 |
||
|
||
|
||
Sir, - Your reporting of the joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament was unfortunately totally one-sided. From describing the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee's reply to Sonia Gandhi's remarks about him as a “personal attack launched against the Leader of the Opposition,'' to brushing aside the speeches made on the ruling side as “reiterations of arguments spelt out in both Houses last week''- while appreciating similar repetitive arguments from the Opposition side, with the comment that “speaker after speaker from the Opposition cited chapter and verse to make the point that the proposed law was morally and constitutionally untenable'' - you were not commenting, but playing for one side.
While Ms. Gandhi's remarks against Mr. Vajpayee, in your view, marked her “success in provoking the Prime Minister,'' his reply was a mere “verbal assault.''
There was even a tinge of regret in your report, that the disturbances created by the Opposition members were not effectively coordinated, when your correspondent lamented that “the disparate group of dissenters on the other side failed to harmonise their action, because of the ideological divide among the Congress, the Left and the secular camp in the Opposition.''
Well, boredom and redundancy are built into the procedure, when it ordains another debate, after an issue has been already debated twice. That the third debate became an occasion for repetition is not a surprise. But it was so on both sides.
Since arguments were all exhausted on both sides in the earlier debates, constant and continuing interruptions became the most effective weapon in the third debate. And the proceedings left one wondering whether it was a joint sitting or a joint shouting.
Again, bemoaning the absence of any attempt to reach a consensus is surprising. Has consensus been achieved in any other matter? Are all parties in Parliament agreed on globalisation, privatisation and liberalisation? Or, is there total agreement in both the Houses on the strategy to be adopted on Kashmir?
The fact is that there is no consensus on anything except obituary references. Then why lament the lack of it on POTO?
The reporting of the Opposition leader's remark that “the Government wishes to exploit a sparing constitutional provision to achieve its narrow and controversial end'' is rather ill-informed.
A reading of the Constituent Assembly debates would show that the only reservation registered against the provision for a joint sitting of the two Houses was that it gave the Upper House an undeserved power to obstruct the passage of a legislation.
No one from B.R. Ambedkar downwards expressed any desire on intent that the provision for a joint sitting would lead to an attempt to arrive at a consensus. It is clear from the debates that the provision concerned finds a place in the Constitution only to enable the passing of a legislation, in spite of its disapproval by the Upper House.
When the NDA puts this provision to the use it was intended for, it is accused of constitutional subterfuge.
In sum, I feel, we require another
POTO - Prevention of Twisted Opinions.
|
||
|
||
|
||