Regressive rejig?
The rejig in Parliamentary panels on Tuesday has stirred a political controversy. The reshuffle made by the Centre stripped leading opposition parties of the chairmanship of major parliamentary panels. The Indian National Congress (INC) lost the chairmanship of parliamentary standing committee on home affairs and parliamentary panel on information technology. Presently, it is left to lead the panel on science and technology, forests and climate change. Things went worse for the Trinamool Congress from which the chairmanship of parliamentary panel on food and consumer affairs was taken away — the only major panel it was heading. Now, the concentration of all the major panels — including home, information technology, defence, external affairs, finance and health — lies either with the Bharatiya Janata Party or its allies. Though the reshuffle is not in defiance of rules, it makes an undesirable shift from conventions and stands contrary to the very principles underlying the formation of standing committees. One should not make the mistake of looking at these developments as a mere injustice against opposition political parties. Parliamentary standing committees form a basic tenet of the functioning of Parliamentary democracy. The possible ramifications of the rejig extend far beyond political lines; it sets a bad precedent which might not be easily revertible. Notably, the performance and relevance of Parliamentary standing committees have already undergone a massive decline; the rejig is just the next direct blow. A Indiaspend report had found that standing committees were 26.8 per cent less productive by the number of hours during NDA-1's 16th Lok Sabha as compared to the 15th Lok Sabha led by UPA-2. Also, the role of standing committees in devising critical legislation has gone down significantly. The Indiaspend report highlighted that under the NDA-1 government, only 25 per cent of all bills were referred to committees, compared to 71 per cent under the UPA-2 government and 60 per cent under UPA-1 in the 14th Lok Sabha. These functional lapses could still have been corrected but what does one say of the principle decline that recent rejig has gone through. Political non-partisanship has been, by convention, the defining element of the working of standing committees. Given the fact that standing committee meetings are closed-door and completely confidential, they provide an opportunity for forming political consensus on critical legislations — ensuring their sustainability and success in the long term. Dilution of opposition leadership in standing committees will not only undermine the process of consensus building but also lead to fragile legislations that may not withstand pluralistic opinions and the test of time. In the past, there had been reports suggesting the undermining of opposition voices in committees, even if those came from chairpersons. However, there was at least some parity in the structural sense. Now, with the reshuffle, the principle of non-partisanship loses its guarantee. The BJP government can't be blamed for going against the rulebook, because it doesn't. However, it has pushed the rules to a limit where they are rendered ineffective. Opposition leaders have understandably raised their concerns. TMC Rajya Sabha MP Derek O'Brien expressed his shock for TMC not getting a single chairmanship despite being the second largest among opposition parties. As India's leading opposition party, the INC, lost two crucial chairmanships, Derek O'Brien called it the "stark reality of New India." Congress leaders have also voiced their concerns around the issue. Notably, the Congress has 31 MPs in the Rajya Sabha and 53 in the Lok Sabha; and TMC has 13 in the Rajya Sabha and 23 in the Lok Sabha. In contrast, the DMK, a BJP ally with 24 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 10 in the Rajya Sabha, now heads two panels — those pertaining to industry and rural development and Panchayati Raj. Opposition parties should firmly register their reservations before the government, and try to get the damages undone.