Is it a complete victory or forced compromise ?

Anna taking coconut water from kids

The 74 year old Gandhian crusader has finally deferred his fast after 288 hours. So much happiness among common men... Probably it was another independence moment across the country. Everywhere it was a celebration of V-day. One could see thousands of people waving Tricolours at the Ramliala ground, India Gate in Delhi, Azad Maidan in Mumbai and in so many places across the country. This was the mood of celebration.

The innocent old man has literally shaken the nation and rocked the country. It is really amazing to see how the movement started as a small campaign and became a revolution. Despite many differences, this revolution can be counted as one amongst the many uprisings happening all across the globe. Everywhere the common man has found a collective voice. The methodology used is however different. The Anna movement in India is soaked in the Gandhian philosophy of non-violence.

However, I am really puzzled with the way it ended. Don’t you feel that the momentum got a sudden jerk? It’s really a win-win situation. Probably, this was desired by everybody. No matter what happened technically, but it is the victory of public over the Parliamentarians. Certainly it is a moment to be celebrated. But there is a million dollar question...Is it a complete victory as being portrayed or it’s a kind of forced compromise?

Vilas Rao Deshmukh on the dais with resolution copy

The question striking my mind is obvious when we analyse the sequence of events. I am really not able to comprehend the steps taken by the government. The government became proactive and serious about Anna’s Kranti on August 22, 2011. We can understand the mindset if we go through the sequence of events after that.

1. In view of his deteriorating health and Government's increasing concern for Annaji's condition, Prime Minister wrote a letter to Anna on 23rd August 2011, making a fervent appeal for ending the fast.
2. Simultaneously to carry the negotiations forward, the Prime Minister directed Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Law Minister Salman Khursheed to hold discussions with team Anna.
3. There was a first round meeting with which both the parties were happy. The discussion took place on several issues and finally the government had agreed to introduce the “Jan Lokpal bill” (the draft of team Anna) in the Parliament and also planned to send it to the standing committee along with some other suggestions by a few more organisations.
4. The government representatives were ready and have assured to request the Lok Sabha Speaker to formally refer the Jan Lokpal Bill to the Standing Committee for its consideration along with everything else as the bill originated from there.
5. The representatives of team Anna were agreed for the introduction of Jan Lokpal bill in the house and to be discussed, but they were not in favour of sending the same to the Standing Committee. Had they got that commitment from the government, probably they would have persuaded Anna to end fast. They had also insisted upon the inclusion of following substantive issues, as a part of the Jan Lokpal bill:

                                   Public Grievances and Citizen Charter;

                                   Lok Ayukta; and

                                   the Lower bureaucracy

       At the conclusion of the meeting, the representatives of team were informed, that the matter will be discussed with the Prime           Minister. The same evening, discussions on this subject were held in CCPA meeting and it was decided to place it before the All Party Meeting scheduled for the next day.

1. At the conclusion of All Party Meeting held on 24th August 2011, the  unanimous resolution was passed to request Anna to end his fast. The meeting was also of the view that due consideration should be given to the Jan Lokpal Bill.
2. There was another meeting held with team Anna on August 24, 2011 after the all party meeting where the confusion began. Team and the representatives of the government gave different version to media and it irked a tug of war.
3. Finally. The Prime Minister made a statement in Lok Sabha on August 25, 2011. The Prime Minister also stated that he would welcome the Members of the House to discuss the Lokpal Bill before the Standing Committee, the Jan Lokpal Bill as well as other draft Bills and views of members of Civil Society which have been brought to the attention of the Government.
4. But that did not happen. Despite the commitment the discussion did not take place on August 26, 2011. Rather, the government refused to bring any motion for discussion and it was not listed in the list of business for the day. With the day progressed, the government wanted members to bring notice which created further confusion. When the issue was of the government and it was agreed for a discussion, why didn’t it initiate the same in the house? Why did the government avoid discussing the issues which were agreed even by the Prime Minister?
5. Rather, on August 26, AICC general secretary, Rahul Gandhi made a speech in the zero hour which was not mentioned in the list of business and also that sent a negative signal. Also another question was raised after his speech, was it a favour towards him by allowing him to speak on Lokpal or there was any hidden agenda?

The above were the sequence of events from the government showed its concern on Anna till the Finance Minister made his speech. Finance Minister, Pranab Mukherjee made his speech on August 27, 2011 and reiterated the same thing in the house which was discussed with team Anna on August 23. Now here is the BIG question, if he had to do that, why didn’t he do it before which would have probably saved time and Anna’s health condition? The same points raised by team Anna were thrown to the floor to discuss and pass a resolution.

About 27 speakers spoke on the points and mostly there was a favourable response towards team Anna. While BJP strongly supported all the points of team Anna, Congress had shown conditional support and other parties like JD (U), left parties had also given their nod to it with a slight modification. More or less there was unanimous consensus on the points raised by team Anna. A resolution was supposed to be passed and a voting was expected.

While the house was discussing the issue, senior congress leader and Union Minister Kapil Sibal spoke to media that BJP is not in favour of voting and the same was conveyed to team Anna. As a result team Anna wanted BJP to make its stand clear and later in a Press Conference, BJP leader Sushma Swaraj clearly told that her party will certainly go for the voting if it is decided. Then everyone was expecting that at least there would be a ‘voice vote” to pass the resolution.

All media flashed the news that the Finance Minister is drafting the resolution to be placed in the house and on that there would be voting first in Rajya Sabha and then in Lok Sabha. But surprisingly nothing happened. It was supposed to happen at 6pm as the Speaker had allowed 7hrs time for the discussion which ended at 6pm. After 6pm the Speaker came to her seat. Around 7.30 pm, the Finance Minister made his final speech and soon after the Speaker adjourned the house. No body could understand what happened. I too got confused at that moment. Finally I understood and the media explained that there was thumping majority. After Finance Minister’s speech the members thumped their desk and that was considered as their consensus and hence the resolution got passed as the “Sense of the House”.

I found a new word “Sense of the House” and tried find what it means... Anyway I made myself understand that it is the consensus on the issue. Finally the government interlocutor Vilash Rao Deshmukh carried the message of the house to Ramlila ground and read it before everyone. Everywhere the same was termed as the “RESOLUTION” of the house. But was it a Resolution?

As per the rules of the Parliament, a Resolution is a formal expression of the sense, will or action of the Legislative Body.  Resolutions may be broadly divided into three categories:

·       Resolutions which are expression of opinion by the House – since the purpose of such a Resolution is merely to obtain an expression of opinion of the House, the Government is not bound to give effect to the opinions expressed in these Resolutions.

·       Resolutions which have statutory effect – the notice of a Statutory Resolution is given in pursuance of a provision in the Constitution or an Act of Parliament.  Such a Resolution, if adopted, is binding on the Government and has the force of law.

·       Resolutions which the House passes in the matter of control over its own proceedings.  It has the force of law and its validity cannot be challenged in any court of law.  The House, by such a Resolution, evolves, sometimes, its own procedure to meet a situation not specifically provided for in the Rules.

.       Under rule 170, a member other than a Minister who wishes to move a resolution on a day allotted for private members' resolutions, shall give a notice to that effect at least two days before the date of ballot.

.       Under rule 171, a resolution may be in the form of a declaration of opinion, or a recommendation; or may be in the form so as to record either approval or disapproval by the House of an act or policy of Government, or convey a message; or commend, urge or request an action; or call attention to a matter or situation for consideration by Government; or in such other form as the Speaker may consider appropriate.

        Under rule 172, it decides the subject matter of the resolution.  Subject to the provisions of these rules, a member or a Minister may move a resolution relating to a matter of general public interest.

.       Rule 173 says whether a resolution may be admissible, it shall satisfy the following conditions, namely:- (i)it shall be clearly and precisely expressed; (ii)it shall raise substantially one definite issue; (iii)it shall not contain arguments, inferences, ironical expressions, imputations or defamatory statements; (iv)it shall not refer to the conduct or character of persons except in their official or public capacity; and (v)it shall not relate to any matter which is under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India. Speaker to decide admissibility

.       Rule 174 ,the Speaker shall decide whether a resolution or a part thereof is or is not admissible under these rules and may disallow any resolution or a part thereof when in his opinion it is an abuse of the right of moving a resolution or calculated to obstruct or prejudicially affect the procedure of the House or is in contravention of these rules. Matters before tribunals, commissions etc.

.        Rule 175 tells that o resolution which seeks to raise discussion on a matter pending before any statutory tribunal or statutory authority performing any judicial or quasijudicial functions or any commission or court of enquiry appointed to enquire into, or investigate any matter shall ordinarily be permitted to be moved.

Provided that the Speaker may, in his discretion, allow such matter being raised in the House as is concerned with the procedure or subject or stage of enquiry, if the Speaker is satisfied that it is not likely to prejudice the consideration of such matter by the statutory tribunal, statutory authority, commission or court of enquiry.

.       Rule 178 says that no speech on a resolution shall, except with the permission of the Speaker, exceed fifteen minutes in duration: Provided that the mover of a resolution, when moving the same and the Minister concerned when speaking for the first time, may speak for thirty minutes or for such longer time as the Speaker may permit.

.       Rule 179 tells the discussion on a resolution shall be strictly relevant to and within the scope of the resolution. Withdrawal of resolution and amendment.

.       As per rule183, a copy of every resolution which has been passed by the House shall be forwarded to the Minister concerned.

NOW THE BIGGEST QUESTION IS WHAT WAS FOLLWED DURING THE DISCUSSION ON AUGUST 27 ?

The most important is the Resolution gets passed through a proper discussion. But I could not understand under what rule the discussion took place. A few members had given notice under rule 184 and a few had given the notice under rule 193. But which was accepted by the Speaker is not yet clear. Let me put it the Parliamentary procedure of different rules to make things clear.

Under rule 184, discussions on matter of public interest take place with the consent of the Speaker. It follows a voting.

As per the Parliamentary procedure, discussion under Rule 193 does not involve a formal motion before the House.  Hence no voting can take place after discussion on matters under this rule.  The member who gives notice may make a short statement and such of the members as have previously intimated to the Speaker, may be permitted to take part in the discussion.  The member who raises the discussion has no right of reply.  At the end of the discussion, the Minister concerned gives a brief reply.

Similarly in order to provide opportunities to members to discuss matters of urgent public importance, a convention was established in March 1953 which was incorporated later into the Rules of Procedure and conduct of Business in Lok Sabha under Rule 193 as Short Duration Discussion.  Under this Rule, members can raise discussion for short durations without a formal motion or vote thereon.

Under rule 195, there can be no formal motion before the House or voting. The member who has given notice may make a short statement and the Minister shall reply shortly. Any member who has previously intimated to the Speaker may be permitted to take part in the discussion. Similarly under rule 196, the Speaker can fix up the time limit for the discussion.

 We can say hurriedly and cunningly the members discussed and passed the resolution and sent it to team Anna. They also accepted it , although they have reacted that it is part betrayal. Now everything is almost settled. But still the question remains in my mind “Has justice been given to everything equally?” Shall we tell it a complete victory or the acceptance of it with a forced compromise ?