Disallowing Questions: A Disservice to Democracy

In a vibrant democracy like India, the Parliament serves as a critical platform for legislators to raise questions and seek answers on matters of public interest. However, the question notice of K. Sudhakaran MP, the President of Congress’ Kerala Unit to the Prime Minister on the escalating violence in Manipur was disallowed in the Monsoon session of Lok Sabha. This not only raises concerns about freedom of expression but also highlights a troubling trend of evading accountability.

At the heart of democracy lies the fundamental principle of holding the government accountable to its citizens. The act of raising questions in Parliament is not merely an exercise in political debate but a sacred duty of elected representatives. Through questions, parliamentarians seek to bridge the gap between the government and the people, ensuring that governance remains grounded in the real issues faced by the public. Disallowing questions undermines the essence of democracy and erodes public trust in the political process.

The Disallowed Question:

The question was straightforward: Has the Prime Minister taken note of the violence in Manipur, and if so, why has he refrained from making any statement on this matter? The unrest in Manipur has seen instances of divisive and communal incidents, as well as appalling atrocities against women and minorities. These acts of violence strike at the very core of India's pluralistic identity and the ideals of humanity.

The reason stated by the Lok Sabha Secretariat for disallowing the question was that it violated rule 41(2)(viii)(xviii)(xxiii) of the rules of procedure in Lok Sabha. These rules prohibit questions on matters not primarily the concern of the Government of India and those under adjudication by a court of law. While these rules play a crucial role in streamlining parliamentary proceedings, their misinterpretation or misuse can lead to a suppression of legitimate concerns.

Upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the violence in Manipur is indeed a matter of concern for the government. The safety and security of citizens, regardless of their geographic location, is undeniably the responsibility of the state. Ignoring the violence in Manipur under the guise of this rule raises questions about the sincerity of the government's commitment to the welfare of all its citizens.

Furthermore, while some aspects of the Manipur situation might be under judicial review, it does not absolve the government from addressing the broader issues that have contributed to the unrest. Parliament serves as a forum for discussing policy matters and shaping the government's response to complex challenges.

Exacerbating the Situation:

The horror unfolding in Manipur has been further exacerbated by the actions of both the state and union governments. The legitimization of majoritarianism and the unleashing of ethnic fear have contributed to the escalating violence. It is vital to acknowledge that inflammatory rhetoric and divisive policies can stoke tensions and create an atmosphere of fear and mistrust.

Additionally, the prolonged silence from the highest echelons of power has only deepened the sense of disillusionment and alienation among the people of Manipur. The lack of a clear and empathetic response from the government can lead to a feeling of abandonment and neglect, further fueling resentment and anger.

The deteriorating situation in Manipur has reached a critical juncture, indicating a potential breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the state. Such circumstances may warrant immediate action under Article 356 of the constitution, which grants the union government the authority to intervene in states facing governance crises.

To strengthen our democracy, it is imperative that we foster an environment where all voices are heard, questions are addressed transparently, and concerns are taken seriously. The disallowance of legitimate questions by opposition MPs questions the functioning of our democracy.