Does Sushma Swaraj really want to speak?

The basic principle is that all constitutional institutions should function at all times. The three major institutions are Parliament, the cabinet and the higher judiciary. Of these, the cabinet cannot go on holiday. Parliament goes into recess. The judiciary goes on vacation, but "vacation" judges set in lieu all round the clock. These three are the citadels of a "rule of law"-based democracy.

The custodians of the political texts are Parliament and the cabinet. The custodians of rule of law and justice are the higher judiciary. If any of these institutions stop functioning, our fragile democracy is in peril. Have no doubt, our democracy is fragile. The relationship among these institutions must be understood. None can injunct the other with one exception. The judiciary can stop an order or legislation. It has even been known to tell the legislature to follow correct procedures in matters of parliamentary privilege.

Disempowerment

The executive can never go against the wishes of Parliament. Its executive powers extend to all subjects Parliament can legislate on (Article 73), but it cannot violate peoples' rights unless its actions have the authority of law. But the Constitution is clear. "The council of ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People" (Article 75).

Unfortunately, there is a breakdown of this fundamental principle of responsibility to the Lok Sabha. Parliament has been disempowered. India has evolved a system that every coalition must seek a "confidence" vote before it starts governance. Once this vote is won, the government gets arrogant and loses all sense of responsibility in theory and practice.

Richard Crossman in his book Inside View and posthumous Diaries said that the parliamentary system has become presidential. Narendra Modi is the best example of this. He loves to globetrot, his party president Amit Shah exercises iron control. Unlike Atal Bihari Vajpayee, he doesn't care a damn about Parliament, making its views irrelevant. In other words, Modi does not want to be responsible to Parliament.

Parliament's rules have changed. Earlier, prime ministers feared strictures in the form of speeches and resolutions. Margaret Thatcher lost several resolutions in Parliament on immigration - a major issue. But she did not see this as a reason for resignation. The only brahmasastra left to Parliament is the no-confidence vote which nowadays requires defections. Parliament can debate as much as it likes. It can pass resolutions. But prime ministers feel that Parliament can be ignored. As long as the Opposition cannot cobble a no-confidence vote, Parliament is for mere discussion. There may be questions, adjournment motions, special resolutions. They mean nothing to those who rule. I remember Indira Gandhi telling me she needed good debaters in Parliament. Now even that does not matter. It is this disempowerment of Parliament that causes the Opposition to stall Parliament without which they are impotent in the two Houses.

The present crisis arises because (a) the Opposition in Parliament will become meaningless phrase makers in the laboratory of power; (b) the only pressure it can put on Parliament is in the public domain outside Parliament.

Resignation

The issue is corrupt ministers who have transgressed propriety. One rule is the Shastri Rule when railway minister Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned because of a railway accident. VK Krishna Menon did not resign over the jeep scandal but was made to do so over the Chinese debacle.

TT Krishnamachari resigned over the Mundra-LIC scandal. During the UPA, Ashwani Kumar left his ministership. These traditions may have fallen by the way-side, but they remain important.

In England, sex scandals in the Keeler case (1961) and David Mellor in Thatcher's time led to resignation - perhaps less serious than the Lalit Modi saga or the Vyapam case. Such pressures do not come from within Parliament but MPs, the press, the citizenry outside. Propriety and decency do not exist on the inside. If Sushma Swaraj wants to make a speech in Parliament, why cannot she make it to the people? Modi cannot standby and ignore all this. He is not prepared to concede. His bottom line is none of my ministers or chief ministers will resign because this will hurt the BJP's image. There is enough precedent for Swaraj to resign.

Governance

The BJP's line on Vasundhara Raje and Shivraj Singh Chouhan is contradictory. It says that Parliament has no concern with its chief minister who is accountable to his legislature. If that is so, how can the BJP point the finger at the Uttarakhand chief minister? Parties must take a responsible view. Let the BJP lead over Chauhan and Raje.

To conclude, there are both pragmatic and principled issues that are involved. Pragmatically, (i) Parliament costs Rs 2.5 lakh per minute and Rs 162 crore for the 18 day monsoon session; (ii) there are many bills to be passed including land bill, GS tax, mental healthcare, juveniles, whistle blower law, real estate legislature and others. They have to be discussed. On principle, the facts are (i) Parliament is powerless against the government; (ii) the government's moral responsibility to ask errant ministers to resign is a duty.

The BJP does not do its constitutional duty outside Parliament and exhorts the Opposition to do its duty inside Parliament to let it function. Let Swaraj speak now. Let the BJP do its duty to the country; as indeed, the Congress. Modi's government should season its arrogance with the humility required for Constitution at governance. But let Parliament function. What we risk losing in the long run is an institution of democracy.