Adjourned!Adjourned again!And again. And again.

Sound familiar? That was indeed what passed for Parliament in session last week, and guess what? The ‘rules’ are essentially the reason why Lok Sabha did not function last week.

Demonetisation is a contentious issue that has been raging inside and outside the house since November 16, when the session commenced. There are assumptions being made that the opposition wants to stall Parliament because they want a discussion on the issue while the Government doesn’t want to allow it. This narrative makes sense when you want to sell it politically, but in real life, that is really not the case.

Both the opposition and the government are ready to discuss demonetisation in both the houses, but the conditions around the discussion are what causing friction.

Why are rules important?

The Lok Sabha has to follow a certain set of rules, according to which the business of the house is conducted. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business basically define how discussions can be held, legislations are passed, debates should be conducted, questions should be asked and voting is done. These are important because they bring a semblance of discipline to Parliament’s functioning (The Rajya Sabha has a similar set of Rules).

These rules are oh-so-detailed that they even specify how members are supposed to behave inside the house. For example, Rule 352(xi) says a member cannot read out written speeches unless the prior permission of the speaker is taken. Then there’s Rule 361, about what a member is supposed to do when the Speaker rises to speak:

Now, if you watch the proceedings of the house, you will see both these rules are broken from time to time. That’s because the ultimate keeper of the rules, the God in Da House, is the person in the Speaker’s chair.

Mind you, I said the Speaker’s chair because it’s the Chair that is important, not the identity of the person sitting in it. Once someone does sit in it, they assume the responsibility of conducting the house. If the speaker doesn’t really care whether a member is reading out a speech or not, or if no other member points out the discrepancy and asks for a ruling, the speaker can… well, continue not caring.

Rule 56 vs Rule 184 vs Rule 193

Let’s get to the issue at hand: #Demonetisation or #NoteBandi or #Cashtration or #AnotherCleverHashtag.

If you look at the proceedings right now, you will see a bunch of parliamentarians streaming to the well of the house, right before the speaker’s chair and screaming their heads off. In some instances, even throwing stuff at her.

Here are a few headlines from newspapers last week.

“The opposition is disrupting the house over demonetization.”

“Government sources say opposition is not ready for debate.”

“Man tries to jump over Lok Sabha visitors gallery to protest demonetization.”

Yeah. That actually happened last week.

But I digress.

So, both the government AND the opposition want to debate the issue, but can’t decide on how it will be debated.

The opposition is demanding a discussion under Rule 56: The Adjournment Motion. This particular rule, if applied, suspends all regular business of the house for the whole day in order to discuss an issue of urgent public importance. This is serious stuff and sends out a signal that the legislative business of the country was halted because something came up that demanded such an extreme step to be taken.

Rule Chappan is like the nuclear weapon of Parliamentary notices. Therefore, a member can file only one adjournment motion per session. For the past week, everyday, some 15-20 MPs are filing adjournment motions under Rule 56, all of which are getting rejected by the speaker. Why?Because of this:

The Adjournment motion always ends with voting on that particular subject. If the notice says “Massive amount of utter devastating carnage caused due to demonetisation”, at the end of the debate, the speaker will have to put up this question: “This house agrees that massive amount of utter devastating carnage has been caused due to demonetisation. All those in favour say Aye… All those in favor say No…”

If someone asks for division on this, the votes will be recorded showing exactly who is in favour of demonetisation and who isn’t. It will also show how many members agree to this move exactly and how many don’t. The parties who vote cannot change their stands after that because it will become recorded history.

The sarkar is ready to discuss the issue under Rule 193: Short Duration Discussion. Under this rule, members can raise any matters of urgent public importance to be discussed in the house. Usually, discussions are held under this rule. The government is also open to discussing under this rule because it does not result in the suspension of business. In fact, every week, the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) discusses the notices received and which can be taken up for discussion. It is also listed as a part of the business of the house, so members can come prepared for it. Best part: No voting. Only talking.

After the discussion is over, the concerned minister gives a reply and addresses concerns of the members. However, it is not necessary that the minister will answer all of the queries of the members. It’s a debate, after all. Unless a member presses for an answer and puts the minister in an awkward position during the reply, nothing prevents him/her from ignoring the questions and just talking about his/her take on the issue at hand.

Your humble columnist would like to throw in the cauldron of discussion Rule 184: Discussion on matter of public importance. This is basically a middle ground rule. ‘Compromise kar lo’ types.

This rule lets the speaker set a date and time for a discussion on a matter of public importance to be held, without nuking the business and disturbing it in any way. The discussion, unlike 193, will end in voting. The voting part is important because we as citizens have a right to know where our elected representatives stand on demonetisation. It’s one thing to give statements to the media and express support, but it’s a totally different thing to make it official by voting on it. Especially in the case of National Democratic Alliance allies.

Rule 56 is a bad idea because demonetisation is already underway and there is no way it can be withdrawn (unless we want to destroying the entire credibility of our currency). It does not warrant business to be halted. However, it is a serious matter and deserves to be discussed. The Government’s Rule 193 proposal is not bad, but it is an incomplete proposal. There would be no compulsion upon the government or any other representative to reveal their stand on the issue. MPs may speak and give the impression that they are on the fence about this issue. But it needs to be clear what is in their collective minds.

Should the PM attend Parliament?

The Rajya Sabha already started a discussion on demonetisation in Week One of the winter session. However, the discussion was cut short because of disruptions from the Opposition. The question was not about rules, but of the Prime Minister attending the debate and responding to it. The big question: Is the Prime Minister obliged to attend Parliament?

Now, if you look at the rules and laws, there is no law that makes it compulsory for the PM to be present in the house. The secretariat doesn’t even keep a record of his attendance, which is done for other MPs. The PM and ministers are also allowed to sit in either of the Houses and attend debates, because they are representatives of the government and are accountable to both houses of parliament.

The overwhelming rhetoric surrounding the PM’s attendance ranged from “MUDI, Y U SCARED OF PARLIAMENT?” to “PM HAS BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN ATTEND PARLIAMENT!” to “THE CONGIS & COMMIES WILL NOT LET HIM SPEAK ANYWAYS!” to “WE PEEPS DESERVE SOME ANSWERS BIG BOSSMAN!”

Let’s not take a page out of those books, and instead try to discuss this reasonably. Despite what the law says and keeping the rhetoric aside, here’s how our democratic process works.

1) You vote for a candidate from a certain party. A certain candidate becomes the Member of Parliament from your constituency. (Even if you did not vote for that candidate, the winning candidate still represents you. #JustSaying)

2) A party, with more than 272 elected Members in Lok Sabha in this case, forms the Government. Sometimes, if the party does not have that many seats, others join in and form a coalition which forms the government. Right now, we have one party which has majority, so they’ve formed the government.

3) The majority party chooses a Prime Minister and this Prime Minister, in turn, chooses his/her cabinet.

The Prime Minister of this country is an elected Member of Parliament first, chosen to lead the country second. It is yours – the citizen’s – vote for a particular MP which decides who the Prime Minister will be. The PM and his cabinet are accountable to both houses of parliament which are chock full of representatives chosen by the voters. In turn, the MPs are accountable to you, their voter. There are there to serve you and take care of your needs. They are there to represent your troubles in front of the government. A government which the Prime minister leads.

So, in short, it’s the PM’s responsibility to listen to his voters and assuage their worries, if any. That’s why he needs to be in Parliament. To listen to your worries.

Sure, what I just described is how the system is *ideally* supposed to work. In the present situation, a whole bunch of people may well have voted for the Prime Minister rather than a particular MP. Possibly, they voted for a party symbol rather than the individual itself. The party chose the PM candidate even before coming to power, scrapping all the established norms. That is where the system is broken. That is where we need to fix it too.

Otherwise the Government will cease to be accountable to its citizens and it would lead to an utter bloody disaster.

The author can be contacted on Twitter @Memeghnad