Law of numbers: On the winter session and a low in India’s parliamentary democracy

The government should not use its majority to rush through legislation 

The 18-day winter session of Parliament that was adjourned (To have a pause or rest during a formal meeting or trial) sine die on December 21 marked a new low in India’s parliamentary democracy as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party refused to engage (to become involved, or have contact, with someone or something) with the Opposition, evaded (avoid or escape from someone or something) executive accountability (the state of being accountable, liable, or answerable) and passed a battery of Bills with far-reaching consequences (a result of a particular action or situation, often one that is bad or not convenient) for the country while a majority of the Opposition members remained suspended (to stop something from being active, either temporarily or permanently). In the final count, a total of 146 Members of Parliament (MP) from the Opposition bloc were suspended — 46 of the Rajya Sabha, and 100 of the Lok Sabha, as they clamoured (make a loud complaint or demand) for a statement by Union Home Minister Amit Shah on a breach (an act of breaking a law, promise, agreement, or relationship) of security that involved protesters gaining entry into the chamber of the Lok Sabha on December 13.

The rift (a serious disagreement that separates two people) lingers (to take a long time to leave or disappear), as Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge has written to Vice-President of India and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, terming the suspension of Opposition MP as “predetermined (decided or arranged at an earlier time) and premeditated (to plan or consider (something, such as a violent crime) beforehand)” by the government. The absence of any application of mind was evident, Mr. Kharge has written, recalling (bring the memory of a past event into your mind) that an MP who was not even present in the Lok Sabha, was among those suspended. The Chairs of both the Houses could not ensure smooth conduct of the session. Attempts made by Mr. Dhankhar and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla lacked the requisite imprimatur (official approval of something or permission to do something) of impartiality (the fact of not supporting any of the sides involved in an argument).

It was in the absence of a majority of the Opposition members that the government passed new laws that rewrite the criminal code of the country, regulation of telecommunication and the appointment of the Election Commission of India. The common feature of these laws is an unprecedented (never having happened or existed in the past) increase in the power of the executive, and it is not a coincidence (an occasion when two or more things happen at the same time, esp. in a way that is unexpected or unlikely) that they were passed without a meaningful parliamentary debate that took on board conflicting views. The government refused even the Opposition demand for a statement on the security breach, in a show of obstinacy that equates numerical majority with logical and moral infallibility (the fact of never being wrong, failing, or making a mistake).

The government has blamed the Opposition for bringing the suspensions upon itself, and this position has been echoed (a detail that is similar to and makes you remember something else) by the Speaker and the Chairman. The case of the alleged mimicry of Mr. Dhankhar by an Opposition MP was a distraction that was convenient for the ruling party. Mr. Dhankhar himself told the Rajya Sabha that the alleged mimicry (the act or art of copying or imitating closely) was an insult to his community, a dismaying correlation (a connection or relationship between two or more facts, numbers, etc) to be made by anyone, let alone a legal luminary (a person who is famous and important in a particular area of activity) such as himself. It is another matter whether the Opposition should have invested so much time and effort in asking for a debate on the security breach by a few misguided (unsuitable because of being based on a bad judgment of a situation or on information or beliefs that are wrong) youths. The effect, if not the objective, of it all was to derail parliamentary functioning and obtain a free pass for the executive.

Want to improve your vocabulary further? Download the Lists of Word-Meanings of Previous Months here.

• Sign Up on Practicemock for Updated Current Affairs, Free Topic Tests and Free Mini Mocks
• Sign Up Here to Download Free Study Material