New Delhi: In a democracy, the people are sovereign. But this abstract notion of popular sovereignty has a concrete expression. It is the Parliament of India, because it is here that the citizens of India exercise their sovereignty through their representatives. And with a new Parliament building on the verge of inauguration, Indian citizens are about to move into a new home.
In fact, in the last seven decades, the citizens of India have expressed their political preferences in the Parliament itself. He has kept a check on the executive and held it accountable through frequent questions and votes. They have made laws. He has argued fiercely.
The social, regional, linguistic, religious and ethnic diversity of India has come alive in the Parliament itself. And it is here that the idea of political equality of all citizens pervades the Indian political consciousness through the extraordinarily powerful idea of universal adult franchise and one-person one-vote. The scale of this achievement is astonishing, as it stands in stark contrast to the inequalities and hierarchies that are embedded in Indian society and social relations.
The Old Parliament House, a magnificent structure, has been the place where India’s politics has evolved in the post-independence era. The test of the new Parliament House, beyond its beauty, is whether it can be a hospitable home of the same democratic tradition and make it even better.
early age
For the first 15 years from 1952 to 1967, the Parliament reflected the legacy of the freedom struggle. As the party that won India’s independence, the Congress exercised political dominance and Jawaharlal Nehru, with his stature, oratory and command over the party, rose to the top. But Nehru also took the legislative branch seriously and believed that the reputation and quality of Indian democracy was made and broken by the functioning of Parliament.
It helped that the opposition, despite being numerically weak, had leaders who did not hesitate to challenge the Congress. India’s various political formations, from communists to socialists, from the culturally conservative Jana Sangh to the economically liberal Swatantra Party, have ensured that the Parliament reflects the various ideological currents within Indian politics. If there was one obvious weakness in this phase, it was that India’s social diversity was not adequately reflected and major social groups spoke unequally for all citizens.
The next phase, from 1967 to 1980, saw both expansion and contraction of Indian democracy and the Parliament was home to both trends. The reduction of the Congress majority in the Lok Sabha due to the election of non-Congress governments in several states in 1967 and the changed composition of the Rajya Sabha meant other parties and leaders, and as a result, began to represent new social groups. I went. Have a greater voice in the functioning of Parliament. The rise of the Janata Party in 1977 led to the creation of structures that were primarily in the opposition and eventually moved to the ruling party. Democracy became more anarchic, but it also became somewhat more representative.
But in between, Indian democracy had to face its toughest test as well. Elected by a massive majority in 1971, within four years, Indira Gandhi attacked the idea of parliamentary democracy in India by imposing an internal emergency on the idea of parliamentary democracy in a way no one had done and no one before her Is. The opposition was put in jail. Parliament became a rubber stamp to legitimize arbitrary executive decisions, including major constitutional amendments. The press was censored. And fundamental rights were suspended. But the Emergency lasted only two years, and the citizens made sure that no leader or party could capture, misuse, and get away with Parliament, their sacred home. This is a lesson that public representatives should always remember.
tumultuous year
In the third phase, between 1980 and 1989, the Parliament saw a return to Congress dominance. But despite Indira Gandhi’s return to power and Rajiv Gandhi’s landslide victory in 1984, the largest ever for any party in a Lok Sabha election, it was clear that Indian citizens had become more cautious. The opposition was weak but strong. Regional voices started getting space.
Parliamentary democracy however faced another challenge when sections of citizens decided that it was not through democratic means, but through non-democratic and violent means, that they would change India’s political system. From the Punjab to Assam and Kashmir, domestic rebels, often encouraged by outside powers, began to challenge parliamentary supremacy. It was to the credit of Indian democracy that ultimately, all these extra-constitutional methods failed. Instead, Parliament has shown that it has the capacity to accommodate varying aspirations if they choose the electoral route.
From 1989 to 2014, India’s parliament became messier, but also more diverse. Regional parties, for whom power in Delhi had been a distant dream, suddenly wielded influence in shaping the structure and nature of the executive branch and the legislative agenda. India’s subaltern communities saw an increase in representation. With the rise in power of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came a clash of ideologies. Prime Ministers understood that being the head of the executive no longer meant that the legislature could be taken for granted. If the 1990s saw a change in India’s economic direction, the first decade of the 2000s saw Parliament enact welfare laws to ensure that economic reforms had a human face. Indian democracy matured, parliament became more diverse, and governance became more lenient and flexible to the demands expressed in both chambers.
last stage
And the last phase, from 2014 to the present, saw a return to one-party dominance in the old Parliament House to such an extent that the largest non-BJP party (the Congress) did not have the numbers to even claim an official seat . Leader of the Opposition. Executive supremacy over the legislature returned. The laws began to bear a strong ideological imprint of the party in power.
Yet, it was only in Parliament that even a strong executive faced the toughest questions on its policies and actions from a weaker and more diverse, but still vocal opposition. This is where the most powerful government since the early 1970s had to bow to public opinion and roll back legislations at critical moments (think the Land Acquisition Act and amendments to farm laws).
A Parliament is much more than the structure in which it is housed. And despite its notable strengths, India’s parliament suffers from significant weaknesses.
Interruptions by the opposition distract attention from the main task of the deliberations. Bills introduced in haste by the government, often without proper legislative debate and committee scrutiny, represent a betrayal of the mandate that citizens have given to their representatives. Partisan speakers or chamber chairs destroy the legitimacy of the institution. The control of party bosses over party finances and ticket distribution, the sanctity of the whip, and the use of an anti-defection law beyond its original purpose means that individual MPs have little agency and must toe the party line on all occasions. put an end to. Major national issues are often not debated. The executive wants to avoid giving clear and definite answers to parliamentary questions. The number of women parliamentarians is very less compared to their population. The presence of religious minorities, especially Muslims, has declined over the past decade. The Rajya Sabha often fails to act as a house of elders and a chamber of the states, its core mandate, and echoes the polarized political mood of the Lok Sabha.
But in spite of these weaknesses, there is no doubt that the Parliament of India is the pride of India. As citizens find a new home, recognize the democratic legacy of the old house, address the weaknesses that have been removed, and ensure that the new Parliament House is a true reflection of the whole of India in the context of its political and social diversity. Meaning represents, and gives a voice for all, however inconvenient and inconvenient those voices may be for the powerful. Only then will the new be a worthy successor to the old.
