Debates and legislatures

Gurbachan Jagat

I WAS in middle school in Pune when I first watched debating contests taking place, both inter and intra-school. It was a learning experience and one went on to take part in declamation and debating contests. It was hard work preparing for a debate, finding the facts, marshalling the arguments and anticipating the positions of the antagonists… it was the cut and thrust, the parry, the instant repartee which won you the day. Whether you won or lost, it was really an experience to be on stage and to match your wits with your peers. The experience was repeated in college on a greater scale based on more experience, grasp of facts and the art of delivering quick jabs before you landed the knockout punch line. One read of the debating clubs in Oxford and Cambridge and how these debaters (quite a few of them) went on to become very able parliamentarians, ministers and Prime Ministers. Their debating skills continue undiminished and we can watch the proceedings of the House of Commons on TV.

Coming to our own experience, we had giants in the freedom movement some of whom moved into Parliament and Vidhan Sabhas later on. The commitment to Parliament, its procedures, protocols and debates was very strong. We owe this democracy and freedom of speech to these early luminaries who given their initial mandate and popularity (especially Nehru) could have moved to a single-party system and a more dictatorial form of government. Although some brilliant speakers are still there, but the commitment to Parliament and its procedures is not the same. The adherence to norms, the respect for opponents, the dignity and solemnity of Parliament have gone down. The sanctity of debate, procedures, parliamentary committees, consensus building is not the same today. We have gradually arrived at a position where sloganeering prevails, where rushing to the well of the House is a daily occurrence. Walkouts are common and Bills are passed without referring to committees and without debating them. Whenever peace prevails, we have members talking at each other and not to each other. Interruptions are common and the Speaker’s favourite instrument is adjournment after adjournment. Socrates famously said, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

We see no attempt to build consensus or have meetings of parties to build one. Parliamentary panels have become almost non-functional.

Reading extracts on Aristotle’s writings, it is seen that he postulates that democracy presupposes that people can consider views other than their own. He thought awareness of differences in perceptions and ideas takes place mostly in cities to begin with (more a reflection of the population ratio of cities to villages at the time). He hoped that when a person became accustomed to a diverse complex milieu, he will not react violently to differences in views or actions but will be more favourable to discussions of different views or competing interests. In today’s world, where ideologies have become more rigid, this view does not necessarily hold good. In his time, people congregated in amphitheatres in thousands and spoke from platforms and interacted with the audience. In India also, debating practices were encouraged by kings and rulers between sages. A paper in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy interestingly mentions that whereas the Greeks were primarily interested in moral and political issues, the Indians were more interested in religious and spiritual issues, the purpose of life and the distinction between the soul and body. These debates were between sages and scholars, but ordinary citizens were not involved in them. Guru Nanak also used debates to interact with Brahmin, Sufi and Muslim scholars on subjects of religion and spiritualism. He frequently used debates to dispel notions of superstition, ritualism and misplaced religious dogma.

A debate has been defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as ‘a serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part’. It is on a particular topic and normally includes a moderator and an audience. Debates have occurred in public spaces, in meetings, in academic institutions and in legislative Assemblies. In legislative debates, the government or Opposition parties debate proposals regarding legislations before voting on them. Although the British invented the parliamentary system, over a long period of time now other countries, including India, have adopted it. The US and some other countries have adopted the presidential form of government which, however, includes directly elected Assemblies: the Senate and Congress. In these forums also, debates take place before legislation becomes law.

Debate is the essence of democracy which presupposes the ability to listen to other points of view and take them into consideration while making the final decision. This is what makes people a part of the process because it is the people’s representatives who are debating on their behalf. Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, the Emperor’s Japan and Stalin’s Soviet Union are all examples of nations gone wrong when the free voice of the people was muffled, when debates were no longer a way of reaching consensus and framing legislation. History is witness to the downfall of these nations, it is witness to the pain and suffering of the people who underwent that subjugation. Today, the space for debate and dialogue is narrowing down and people are no longer sharing thoughts and ideas to the extent that they did earlier. There is a greater rigidity and inflexibility in political and quasi-religious bodies which is also creeping into Parliament and Vidhan Sabhas.

What are we witnessing today? Budgets (at the Centre and the states) are approved without much debate and the data provided is not fully reliable. Policies and freebies mentioned in party manifestos or announced at public meetings (not in Parliament) are not normally implemented and since they do not form part of parliamentary proceedings, nobody can be called to account. We have got used to skipping parliamentary news and instead one has started watching the activities of various agencies. It appears that most of the political parties have leaders/workers who are engaged in Ponzi schemes or other criminal activities, even anti-national activities. It would be a very educative exercise if these activities are brought up in Parliament and discussed and debated there. We would come to know the facts instead of the leaks by various agencies and press conferences by low-level minions. Ultimately, Parliament and government are answerable to the people who have voted for them and it is their right to know about issues that affect the whole nation, be it internal or external security, budget, prices, unemployment, poverty, roads, climate change, etc. Parliament should be vocal on these issues. We have so many experts on TV channels and an NGO on every subject under the sun, but we want to hear the truth from Parliament and government, we do not wish to hear slogans, or witness walkouts. We want to see and hear Parliament function and it is up to all parties and all MPs to ensure this. We want debates on issues, we want to see consensus building on national issues. The only way to break this logjam, this silence is through talking, debating, listening at all levels, especially in Parliament and Vidhan Sabhas. Silence breeds poison in the mind and heart; talking, listening and debating are the antidotes to this poison. All of us want to hear the voice of Parliament, the final arbiter in a democracy.

— The writer is ex-chairman of UPSC, former Manipur Governor and served as J&K DGP

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.