Why Parliament needs quiet conversations

THE disruption in the Lok Sabha that prevented a discussion on the Budget is over. A new chapter of bitterness, though, has begun, with the Opposition moving a no-confidence motion against Speaker Om Birla. All through this Lok Sabha session, the Opposition has targeted Birla for not giving sufficient time to it in the chamber's proceedings. Since the beginning of this Budget Session, the Congress has been particularly aggrieved that Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has not been allowed to speak.

Gandhi wanted to focus on excerpts from the book 'Four Stars of Destiny' written by a former Army Chief, General Manoj Mukund Naravane. The book is not formally in the public domain. It is yet to be cleared by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). General Naravane has said that it was sent for clearance to the MoD by the publishers. Gandhi has shown a hard copy of the work in Parliament's premises. Soft copies of the book are circulating on the internet. The Delhi police have lodged an FIR to investigate how the book is available on the internet if it has not been approved for publication.

The government has taken the position in the Lok Sabha that Gandhi cannot refer to a book which has not been cleared for publication. This may be technically correct, but the government would be aware that what General Naravane has purportedly written in the book regarding India-China clashes in Eastern Ladakh in 2020 is circulating among the public. This would inevitably lead to many people making up their minds on the issue without having the benefit of the government viewpoint.

With regard to memoirs, a point may be made. Military and civilian officers who have held sensitive and senior positions have to eschew the temptation of treading into the territory of confidential information while penning their memoirs. They also have to be conscious that their interaction with the political leadership, while they were in service, was always based on trust. It is a matter of honour and obligation that this trust between the military and civilian officers and the political leadership is always maintained while in service or after retirement. The system will be greatly impaired if details of meetings of Cabinet committees or the decision-making processes, especially on matters of national security, are revealed. Even if these officers feel that political leaders erred or that they were let down, they do not have the luxury or liberty to break that trust after their retirement.

Senior military and civilian officers have to be conscious of their remit. Thus, civilian officers need to be conscious that decisions given to them have to be interpreted by them within their area of responsibility. And, military officers have to refract decisions or advice of the political leadership strictly within the confines of their military responsibilities. They cannot view them from any other perspective. Thus, if a matter is left to their discretion, it is to be interpreted by them narrowly in the context of their military duties and not be extended to the diplomatic and political domains. That is the jurisdiction of other institutions of the state. Military leaders have to assume, in such situations, that the discretion given to them has been only after the political leadership has taken the nation's interest in the diplomatic and political spheres into account.

The recent impasse in the Lok Sabha and the motion against Birla once again highlights the absence of sufficient communication between different elements of the political class. Yes, there is a degree of contact during Parliament's sessions so that it can function even if only to a minimal extent. However, the lack of communication on issues is obvious.

This is in contrast to what prevailed in the past. Former civil servants can recall that leaders in the government and the Opposition kept in touch with each other on issues of national significance. I remember occasions during my diplomatic career when the government briefed leaders of the Opposition before embarking on a major diplomatic initiative or when the nation faced a sudden crisis.

This was done not because such an outreach would prevent the ebb and flow of politics on the issues on which these briefings were done, but because they gave an understanding to all sections of the political class of the challenges and opportunities relating to these issues. In some instances, the leaders communicated directly with one another while in other cases, through trusted aides.

The bitterness, rancour and invective now witnessed almost daily among the leaders of the ruling dispensation and the Opposition indicates that the tradition of being in communication with one another is either absent or not as much as it should be. This is particularly damaging to national interest because the country is facing grave strategic challenges.

The absence of dialogue between the ruling dispensation and the Opposition is visible in Gandhi's reference to Naravane's work. Once Gandhi had referred to it, the government could have told him that it could not agree to any discussion based on the work, but that it was willing to brief him on the reasons which have led it to not give clearance to the work. It could have briefed him in confidence about the important incidents in Eastern Ladakh, including those which have been purportedly mentioned in the work. After all, the members of the political class are all committed to the nation's interest. They all have a sense of what can be disclosed and what has to be kept secret.

I recall an incident which occurred in the Standing Committee on External Affairs chaired by former Prime Minister IK Gujral. It illustrated that the political class knows what can be disclosed and what has to be held back. Foreign Secretary K Raghunath was being questioned about India's assistance to the Northern Alliance. Members were getting impatient with Raghunath's sparse answers; Gujral stepped in to say that he knew what the MEA was doing and closed the discussion. No member protested.