility of Indian parliament, he
also cited statistics to show how the number of sittings and the
number of bills passed has been showing a declining trend over the
years.
The
vice-president's suggestion that Parliament should sit for a minimum
of 130 days a year is a good one. If the British and Canadian
parliaments are in session for at least 140 days in a year, and the
US Congress does business for over 150 days, then why can the Indian
Parliament not transact work for atleast 130 days in a year. Or is
it that like the babus, the lawmakers too like holidays.
Speaking
contemporaneously, one can hardly recall any single speech or debate
in the Indian parliament on any issue which caught the fancy of the
people of the country.
When the common
man anxiously watches lawmakers slugging out on television, his
decision is made. He starts adopting a ‘couldn’t care less’
attitude. He becomes indifferent to the functioning of the
government. He starts imbibing a selfish sub-culture where self is
paramount. This further fuels the personal angst, particularly when
it combines with high unreasonable ambitions and again starts the
vicious circle of anger.
May be the
Indian Parliament will learn from the words of Bhagat Kabir,
“Burre da bhala kar, gussa man na handaye”. –Do good to those
who do wrong unto you, do not nurture anger.
7
May,
2008
|
Read Also