Nehru’s message to Cong MPs during 1954 LS Speaker removal debate: ‘Not bound by whip’

New Delhi: India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s message to Congress MPs during the debate in 1954 on the Opposition’s resolution to remove then Speaker G V Mavalankar was that they are not bound by any whip or direction, as he urged all legislators to consider the matter “regardless of party affiliations”.

He had urged Lok Sabha MPs to look at the issue not through the lens of the party but as a matter concerning the dignity of the House.

With the spotlight on the Opposition’s notice to move a resolution for the removal of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, the three occasions when such situations had arisen in the past are also in focus.

The first such situation surfaced on December 18, 1954, when the Opposition moved a resolution for the removal of then Speaker Mavalankar. It was admitted after over 50 members stood up in support, and a debate took place over it.

Nehru had also urged the chair to give more time to the Opposition in the debate.

It was a fiery debate during which the Opposition, though weak in numbers, tore into Nehru and accused the speaker of being partisan.

Intervening in the debate, Nehru said, “I would like to address the House, if I may, in my capacity and the high privilege of being the Leader of this House and not as a leader of the majority party. So far as this majority party is concerned, I would like to tell them that not one of them is bound by any whip or any direction: let them vote as they like. It is not a party matter. It is a matter for this House, for each individual, to consider, regardless of party affiliations.”

“Therefore, let us try to think of it not as a party issue but as members of this House, because this matter affects the hon. speaker, of course, but it affects the high dignity of this House as Parliament, it affects the first citizen of this country, that is, the speaker of this House,” he said.

It is a serious matter when the honour of Parliament is concerned, Nehru said.

What is said about the speaker, what is done about the speaker comes back on each one of us who claim to be members of this House, the then PM said.

“I wish members to realise this because I have felt sad and very sad ever since this matter came up before the House. We have known the speaker for many years and we have seen him function and it is possible that some of us may not have exactly the same opinion about him as others have; it is possible,” he said.

“It has so happened that some of us have not particularly liked a decision of his or a ruling of his. It is one thing not to like a ruling or to disagree with it or even to feel, if I may say so, slightly irritated about something that has happened. These things happen. But, it is completely a different thing to challenge the bona fides of the very person in whose keeping is the honour of this House,” Nehru had said.

“When we challenge his bona fides, we betray before our countrymen and indeed before the world that we are little men and that is the seriousness of the situation. It is for you to decide because we are displaying to the world and to our country that we are little, quarrelsome men who indulge in frivolity, who indulge in accusation without thinking what that means and without thinking what the consequences of it might be,” he had said.

“I do not say that it is not possible at all to raise a motion against the Speaker. Of course, the Constitution has provided it. Nobody challenges the right of the Opposition or any Member of the House to put forward this motion. I do not deny that right since it has been given by the Constitution. The point is not the legal right but the propriety; the desirability of doing it,” he said.

Responding to examples given by the Opposition, Nehru said, “Mr. (S S) More in his soft and gentle voice, which often contains many bitter things, went on and told us of what happened to the head of a king in England in the 17th century. He told us of the practice of the British House of Commons 200 years ago and all that. I listened with amazement. Here was a serious matter, here we are in the middle of the 20th century, in the Republic of India, and we are told about what happened in the Middle Ages or some other time in England.”