By Robert Clements
No Confidence and The Speaker..!
The opposition has very kindly sponsored a no confidence motion against the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. It is almost certain to fail. Arithmetic is a stubborn creature. If you have the numbers, you win. Parliament, like mathematics, respects addition and subtraction more than emotion.
But numbers do not erase meaning.A no confidence motion is not a casual complaint like grumbling about the canteen samosa being more air than potato. It is not about the tea being watery or the microphones malfunctioning selectively. It is a statement. A loud one.
It says the referee is suspected of playing for one team.
And that is serious business.
The Speaker’s chair is not a party sofa where one lounges comfortably among loyal friends. It is meant to be closer to a judicial bench, only with better upholstery and slightly more dramatic lighting. When you occupy that chair, you are expected to rise above party lines. Not float above them on a cushion of convenience.
Traditionally, Speakers have come from the ruling side. That is perfectly acceptable. Everyone has a political past. Even the strict school prefect once belonged to a gang of biscuit thieves in kindergarten. But the moment you sit in that tall chair, armed with a microphone, a bell, and the power to mute the nation’s loudest voices, you are expected to undergo instant spiritual transformation. From party warrior to constitutional monk.
Calm. Detached. Slightly boring.Instead, what we are witnessing today looks less like a monk and more like a cricket umpire who begins clapping enthusiastically when only one team hits a boundary. Imagine an umpire who raises his finger for LBW only when the opposition batsman is involved, but suddenly develops neck stiffness when the ruling side edges the ball to slip.
Neutrality cannot be selective. A Speaker must be firm, impartial, and ideally unexciting. Excitement is for election rallies. The Speaker’s job is to ensure that tempers cool, rules apply equally, and the House functions. The moment he begins smirking at opposition members, or allowing one side endless monologues while the other side gets muted like a misbehaving child on a video call, something is not quite right. Democracy is not a one sided podcast.
Picture a traffic policeman at a busy junction. He whistles ferociously at cyclists and scooter riders. He fines them for being one inch over the zebra crossing. Meanwhile, a large SUV with tinted windows glides past majestically, perhaps even offering him a friendly wave. If you question him, he adjusts his cap and explains that rules must be applied with wisdom.
Wisdom, in this case, seems to mean flexibility for the powerful and rigidity for the ordinary.
A lawmaker who cannot uphold fairness inside Parliament resembles that traffic cop. It may not be the hafta of money, but certainly of power. Power can be more intoxicating than currency. It whispers sweet assurances. It promises protection. It tempts even the disciplined.
But the Speaker’s job is not to protect the government from discomfort. It is to protect the House from disorder and bias. That includes protecting the opposition’s right to speak, question, and criticise.
If Parliament becomes a place where only praise is permitted, then we have accidentally converted a debating chamber into a fan club meeting.
Today, some of the sharpest speeches are coming from the opposition benches. Articulate, sometimes biting, occasionally inconvenient. But democracy was never designed to be comfortable. It was designed to be accountable. Discomfort is part of the design.
When members bring a no confidence motion against the Speaker, they are not merely attempting a procedural stunt. They are holding up a mirror. A mirror can be unpleasant. It reveals posture, expression, and sometimes an unflattering smirk. The motion may fail on paper. The ruling party will almost certainly win the division. Hands will be raised. Numbers will be counted. Headlines will declare victory. But the deeper question will remain.
Can the Speaker look at that chair tomorrow and ask himself a simple question.
‘Am I a judge, or merely a well dressed traffic cop with selective eyesight?’
The dignity of the office does not come from the height of the chair, but from the weight of fairness. History has a strange habit. It forgets the vote count but remembers the conduct. It remembers who allowed voices to be heard and who pressed the mute button.
Power is temporary. Reputation is permanent.
And sir, history is not sentimental. It remembers fairness and ruthlessly ridicules the biased. That small smirk offered across the aisle may one day return amplified. The same people who are silent today may eventually find their voice. Democracy is not strengthened by silencing disagreement. It is strengthened by managing it with grace. The Speaker’s bell is not a weapon. It is a reminder. A reminder that the House belongs to the nation, not to the ruling party of the day.
Arithmetic may defeat the motion. But morality is not decided by division of votes.
A no confidence motion against a Speaker is rare. It should make any occupant of that chair pause. Reflect. Examine.
Because long after the numbers have been recorded in the parliamentary archives, long after today’s debates are forgotten, one question will echo.
Was he fair?
And that, more than arithmetic, will decide how history writes his name…!
You can request for Bob’s Banter by Robert Clements as a daily column on your whatsapp by sending him your name and phone number on [email protected]
