Another stormy session?
Given the turbulence in the polity and the record of parliamentarians, there can be no telling how the current session, which opened this week, would turn out to be.
WILL the month-long winter session of Parliament be normal, or will it also be washed out like the previous monsoon session?
Given the turbulence in the polity and the record of parliamentarians, there can be no telling how the current session, which opened this week, would turn out to be.
Everyone is keeping their fingers crossed as rival political groups jockey for advantage to get the better of one another in the two Houses. The session could also test the majority of the ruling coalition since this is the first after a key ally deserted it to join the Opposition ranks.
The Manmohan Singh Government would require tact and persuasion in ample measure to ensure that the session does not end in a stalemate and, thus, jeopardise its own legislative agenda.
Remarkably, the monsoon session of parliament was washed out over the standoff on the allocation of coal blocks by the Coal Ministry headed by the Prime Minister himself.
The Opposition, relying on the scathing report of the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral of India, disrupted proceedings throughout the 19-day long session, seeking his resignation. Some parliamentary work could be conducted on six days of the session. Question hour was possible only on one out of the 19 days. So, it is natural to fear that the winter session too could go the way of the previous monsoon session. Will it?
First things first. Mamata Banerjee, the West Bengal Chief Minister and the leader of the Trinamool Congress, quit the ruling United Progressive Alliance over the fuel price hike during the inter-session period.
Hers was the second largest group in the ruling alliance after the Congress Party. Technically, the alliance was reduced to a minority after 19 MPs of the Trinamool Congress made common cause with the Opposition. Now, in a House of 545, the ruling alliance has only 250 members and needs 272 for a simple majority.
But if the Government does not appear to be unduly concerned, it is because there are a number of footloose MPs who are willing to sup with it provided the price is right.
For instance, in a crunch situation, the ruling coalition is almost certain to rely on Mulayam Singh Yadav’s 22 Samajwadi Party members and/or Mayawati’s 21 Bahujan Samaj Party members.
Both Yadav and Mayawati have had separate dinner meetings with Manmohan Singh on the eve of the winter session. Neither SP nor BSP, it is felt, would allow the Government to fall for want of numbers in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of the People).
However, there could nonetheless be several embarrassing moments for the Government. A controversial policy measure announced while the Parliament was in recess pertained to the foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail.
A number of allies of the Government itself have expressed reservations about retail FDI. The Bharatiya Janata Party-led Opposition National Democratic Alliance has bitterly opposed the multi-brand retail FDI. So have the Communists. And, of course, Mamata Banerjee too. Also, both Yadav and Mayawati have spoken against it.
If the Opposition is allowed by the respective presiding officers in the two Houses to move a motion entailing voting against FDI in retail, it could force the Government on the back foot, particularly when the latter’s own ally, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhgam of M. Karunanidhi, has publicly opposed the decision.
However, the Government was confident of surviving the challenge by enlisting the support of unattached small groups of ones and twos and also ensuring that either the SP or the BSP, or both, abstain from the vote.
Indeed, so keen was Mamata Banerjee to put the Government on the mat that she proposed a no-trust motion against it. Because she has only 19 members in the Lok Sabha (a no-trust motion requires a minimum of 50 MPs), she approached other opposition groups.
However, she did not find any takers; the main Opposition groups, including the Communists, were certain that the Government would survive a no-trust vote thanks to Yadav’s and/or Mayawati’s MPs.
The failure of the no-trust motion was bound to play in the hands of the Government, Banerjee was told.
Aside from FDI in multibrand retail, there were a number of issues the Opposition was bound to raise to pin down the Government.
Among them were the cap on the number of liquefied petroleum gas cylinders for household cooking to six in a full year; the double-digit inflation, particularly in the price of everyday food items, the decision to open up further the aviation and insurance sector to FDI, etc.
Then there were the usual corruption scams, including the latest land scam allegedly involving Robert Vadra, the son-in-law of the Congress President Sonia Gandhi.
The failure of the 2-G spectrum auction, which yielded less than US$2bil (RM6.1bil) while the expectation was that it would raise at least US$8bil (RM24.5bil), too could generate much heat in Parliament.
Also, the verbal onslaught by various ministers against the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral of India, who had in his reports exposed many scams, was set to prove stormy in the two Houses.
On its part, the treasury benches would throw back mud at the Opposition since Nitin Gadkari, the head of the main Opposition BJP, was at the centre of a financial scam, albeit in his private capacity as an entrepreneur.
While controversies would engage the Opposition benches, the Government itself has a rather heavy legislative agenda.
A number of Bills await passage. Among them are the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bills seeking to appoint anti-corruption ombudsmen at the central and state levels.
Then there is the Whistleblowers’ Protection Bill which was necessitated after the murder of several people who had undertaken to expose wrongdoing in both private and public sectors.
A number of bills aimed at modernising the land acquisition law, the education sector, etc, too are pending parliamentary approval.
For an orderly legislative business to be conducted, the two Houses have to function normally. Which means that the two sides have to observe a certain decorum, follow certain rules. But no one is sure that the session would not see disruptions.