DC Edit | Speaker Prevails in Vote But Must Win Opp. Trust

As expected, the no-confidence motion moved by the Opposition against Speaker of the Lok Sabha Om Birla met its end on Wednesday with the Treasury benches voting it down. The question, however, remains as to what purpose it served to improve the functioning of the House.

The Opposition has insisted throughout the discussion that it was forced to bring a no-confidence motion against the Speaker, only the third such in the history of the Lok Sabha, as Mr Birla has been running the House without conceding their legitimate rights. They have pointed out specifically that Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi was interrupted repeatedly from speaking in the House on several occasions. They hold the Speaker in high personal esteem but insinuate that his hands have been tied by the ruling party, and hence his decisions undermining democratic principles and the House’s practices. They argue that the motion was intended to “save the Constitution” and that it was not just about removing the Speaker but “restoring the soul, dignity and independence of the Lok Sabha and the nation”.

To the BJP and the NDA, Mr Birla is the epitome of the democratic spirit. The no-confidence motion was full of flaws but the Speaker got it corrected, they pointed out, while slamming the Opposition for questioning the integrity of Mr Birla. They argued that the proceedings in the House are conducted on the basis of “mutual trust”; and the Speaker is indeed a “neutral custodian, representing both the ruling party and the Opposition”. They concentrated the attack on the Leader of the Opposition which prompted a Congress leader to wonder if the motion was against the Speaker or Mr Gandhi himself.

It is obvious that the Opposition brought the motion not with a realistic aim of removing the Speaker from his post, given the respective numbers the fronts command in the House. They wanted to bring to the attention of the House, and the nation, a complaint they have been raising against Mr Birla, not only in this House but in the previous one, too, about him being less than enthusiastic about protecting the rights of the Opposition and discriminating against the Leader of the Opposition. That the House has a duly recognised Leader of the Opposition, unlike in the previous two Houses, has emboldened the Opposition to assert itself in the House. Now that they have made their point, it is time for them to return to what the House is meant for: debating issues that affect the lives of the people, and the business of legislation. They must do a rethink on their practice of plunging the Parliament into pandemonium and use the platform to hold the government to account instead.

It is important that the ruling front considers the democratic platform Parliament offers as the best tool to assess the mood on the other side, which is very important in the democratic scheme of things. It must learn to respect the strength of the Opposition in this Lok Sabha which is much higher than the previous ones. It is no accident, but a reflection of the will of the people. As for Mr Birla, he has reassured the Opposition that the Chair does not belong to any one individual but is a symbol of the prestige of the House. That is the spirit of democracy and every one, the Speaker, the Treasury benches and the Opposition, must live up to it.