Devaluation of legislative democracy!
Editor,
I would like to refer to the news item under the heading, “VPP to hit streets against roster system” (ST March 25 2023). In this regard, Mr Ardent Basaiawmoit, VPP MLA is justified in expressing his displeasure over the Speaker’s decision to conclude the House proceedings without giving the members of Opposition an opportunity to discuss the roster system (an issue earlier listed for discussion); over the decision to truncate the Budget Session to 7 days, to reserve only 2 days for private Members’ business and to restrict the timing only to 10 minutes for the members to take part in the debate on the Governor’s address. Mr Basaiawmoit is also right in his observation that the Government in doing all this is running away from its responsibilities.
However, looking at the big picture, we see that the trend to weaken legislative democracy started about three decades back and no political party, including the present Opposition (except the VPP), cannot absolve themselves from their acts of sabotaging democracy because they were all in power at one point or another during the last three decades.
Our Legislative Assembly used to average about 55-60 sittings per annum, about 3 decades ago. During this time, the Budget Session used to be held for 30 working days. But in the last 15 years, this has come down to about 20 annual sittings. This devaluation of legislative democracy should have shocked us, but we never raised any objections. So few sittings mean legislators are not spending enough time either debating Laws or Governance issues. The Assembly has degenerated to become a mere venue for political theatrics to showcase the oratorial skills of a few MLAs which practically means a lot of noise which signifies nothing. No wonder then that our Laws are now poorly drafted frequently leading to controversies and litigation. That is the direct result of legislators not doing their homework and due diligence on legislations. The other aspect is that the Government is no longer constrained by the legislature. Hardly 10% of the bills of the past several Assemblies have been referred to special house committees for rigorous scrutiny. This is down from about 40% 3-4 decades ago. Hence, it is no surprise that our Hon’ble High Court is the only effective check on executive overreach.
Perhaps it is about time that our representatives should demand for a rule – a minimum of 60-70 sittings a year and a majority of MLAs from all political parties should be present if they are committed to the welfare of the people as they always declare from rooftops, otherwise governance will remain solely an exercise of executive power and we will see further decline in the quality of democracy and the Legislative Assembly will finally become irrelevant.
Yours etc.,
Samuel Swett,
Shillong – 2
India’s defamation laws outdated
Editor
Rahul Gandhi has been sentenced to two years in prison, for “insulting” Prime Minister Modi, by asking, during the 2019 election campaign, why “all thieves have Modi as [their] common surname.” Besides this defamation charge, he has also been expelled from parliament at a time when he may ask uncomfortable questions about Mr. Modi’s liaison with Mr. Adani.
India’s anti-defamation law sounds quite subjective and risky, as anyone can feel insulted by anything. In these times of tall egos and thin skins, people feel insulted very easily and all the time. Moreover, the fact that defamation is criminalized in India, is a harsh measure that makes this law even more untenable. Under Section 500 of the IPC, the maximum punishment for defamation is two years in prison. So will India’s jails be filled with “insulters” accused by thin-skinned people who felt insulted? What is an acceptable definition of an “insult”? To use the “feelings” of those insulted to define this term, is to descend down a slippery slope and drown in subjectivity. Moreover, what is the threshold of an “insult”? Upto what point can one criticize before criticism becomes insulting?
In fact, it is Rahul Gandhi who has received more than his fair share of nasty insults from the BJP — from being called “pappu,” to being told he now looks like Saddam Hussein (a murderer). Moreover, nobody seems to be pointing out that the term “OBC” is very insulting — and objectively so. The fact that even after seventy-five years of independence from Britain, the Government of India still uses this term, and that OBCs are “socially and educationally backward classes” (SEBCs) in the Indian constitution — all this speaks volumes for insulting, impolite speech. If political correctness is one extreme, then this kind of crude language is another extreme. People who belong to the so-called OBCs have every right to feel insulted by this term. Should they now be pressing defamation charges? Perhaps even asking for reparations?
Rahul Gandhi’s critical remarks in Britain have also drawn fire. But is it seditious for an opposition leader to appeal to the international community? Surely this is to be expected in a highly globalized world? Moreover, critical remarks can be the greatest sign of patriotism — far greater than blind cultish “love” for the nation.
Yours etc.,
Deepa Majumdar
Via email
Walkout by VPP praiseworthy
Editor,
The walkout by the members of the Voice of the People’s Party from the State Assembly on March 20, is praiseworthy, to say the least. When similar protests had taken place even during the previous Assembly session of the MDA.1 why can’t the Central Government address the same? There are no excuses! And who are they trying to fool? They had five years to rectify this “deliberate error”, and yet they want to “add salt to injury!” It is not a matter of “limitation” on the part of the Governor, as the Chief Minister had justified, but rather a matter of “replicating the hideous objective” on the part of the Central Government that is appalling. The Governor is also equally responsible as he is a titular head or constitutional head of the state. He must also be personally aware that his address has immense significance for the august house, but to do so in such “an erroneous demeanour” is to start his innings on the “wrong foot.”
Yours etc.,
Lawrence Pherliam Sumer,
Via email