Disruption Vs Dicussion

Parliamentary democracy is familiar with disruptions. It is an important weapon in the hands of parliamentarians, especially the opposition parties to lodge protests against any happenings or the functioning of the government. So, when the parliament is in session, disruptions are not uncommon. But as it is a potent weapon in the hands of the parliamentarians, it should be used judiciously and cautiously. At the same time number of disruptions should be as limited as possible as parliament sessions incur huge expenditures. In India, every minute of parliament session costs us Rs. two lakh. So if the proceedings of the house are disrupted, the nation faces huge loss. But in India, it seems disrupting the proceedings of the house have become a fashion. Everyday even at the slightest provocation disruptions are taking place. Presently, both houses of the parliament are stalled for 14 days. Due to chaos in the house, finance bill have to be passed without any discussion. Agitated parliamentarians coming to the well of the house has become a routine affair. Sometimes it is very difficult to understand why the parliamentarians are protesting. As per the parliamentary practice, the parliamentarians should voice their grievances first. If the government of the day fails to redress their grievances only then they should think about disrupting the house. No parliamentarian should come to the well of the house first before recording his or her grievances. Take the example of the latest disruptions in recent times. At the time of the bifurcations in Andhra Pradesh, it was promised by the then Central Government led by Dr. Manmohan Singh that in-order to meet the revenue loss, Andhra Pradesh would be accorded the status of special category state for a certain period. But before the implementation of the same, change of guard took place at the Centre. But the present Central Government, citing the recommendations of the finance commission, ruled out the possibility of granting the said status to Andhra Pradesh. Naturally, the decision of the Centre did not please the political parties in the State. So the political parties gave notice to move a no confidence motion against the present day government with the help of some other opposition parties. As per the law, a no confidence motion should be supported by less than 50 members of the House. It is categorically written in the rule book that the presiding officer should do a head count before admitting the motion. But it seems that the political parties are not interested in discussions. They are more interested in disrupting the house everyday with one pretext or another turning the no confidence motion into a joke. But in parliamentary laws and practices, no confidence motion has been given highest priority. So much so that when a no confidence motion is accepted by the presiding officer, all other works of the house are stopped. Normal functioning of the house will only resume after the fate of the no confidence motion is known. So if the government has failed to fulfil its promise, in a parliamentary democracy no confidence motion is the best way to corner it. Sadly, our parliamentarians these days are more interested in disruption than discussion. This is not a good trend for parliamentary democracy. In a democracy problems are to be solved through discussion, not by disruption. But it seems to be other way round in Indian Parliament.