Indian Parliament : Minority Dominates Majority

India is a democracy. Everyday we are reminded of it. We are told democracy must have room for opposing view point. What does this opposing view point means. Does it mean that one can register his dissent or does it mean one is also allowed to disturb proceedings even if dissenters are not in a majority? 

In India, we seem to have adopted the second option. One of the opposition parties in parliament, congress party, lost in last parliamentary election. Electoral loss implies, people of the nation have rejected the ideas the party stands for. Yet, congress party members continue to disturb proceedings of Lok Sabha. They would rush to the well of the house, raise placard in front of the speaker and try to stop house from functioning. This, despite other oppositon parties wanting the business of parliament to go on. 

In the face of repeated disruption, when speaker of the house expels rowdy members, congress party plays martyr. Congress claims democracy in India is being systemically destroyed. But who murdered democracy? Those who have been rejected by people are continuously disrupting functioning of parliament, yet the same people are calling murder of democracy!

In Rajya Sabha, a nominated body, where congress has majority it has made up its mind of not allowing anything to go through unless it is approved by them. Congress is not shy of wielding this power. Question is who is superior? Those who are elected and chosen by people or those who have been nominated not by people but by their party?

It has been repeatedly said that congress and opposition had worked very hard in last few sessions. So what is wrong if a session is wiped out? Point is aren’t our members of parliament expected to work always? Attending and transacting business is their job. So members should work all days of all sessions without wasting a single day. As such US congress and UK parliament works at least 3 times more than Indian parliament.

It is said that in the last Lok Sabha, BJP had disrupted and legitimised parliament disruption as a practice. People forget that BJP disrupted parliament mostly in UPAII. Parliament disruption started when government refused to discuss scams that came in public domain. BJP demanded creation of JPC. Government refused and parliament got disrupted. Similarly, law minister Ashwani Kumar resigned when supreme court found out that minister was tampering CBI report. Rail minister Mr. Bansal was asked to resign when it was found out his nephew was running a bribe for posting business from his house.
The same is not the case in the present session. Government wants to discuss and debate. But congress and left parties and JDU want first resignation then discussion. Why such a position? Is it because congress has actually no point to discuss. Congress only wants to set the record set by securing resignations of Sushma Swaraj, Vasundhara Raje and Shivraj Chauhan? That way congress can claim during UPAII four congress ministers resigned, during NDA rule three ministers resigned.

Question that arises is what kind of democracy that we have in India? Where loser takes to disruption. If action  is taken by adminstrator, then it is considered an undemocractic practice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: