Pandit Nehru, a strong advocate of parliamentary decorum, had once observed, “Democracy does not mean simply shouting loudly and persistently, though that might occasionally have some value. Freedom and democracy require responsibility and certain standards of behaviour and self-discipline.”
‘Sexist’ Remarks vs ‘Boisterous’ Laughter
Mark Twain had once said, in The Mysterious Stranger and Other Curious Tales,“Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.” In the same vein, Chowdhury decided to use her laughter as a ‘weapon’ against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday.
She burst into a piercing laugh when PM Modi, in his reply to Congress’ claim of initiating the Aadhaar had said that the then Home Minister LK Advani had in 1998 spoken about an all-purpose national ID in the Rajya Sabha. The laughter interrupted the PM’s reply and what happened next is for all to see.
While Modi critics called the PM’s remark against her sexist, Chowdhury also told the press that it was highly objectionable and that she would file a privilege motion against the PM.
Parliamentary Decorum
Perhaps laughing during the serious proceedings of the House isn’t considered a breach of the code of conduct any longer. After all, in the past we have seen unruly politicians hurling papers, shoes, microphones and planters on each other as a mark of protest against the ruling party or the Opposition in the Parliament. Hence, the informed and educated politician Renuka Chowdhury, with close to 34 years of experience in politics, managed to escape being named for suspension because she only laughed at the head of our government during his response, and did not hurl something else at him.
Despite being a Member of Parliament for several terms, didn’t Chowdhury once chance upon reading rules of conduct and parliamentary etiquette in the Handbook of Members? The handbook serves as a guide on various parliamentary matters for MPs, particularly new members.
In fact, the parliamentary bulletin keeps publishing rules of parliamentary conduct from time to time.
Chowdhury’s Allegations Against Modi
Either Chowdhury has forgotten the rules of procedure or is apathetic to them. An interjection to a point made by another MP can be assertive, yet dignified. Her laughter showed her sense of entitlement.
Chowdhury should have apologised immediately for laughing during the functioning of the Upper House. On the contrary, she defended her act by saying, “He has once made a long speech against the Aadhaar card publicly. Now he is saying that Aadhaar was conceptualised when Advani ji was there. This shocking claim made me laugh. He passed a personal comment against me. Denigrating a status of a woman is a crime. It is now established beyond doubt that BJP is against women. How can a prime minister speak like this? This shows his culture. I can't go to that extent."
Congress’ Legacy of Parliamentary Conduct
Of course, calling her a character from the Ramayana was equally unbecoming of the Prime Minister, but can we reflect on what led him to make that comment?
One must also ask Chowdhury: have we been taught to make fun of someone’s point of view with laughter laden with sarcasm?
In 1963, when Congress was in power under Nehru, five MPs created disorder while the then President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was addressing both Houses in a joint session. The following day, a committee was constituted by the Speaker to report any disorderly behaviour by MPs. The committee recommended suspension from the service of the House for a period of up to three years.
As part of that discussion, it was Nehru who pointed out, “The sole question before us is – it is a highly important one and vital one – what rules and conventions we should establish for carrying out the work of this Parliament with dignity and effectiveness. Parliament is supposed to not only act correctly, but lay down certain principles and conventions of decorous behaviour.”
Therefore, Renuka Chowdhury must be condemned for interrupting serious business hours of Parliament.
If Chowdhury ought to file a privilege motion against the Prime Minister for his disrespectful remarks, shouldn’t her laughter during Parliament proceedings also invoke a privilege motion against her?
(The writer is a former TV journalist and a full-time communications professional. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
