Tuesday, 28 February 2017

SIDELIGHTS : : Ignorance is not so damnable as humbug, but when it prescribes pills it may happen to do more harm.—GEORGE ELIOT.

SWATANTRA—SEPTEMBER 20, 1947


WHEN Dr. T. S. S. Rajan moved in the Assembly on Monday that the food situation be taken into consideration, Mr. B. S. Murthi said “I request that the Prime Minister be present.” The speaker said “The leader of the House (Dr. Subbaroyan) is here.” Mr. Murthi repeated “I want the Prime Minister to be here.” Dr. Subbaroyan said that the Minister in charge of Food would be able to cope with the situation.

*               *          *

Nobody ever said or could have thought that in situations which the Food Minister could not cope with, the Prime Minister is the one to be looked up to. Was it because the Constituent Assembly could not cope with its work that a regular contingent of Madras Ministers rushed to Delhi abandoning the province to its fate in the midst of a daily worsening famine crisis? No other province has contributed so many Ministers to the benches of the Constituent Assembly as ours, and no provincial Ministry made such little mark there as the Omandurians did. The story is told of one of the members of the Assembly, of how when a committee discussion was going on as to whether the Centre or the Provinces should have the residuary powers, he coped with the situation by suggestion “By why not divide them on some equitable basis?” Guess who.

*               *          *

It is scarcely likely that any demand for the presence of a Prime Minister like Churchill would have emanated from any member of Parliament in the war period. It would have been assumed that he was unavoidably detained by urgent indispensable work elsewhere, and due respect would have been paid to the multifariousness of function of a strenuous office making simultaneous demands on the holder’s time and energy. At less momentous times Parliament did insist on the presence of absentee Ministers. And speakers have been known to uphold the view that it was the right of legislators to be listened to directly instead of by proxy by the Ministers and it was the duty of the Ministers to give personal attention to the criticisms made on the floor of the House about the administration of their respective departments.

*               *          *

The Russian delegate at the UNO is reported never to have been absent from any of its sessions even for a single minute. Sri Prakasam while Premier set up a very high standard in the matter of attendance in the legislature. He attended each day of each session punctual to the minute and stayed to the end of business every day, allowing himself no respite whatsoever. Only on very rare occasions was C.R. in legislature. Legislators including Ministers are paid for with public funds to attend sessions of the legislature and bestow their judgments on the topics coming up there, and evasion of attendance is a lapse from the strict code of rectitude. It is like being paid for a work and shirking it.

*               *          *


When Dr. Subbaroyan said that the Food Minister “could cope with the situation even in the absence of the Prime Minister,” the implication conveyed is, apparently, that the Prime Minister is a tremendous parliamentary force held in reserve, to be called in only when other ministerial resources are taxed to the utmost and found inadequate to meet the situation. Why should anybody insult public intelligence by indulging in fictitious make-believes of this sort that can deceive nobody? The plain truth of the matter is that in the Prime Minister we have one whom it is hopeless to bolster up as an able parliamentarian.—(September 20, 1947) S A K A.

No comments:

Post a Comment