The importance of Question Hour in parliamentary democracy cannot be overemphasized. This book documents the questions asked from pre-independent India to now, making it a veritable gallery of history
By Bhartruhari Mahatab
Accountability of the Executive to the Legis-lature is the lynchpin of parliamentary demo-cracy. The framers of the constitution always preferred accountability over the stability of the Executive. The device of question is a powerful tool of oversight and
accountability.
Members of parliament (MPs) need and elicit information on a bewildering range of issues through this medium. The right to ask questions is an inherent and inalienable right of members and this right is exercised to press for action, to make a point on behalf of the constituents, to bring the government’s stand on record with a view to quelling doubts or misgivings or to bring to focus numerous acts of omission and commission of the government.
VAST OPPORTUNITY
It is said that by each question there hangs a tale. More often, in the garb of seeking information, questions are slanted or loaded
as MPs have certain foreknowledge in many cases.
This book rightly emphasizes the importance of questions by telling that no other parliamentary device gives such a vast and equal opportunity to MPs, the party bosses and the backbenchers alike. After all, the ballot system or the shuffle is blind to consideration of party affiliation or seniority.
The author has painstakingly documented the evolution of parliamentary questions right from the Indian Councils Act, 1853, the successive doses of constitutional developments which the Britishers introduced half-heartedly and reluctantly and the rules governing the admissibility of questions framed up to the 15th Lok Sabha.
The first question asked by the Raja of Bhinga on 16th February, 1893, (under the Indian Councils Act, 1892) raised the depredation let loose by a revenue official on villagers and shopkeepers who had to provide provisions, fuel, fodder, etc, to the huge entourage perforce. The rules, however, did not permit any discussion on the answers provided in the House.
Members got the right to ask supplementaries after the Indian Councils Act, 1909 came into force and regular Question Hour started from 1921. The book documents the representative subjects on which questions were asked in pre-independent India,
mirroring the poignant socio-economic problems and the simmering political disquiet of the times, making it a veritable gallery of history.
EXPOSE DEFICIENCIES
The book is replete with significant developments and incidents like the first instance when an assurance was given in reply to a question in February 1900 by the government and an instance of 1907 when a whole day was consumed by the questions asked by the Nawab of Dacca and answers given by the government. The questions asked by non-official members reflect their unflinching patriotic zeal as every opportunity was seized to expose deficiencies, high-handedness and the autocratic conduct of the rulers and their machinery despite many restrictions and limitations imposed.
The author has also foregrounded deep popular concern about the looming uncertainty over the Question Hour. Indeed, “the orderly progression of Question Hour has been besieged by, what look like, scenes of power struggle, of one-upmanship, pandemonium and unruly conduct”. He has attempted answers to some of the frequently asked questions, which are quite instructive and fascinating. Arguably, the idea of asking questions is not purely a Westminster technique, but rooted in India’s great cultural heritage and hoary traditions too.
The Hymn of Creation in the Rig Veda speculates about the creation and the creator and the Upanishads testify to the great argumentative traditions which are in the form of questions and answers between seers, scholars and kings. Even students in the renowned ancient centers of learning like Takshila and Nalanda were granted admission if they replied satisfactorily.
TIME WASTED
The lamentable tendency to troop to the well of the House on the slightest provocation and to force adjournments is not only a colossal waste of time and resources but detrimental to public interest as it blocks the flow of information besides tarnishing the image of parliament. There is an imperative need to suspend the clamor and clash at least during Question Hour so that good use is made of the device of questions to address pressing public problems. No other parliamentary device is so versatile and efficacious in its deployment and reach as a simple, innocuous-looking question. It is in recognition of the time-tested efficacy of questions and as a potentially powerful tool of accountability that, unless directed otherwise, the first hour is earmarked for asking and answering questions. Regardless of disruptions, the idea of shifting Question Hour to another part of the day must be rejected lock, stock and barrel.
There is no doubt that searching questions with tenacity of purpose by MPs exposed scandals and forestalled many by creating serious dread in the bureaucracy. The shortcomings, deficiencies, delays, etc, highlighted through questions receive the attention of higher authorities and in great many cases, prophylactic measures are taken to redress the problems.
Disruptions and loss of Question Hour is a great but unintended reprieve to those who escape the scourge of oral questions. However, despite the prevailing uncertainty over the fate of Question Hour, the constant increase in the notices of questions and the concern to save it, there is a glimmer
of hope.
Once the realization dawns upon the members and more so on the leaders of political parties that the device of question is a powerful tool of accountability and oversight and the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy, I am quite sanguine that Question Hour will run smoothly.
One hopes that the book, being a work of scholarly research and abiding interest, is translated into Hindi and other Indian languages. It will go well for the larger benefit of legislators, researchers and students of constitutional and parliamentary studies.
— The writer is an MP and leader of the BJD in parliament