In an age of WhatsApp videos, YouTube feeds, reels on Instagram and visual tweets (sorry, X), interventions made by MPs on the floor of Parliament spread very quickly. So why do Members of Parliament get outraged when words they use inside the House are \u201cexpunged\u201d from the records? Reason: Once removed (expunged), they don\u2019t remain part of the parliamentary proceedings. That\u2019s the big issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Muzzling the Opposition: Rules 261 and 380 of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, respectively, provide for the expunction of \u201cdefamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified\u201d content. In the last few years, the rule has been often blatantly used to expunge content that is inconvenient or uncomfortable or offensive to the ruling dispensation. This strategy of the Union government of trying to muzzle the Opposition by deleting records reminds me of a \u201960s Asha Bhosle song, \u201cParde mein rehne do, parda na uthao, parda jo uth gaya toh bhed khul jaega\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Recent instances of expunction: Let me share a few examples from recent parliamentary proceedings to make the point. On July 20, 2023, this columnist asked the Prime Minister to speak about the situation in Manipur<\/strong>. Nothing more, nothing less. Expunged. I\u2019m leaving it to the judgement of the reader to decide what was unparliamentary about the statement. Any parliamentary intern would know that for every 10 phrases expunged from the records, nine are from those used by members of the Opposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What do Mallikarjun Kharge, Rahul Gandhi and Jairam Ramesh of Congress, Mahua Moitra and Santanu Sen of Trinamool Congress, Bhagwant Mann, who was then still an MP, and Sanjay Singh of Aam Aadmi Party, John Brittas and MB Rajesh of CPI -M, Binoy Viswam of CPI, Vaiko of MDMK, and Sanjay Raut of Shiv Sena have in common? They have all had parts of their speeches expunged in recent years. Some of them for allegations in the context of investment research firm Hindenburg Research\u2019s report on the Adani Group<\/strong>. Some, for using words like \u201ccensorship\u201d and \u201cemergency\u201d. Others for questioning the veracity of the Prime Minister\u2019s comments, or remarks about Opposition members not being given a fair chance to express themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Observations about the External Affairs Minister\u2019s visit to Sri Lanka, comments about the role of the RSS in the freedom struggle, the wide discretion given to the police under the Criminal Procedure Bill, questions about inaction during the Delhi riots, suggestions on ensuring subsidies to farmers and making adjustments to the Budget, are a few other instances where remarks by MPs have been expunged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There have been multiple instances where members are not even given notice of any expunction from their speech, and the opportunity to respond to it. It was CPI(M) General Secretary and former MP Sitaram Yechury who once questioned why an important part of his speech was expunged: \u201cIs it only because I used words critical of the ruling party?\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unparliamentary Words: A list of unparliamentary words was released as early as 1952. It contained around 163 words. Since they were listed alphabetically, the first word was \u201camusement\u201d (maybe you can figure out why this is unparliamentary. I have no clue!). Last year, the Lok Sabha Secretariat issued a booklet of unparliamentary words and expressions which ran into about 50 pages. This list included commonly used words such as ashamed, abused, betrayed, corrupt, drama, hypocrisy and incompetent. Some were as benign as foolish, fudge, or lollypop. A close perusal of the abovementioned list makes it apparent that the recent additions include words and phrases that have been explicitly used in recent years by members of the Opposition to describe the Union government. The power to expunge speeches is too broad, and has been often used to mute legitimate criticism of the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Parliament belongs to the Opposition: Last year, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat published \u2018Role of the Leader of the House, Leader of the Opposition and Whips\u2019. It quotes the 1969 book Cabinet Government: \u201cAttacks upon the government and individual ministers are the functions of the Opposition. The duty of the Opposition is to oppose. That duty is the major check upon corruption and defective administration. It is also the means by which individual injustices are prevented. This duty is hardly less important than that of the government.\u201d We might do well to remember B R Ambedkar\u2019s words in the Constituent Assembly debates where he said Parliament belongs to the Opposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n PS: Since 1956, the word \u201cGodse\u201d has been banned in Parliament. Curiously, the word was reinstated in 2015. The reason? Hemant Tukaram Godse, a Shiv Sena MP from Nashik, had contended that his surname being struck off the records was unfair. The Chair passed an order in Lok Sabha that \u201cThe name \u2018Godse\u2019 as a surname per se cannot be said to be unparliamentary. Only in reference to \u2018Nathuram Godse\u2019 would it be so\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n