BETWEEN THE LINE
To Retrieve a Community
OFFICIAL business in Parliament is punctuated every Friday, after Question Hour, with private business. On that day, the members, selected through a ballot, either pilot a bill or a resolution they fancy. When placed before the house, the bill or the resolution is either accepted or rejected, depending generally on the attitude of the ruling party or the majority.
In the last session of the Rajya Sabha, I was one of the four members who won at the ballot. Unfortunately, my resolution did not come up for discussion since the house after completing its winter stint rose till the next session, I believe that the resolution lapses at the end of every session. Therefore, I shall have to go over the exercise once again.
However, what has surprised me is that the text of the resolution I had filed was reproduced in the list of business without the opening para, I checked and found that there was no printing error, I was informed by the Secretary General that Chairman Krishan Kant, also the Vice President, had deleted the first para. He himself confirmed that when I met him to plead for restoration of the para.
Let me first reproduce the resolution, which is as follows:
"This House regrets Operation Blue Star at the Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984 and offers apology to the Punjabis, especially the Sikhs for the hurt caused to them. The House also urges upon government to take necessary steps so that those who were involved in killings of the 1984 riots are punished without further delay. The House requests government to give speedy relief and rehabilitation to the riot victims, who are still awaiting help even after 14 years."
I reached for the rules book, something which I seldom do. There is no doubt that Rule 158 of the Rajya Sabha manual gives power to the chairman disallow a resolution of a part of it. But Rule 158 is restricted by Rule 157, which lists the conditions of admissibility. It means that the Chairman has to ensure that none of the five conditions listed in Rule 157 is violated by the member introducing a bill or a resolution. The five conditions are: one, the language should be clear and precise; two, the resolution must deal with substantially one definite issue; three, it should not contain arguments, inferences, ironical expressions, imputations or defamatory statements; four, it should not refer to the conduct or character of persons except in their official capacity, and five, the matter should not be sub judice.
The resolution I filed was clear and precise. It dealt with one issue and did not refer to the conduct of any person. Nor was the matter sub judice because no case was pending in any court on Operation Blue Star. Still the Chairman in his own wisdom disallowed the first part of the resolution. I am sure there must be weighty reasons for that.
Whatever I have been able to make out is that the resolution's first para may have been considered violating the third condition, relating to "arguments, inferences, ironical expressions, imputations or defamatory statements". Somewhere I went wrong but where, I have been seeking an answer.
The resolution I proposed is not argumentative. Nor does it contain "Inferences, ironical expressions or defamatory statements." Therefore, the only point left is one of 'imputations', that is, a charge or hint of wrong doing. Nowhere have I put the blame on government, any of its organisation or an individual. It was something unfortunate. Everyone wishes it had not happened. But my resolution did not go into the operation as such.
The words I used in the resolution were, 'regret' and 'apology'. The 'regret' was the expression I thought the house, could use if it agreed with me. It could reject it in the case of disagreement. As for the 'apology', it was sought from the Punjabis, particularly the Sikhs. None else except the House came into the picture. Again it was upto it to concur with me to what I had proposed, I had no intention to impute motives or to run down any government or person. Mine was a simple, straight statement, without malice.
In fact, if one were to look back, much was said or done by government after Operation Blue Star. President Zail Singh and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi went to the Golden Temple soon after the operation to make amends through their visit. From the accounts of people who accompanied Mrs Indira Gandhi, she was appalled at the sight. Mrs Indira Gandhi's daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi, admitted recently that it was a mistake. In face of this and several other steps the then government took to mollify the Sikhs, no word in my resolution could be interpreted as suggesting "imputations."
In fact, mine is a larger question. This is to know whether the fundamental right of free speech can be restricted by the Rajya Sabha's rules. I wonder whether the conditions listed in Rule 157 do not come into conflict with the provision of free speech in the Indian constitution. Article 19 says: "All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression..." Can such rules be framed by a house as abridge the fundamental right of members? This needs to be debated all over the country.
Again, the rules are a creature of the house, not the other way round. One more look on them may not be out of order. If the house is the master, it should have the authority to accept or reject a resolution. At least, it should have the right to know the contents of the resolution in toto Presently, the information of members is confined to what appears under the head of the list of business. The original form of resolution does not come to their knowledge. The Chairman has the authority to withhold a resolution or part of it. But the house should have the freedom to know what it is, without going into the reasons for withholding the consent.
One of the difficulties in seeking and offering answers to such questions is that the debate about them is conducted in a public vacuum. The great answers can be intelligently sought by the Parliament members, and those offered can be intelligently weighed, only if they in general come to know much more than they now do about the simplest aspect of their house. The unpalatable truth is that Parliament for some years has been falling into a swamp of slushy uncertainty. No body has had time to look into larger questions which affect the very functioning of Parliament.
Talking about Operation Blue Star, I personally think that a way, other than the army equipped with tanks, armoured personnel carriers and mountain guns should have been found to flush out militants from the Golden Temple. There is no doubt that they tried to create a state within the state at the connivance of some leading members of the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). No sovereign government could tolerate it.
Still the fist requisite of a good leader is the ability to forestall events and not let events overtake him. The second is to be able to foresee the consequences of a course of action and only resort to it if no other options are available. On both these counts neither the Akali leaders nor Mrs Gandhi and her advisers came up to the mark.
After my recent visit to Canada and the US I am convinced more than ever before that the 14-year old operation still rankles in the minds of Sikhs. Something different, something dramatic should be done to retrieve the community. My resolution could have been a healing touch and would have probably closed the unfortunate chapter once and for all.
Some day I want to bring a similar resolution on the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Unlike operation Blue Star, which was the result of government's over action, the demolition was because of government's inaction. Some BJP leaders have rightly expressed their regret over the demolition and have felt pain over the disrespect shown even to the Supreme Court, which had ordered for the maintenance of the status quo. But such expressions, however laudable, are not enough. They have to be backed by steps to mollify the Muslims, who feel helpless and let down.
If parliament were to express regret and seek apology from the community, the wounds might heal. In fact, whenever I have visited Pakistan or Bangladesh, the Babri Masjid's demolition has cropped up in the discussion in one form or the other. It is evident that people in those countries harbour grief. The sooner we make amends, the better it will be for the redress of the hurt caused to Muslims. It will also help remove the stigma on the face of our secular polity.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments