By Toki Blah
The Budget Session of the Meghalaya Assembly 2017 came up with a deficit budget and if one were to go by media and news reports then the general consensus was that it was one of the most insipid and lifeless Assembly sessions ever. In support of this claim, pictures of bored members either taking a cat nap, gazing at the ceiling or listlessly sitting cross legged (a clear breach of House decorum) went viral on social media for everyone to see. It clearly showed the mood and frame of mind of those present in the August House and a clear indicator that legislation, usually exemplified by questions, debates, arguments and discussions, was furthest from our honourable MLAs minds. This deficit session did however, towards the end, come up with a flurry and spate of breach of Privilege Motions, which caught everyone by surprise.
A bureaucrat was hauled up and penalised, much to the disgust of his peers, many of whom are convinced that the action taken might have satiated the short term ego trip of an MLA but it was at the same time a body blow to the administration from which it might never recover. Many believe it is a clear warning and signal to clean, straightforward, independent minded officers to toe the political line or else. The steel frame has apparently not found favour with the political masters. It needs to be replaced by a pliable bamboo cage, to be occupied by “Yes Sir No sir, tell me when to stop licking Sir”, mynahs only. If so, then this MUA II Govt has done the greatest disservice to the state of Meghalaya and its people that no Govt has ever done in the last 45 years!
Before I proceed further allow me to state and clarify that I have the greatest respect for the August House of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly and its honourable members. What is said above and what will be said below in no way implies, hints, suggests nor does it in anyway insinuate in the least, any disrespect to the stature, proceedings and prestige of the Legislative Assembly and its members. The Meghalaya Legislative Assembly however is a direct product of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the contents of this write-up too, emanate from the author’s implicit belief and faith in the provisions of the same Constitution, especially Part III of the same and the importance and emphasis given to the Fundamental Rights of the citizens of this country. Art 13 (2) of this Part further states “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part….” while sub clause (3, a, b) lays equal emphasis that “law”or “laws in force” shall in no way impinge upon these fundamental aspects of Human Rights. Even the State, that ultimate authority on whom power is vested, is severely limited and curtailed, by the Constitution itself, from exercising power that threatens to derail this inviolable aspect of democracy – the Fundamental Rights and Freedom of its citizens.
Art 19 of the same Part then goes on to confer upon the citizens of India the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression. Many think that it bestows unfettered liberty and licence on citizens to speak whatever they like. So, is this what Art 19 is really all about? On the contrary this Article illustrates, as nothing ever could, the idealistic yet practical approach of the Indian Constitution. The letter of the Law ideally provides for unfettered Freedom of Speech while the spirit of the Law, in recognition of a practical world that is far from ideal, calls for some restraint in its application. Thus as per provisions of the Constitution, ‘reasonable restrictions’ can be imposed by the State on the freedom of speech, but at the same time these ‘reasonable restrictions’ are strictly limited to issues that challenge the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence’.
The Freedom of Speech of the citizen is thus by Law regulated but at the same time Art 19 also constrains the State as to the limit and scope of such regulations. Licentious speech and expression is curbed while excessive use of power is simultaneously restricted. The State, the Government or even the Legislature cannot regulate Freedom of speech arbitrarily or randomly as per its whims and fancies or in any illogical manner as it thinks fit. Reasonable restriction is not inexhaustible. The limits of reasonable restriction have been clearly defined by Law. The Rule of Law therefore governs both the citizen as well as the regulatory authority – the State. It is a democratic principle that many, including elected representatives, have yet to understand and appreciate.
In the last few days the Shillong dailies had carried news reports of another breach of privilege motion, this time against the editor of the Shillong times. The allegations against the editor is that she had in an article of hers, trivialised and ridiculed momentous, earth shaking and crucial issues of public interest raised by an MLA on the floor of the Assembly. It is further claimed that her actions amounted to obstructions to the rights of the member to raise issues of utmost public importance. Questioning and critiquing such issues are therefore, according to the MLA, detrimental to the prestige of the honourable house and its members. By his own admission the issues of priority raised by the MLA relate to the absence of indigenous food served in the Kolkata and New Delhi Meghalaya houses.
A question arises as to how many Meghalayans out of the 30 odd lac population of the state enjoy the hospitality of our Meghalaya Houses? According to statistics hardly 0.05 % to 0.10 % of our population. It is indeed difficult by any stretch of the imagination to acknowledge that the palate of this minuscule sample can in any way be equated with issues of utmost public importance. However if some citizens are aggrieved with the absence of nakham or tungtap from Meg House menus, a simple letter to the parent department responsible for management of these houses would have ensured course correction on the matter. No wonder questions are being raised about the necessity to highlight menu items of Meghalaya Houses on the floor of the Assembly.
From what is going on it would appear that our politicians have priority issues that are completely at odds with the priority issues of the common man. For the common man it is the issue of plummeting education, insufficient and costly health care, burgeoning crimes against women and children, the increasing incidents of rape, unsolved murders of women, a sinking and shrinking economy, landlessness, unemployment of our children, poverty, sanitation, safe drinking water and traffic congestion that are issues of worrying concern. That our representatives fail to discuss such issues in the Assembly is a matter of grave public concern. That our legislators prefer to ignore the common mans priorities and instead focus on the frivolous and the ridiculous, is an added matter of concern for the common citizen of Meghalaya. It seems there is indeed genuine cause for some honest criticism!
A rising tendency towards autocracy and despotism in our political system has caused alarm bells to ring but we have nowhere else to turn to except to the Constitution and the Rule of law. Let us be clear of the fact that the need for more transparency and accountability in proceedings of Parliament and the Legislature, in the decorous behaviour of our elected representatives, in the exhibition of their ability to lead and administer, is the need of the hour. It is called the ability to Govern. To enable the above, the installation of TV cameras and presence of the press has been facilitated so much so that the press is known as the fourth pillar of democracy. The performance or non performance of elected representatives is now on the public domain, on public display and public criticism of the same is a natural corollary and outcome of such democratic developments. Our politicians must learn to adapt to these changes.
Such developments must be welcomed in the name of Good Governance. Any other reaction would be contrary to the expectations within a vibrant democratic setup. Our elected representatives must learn to accept criticism as long as it is within the bounds of fair comment and justifiable criticism. The Constitution allows it, it is expected and therefore it should not be curbed. No doubt, personal attacks on individual members of the legislature together with vulgar, indecent and abusive language cannot and should not be tolerated. As pointed out above constitutional mechanisms to regulate such inappropriate behaviour exists and should be used. The “privileges” extended to our legislators are meant to help lawmakers discharge their functions unhindered. These privileges must under no circumstances be used to cover up for lack of preparedness or ignorance. Positive critique must be accepted and used for course correction if and when required. We are a democracy. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are integral to our democratic DNA. Within the context of this write-up it will not be out of place for everyone to listen once in a while to George Baker’s “La Paloma Blanca”. Let no one take your freedom away!