|
New Delhi:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s appeal notwithstanding, an angry
opposition Tuesday stalled parliament demanding a discussion on
price rise under rules that entail voting but the government refused
to yield.
The issue forced two adjournments each of the Lok Sabha and the
Rajya Sabha, the second ones for the day.
If
the demand in the Lok Sabha was for a discussion under an
adjournment motion, the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, where the
issue was listed for a short duration discussion, wanted it to be
held under rules 167 and 168.
While a discussion under an adjournment motion only requires voting,
that under rules 167 and 168 requires both voting and the sense of
the house to be recorded.
The
government tried to sidestep the issue in the Lok Sabha, saying that
a discussion should first be held on President Pratibha Patil’s
address to a joint session of parliament Monday. It also sought to
shift the onus for rising prices to the state governments, agitating
the opposition even more.
In
the Rajya Sabha, where the Left, the Samajwadi Party and the
Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),
Chairman Hamid Ansari and Deputy Chairman K. Rahman Khan repeatedly
pointed out that a short duration discussion on rising prices had
been agreed to. But this fell on deaf ears with the opposition
demanding that the issue be discussed as a “substantial motion”.
With
both houses of parliament adjourning for the day, an angry Congress
spokesperson Manish Tewari accused the opposition of trying to score
brownie points.
“In
December, where was discussion in parliament on inflation, how many
MPs were present?” he asked reporters later.
Manmohan Singh had Monday appealed to the opposition not to disrupt
parliamentary proceedings, saying the government was ready to
“discuss and debate all issues on the floor of the house”.
In
the Lok Sabha, the issue of rising prices was raised by
newly-installed Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj (BJP) soon after
the house assembled.
“I
am sorry but the people are suffering. We want discussion on top
priority basis. All the businesses should be delayed. The price rise
is the most important issue,” Swaraj said, adding: “Please accept my
adjournment motion. We will allow the house to function but price
rise should be discussed first.”
Other opposition members, too, joined in, shouting slogans against
the government and forcing Speaker Meira Kumar to adjourn the house
till noon.
When
the house reassembled, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar
Bansal said the government was prepared for a detailed discussion,
“but according to parliamentary convention, the motion of thanks for
the president’s address should be discussed first”.
He
said an adjournment motion could be accepted only on “emergency
matters”.
With
the entire opposition joining the protest, the minister could not
complete his statement and the speaker adjourned the house for the
day.
There was similar chaos in the Rajya Sabha.
Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley (BJP) raised the issue when the
house assembled at 11 a.m., saying: “We have served two notices, one
for suspending question hour and the other for a discussion on
rising prices under rules 167 and 168.”
As
the entire opposition raised slogans against the government, Jaitley
said: “We want the broad sense of the house to be recorded. It is an
issue that concerns the common people.”
Sitaram Yechury of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M)
supported him.
“The
ruling benches will appreciate why we are agitated. We had yesterday
agreed to a short duration discussion but today feel that the issue
should be discussed under a substantial motion.”
This
prompted Chairman Ansari to remark that “there was consensus on
discussion but not on the procedure”.
Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Prithviraj Chavan then
attempted to make a statement but was shouted down as the opposition
continued its protests, forcing Ansari to adjourn the house till
noon.
With
the protests continuing when Rajya Sabha reassembled, Deputy
Chairman Rahman Khan adjourned the house for the day.
|
'Judiciary in India seemingly working beyond its constitutional
limits':
“Of late, some judgments
pronounced by various courts
Muslim appeasement is a myth: Prof. Oommen: 
Government committed to overhaul
education infrastructure: Patil: 
'Inter-faith dialogue necessary amidst clash of civilisation debate': 
Bureaucrats in Gujarat working like BJP workers, says Ahmad Patel: 
Comment on this article