An argument over mining permits in Andhra Pradesh went so deep in the Assembly this week that an immediate recovery does not seem possible. In a nasty altercation between the current Chief Minister YSR Reddy and former CM Chandrababu Naidu, the former went on to say things he now says he never meant: Talli kadupuna enduku puttana ani badha padatadu (loosely translated, ?You will be sorry you were ever born to your mother?). He also added words to the effect, ?I will wash you? or ?treat you very badly?.
More than motherhood and wombs, the nastier twist was in how the Speaker reacted under the circumstances. Congress?s K Suresh Reddy thought it fit to suspend the 34 TDP MLAs who raised a furore over this, and not say anything about the ?Cuddapah Lion? (as YSR Reddy is also known, locally).
Time and time again, such acts by Speakers, meant to be custodians of the most powerful organ of our democratic set-up, the Legislature, have denigrated the status of their post. Tradition and logic have it that the ruling party decides who is to be in the Chair. That follows from the rationale that legislative functioning is more cohesive if the Speaker is well in sync with the government?s plans for the conduct of proceedings.
But there is a fine line where the ?in sync? business must end and the Speaker turns into a neutral referee in any tussle between the government and the opposition. The mid-1990s saw some of the worst instances of umpiring by Speakers in states where coalitions were being formed and toppled on the back of mass defections. In UP, Kesari Nath Tripathi, the Speaker chosen by the then ruling BJP (who later became state president of the party, too) proved very controversial. When 12 of the 69 BSP MLAs then in the state assembly violated the party whip, Tripathi refused to disqualify them, though they were much less than one-third of the party strength and thus deserving of disqualification under the anti-defection provisions put in place by the Tenth Schedule. Why Tripathi deserves special mention is because of the miraculous flexibility he managed to display in applying the rules. In 2003, the same Speaker decided to swing things for Mayawati by approving a split within the Congress (8 of 23 MLAs). Even though the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the matter, the judgement came well after the government of the day had finished its term.
The acceptability of how much the Speaker can manipulate proceedings in favour of his side is clear in the self assurance that parties seek in the knowledge that ?Speaker apna hai? (he?s ours). In Jharkhand, the Speaker, Inder Singh Namdhari, was severely criticised for keeping silent for a year-and-a-half over the defection of an NCP MLA. George Fernandes, too, in 2003 said he was appalled that Namdhari continued to be Speaker while claiming that he was also in the race for the CM?s post. That Namdhari was originally an NDA appointee made all this even more interesting.
The Election Commission (EC) has proposed several reforms to the system of elections, and while several of them are utopian and unacceptable to political parties (there is a political consensus, for instance, that mere chargesheets should not stop anyone from fighting elections, since yielding on this could have candidates getting stormed with baseless charges), the one wisely proposed proviso is that decisions on party splits, whip violations and so on would be taken by the EC.
Politicos may well argue that the EC comprises unelected babus who should not have such power over the Legislature. But when you look around and see the growing partisanship of Speakers in state assemblies, few other solutions suggest themselves. The only way that Speakers can keep their powers is by showing their constitutional bona fides. Rigging assembly proceedings does them no credit. Speakerhood should be about sitting in Vikramaditya?s chair, or at least like wearing David Shepherd?s hat.