K.V. Seetharamaiah
Parliament has witnessed ruckus over the suspension of AAP Rajya Sabha Member Sanjay Singh. The opposition parties have been vociferously demanding statement in Parliament on Manipur crisis by the Prime Minister. Despite the assurance from the Union Home Minister Amit Shah to hold debate, the adamant stand of Singh and his violation of the directive from the Chair forced the Leader of the House Piyush Goyal to move a motion which was adopted by voice vote. Singh has confessed that he went closer to the Chair with demand to allow him to speak under Rule 267. Singh should have waited patiently till the issue is taken up for discussion and debate. If the suspension of a single member could provoke the opposition parties to protest, why did they not protest when 10 MLAs were suspended in Karnataka for the rest of the session? The reason assigned for the suspension of members in Karnataka is “indiscipline”. They had reportedly torn the copies of Bill passed in the House. Certainly the behaviour is unbecoming of the “honourable” members. If the behaviour of the MLAs in tearing off the copy of Bill is disrespectful, how respectful was the behaviour of Rahul Gandhi when he tore off the copy of ordinance brought by his own UPA government to allow those convicted in criminal cases to contest elections? Randeep Surjewala had hailed Gandhi’s “courageous step” calling it as such to tear off the ordinance copy. It was active support, not passive, for misbehaviour. The point to be noted is that the current ruling political parties do not want the opposition parties to do the same when they come to power replacing them consequent to the outcome of election results. Speaker of the Assembly or Lok Sabha hails from the ruling party. Speakers are supposed to be impartial in conducting the business. But their party affiliation in the past does not permit them to be impartial. They play into the hands of the ruling party. There is no instance of a Speaker suspending ruling party members for their unruly behaviour. Speaker will be “willingly” “pawn” in the hands of a ruling party. When a government changes not being the outcome of election results but for the Members of the ruling party changing sides, the Speaker will also be changed. The reason is not far to seek. It is the same case in respect of Governors. The difference is that the Governors are not changed if the government changes. But more often than not, the Governors have played in the past, and possibly in future too, into the hands of the party which had posted them to be the Governors of state. They are also supposed to be non-partisan in their post. Being good is easier than being just. Opposition parties accuse the ruling parties of misusing the investigating agencies to stifle the voice of the opposition. But the same opposition parties will also do the same when they come to rule. Politics has edge over justice. It can be concluded that the suspension of Singh is right for ruling party at centre and wrong for opposition parties and suspension of 10 MLAs in Karnataka is right for ruling Congress and wrong for the opposition parties. What is good for one is bad for the other. Politics is like tongue. Some same eatables taste differently to different persons. One feels tasteful and the other feels distasteful.
