Congress presses for debate on no-confidence motion; govt ‘10-day window’ remark

Congress presses for debate on no-confidence motion; govt ‘10-day window’ remark

During a session in the Indian Parliament, there was a heated exchange between BJP MPs and opposition lawmakers. The BJP Members of Parliament (MPs) expressed their disapproval of the disruption caused by the opposition lawmakers during the External Affairs Minister’s statement on India’s foreign policy developments. The opposition MPs’ ruckus seemingly interfered with the smooth conduct of the proceedings.

In response to the disruption, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs raised objections and made it clear that they would not permit Congress’s leader in the Lok Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, to speak in the House. The incident reflects the prevailing tensions and disagreements between the ruling party and the opposition, which can occasionally lead to confrontations and disruptions during parliamentary sessions.

Such instances of parliamentary uproar are not uncommon in democratic settings, where differing viewpoints and ideological clashes can give rise to contentious debates and disruptions in legislative proceedings. The situation highlights the significance of maintaining decorum and allowing for orderly debates and discussions to ensure the efficient functioning of the legislative body and uphold democratic principles.

During the parliamentary session, when the Chair invited Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, the leader of Congress in the Lok Sabha, to raise a point of order, Union Minister Piyush Goyal intervened and expressed his objection.

Goyal stood up in protest against the disruption caused earlier during the External Affairs Minister’s statement on India’s foreign policy developments. As a form of protest, he stated that he would not allow Chowdhury to speak, emphasizing his displeasure over the disruption of the minister’s statement.

In response to the situation, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury made a comparison to a historical incident in parliamentary proceedings. He mentioned that back in May 1978, when the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, C M Stephen, moved a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government, it was immediately taken up for debate.

By bringing up this historical example, Chowdhury implied that the no-confidence motion against the current Modi government should have also been taken up for debate without delay.

The incident highlights the tense atmosphere and the differences in approaches between the ruling party and the opposition in the Lok Sabha. Parliamentary debates and discussions can often become contentious, and the handling of no-confidence motions can be a subject of debate and disagreement among lawmakers. The incident underscores the complexities of parliamentary proceedings and the diverse perspectives of different political parties within the legislative body.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi addressed the issue of the no-confidence motion against the Modi government, stating that the motion is currently under the consideration of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. He clarified that there is a stipulated 10-day window during which the Speaker can decide to take up the motion for debate.

Joshi further emphasized that the Modi government is confident about its majority in the Lok Sabha, indicating that it has the required numbers to withstand a voting process if the Speaker decides to proceed with the no-confidence motion. This statement reflects the government’s assurance and readiness to face any parliamentary challenge and to defend its position.

The parliamentary process surrounding a no-confidence motion can be complex and requires adherence to established procedures and timelines. The Speaker’s role is crucial in determining the timing and conduct of such debates, ensuring that the proceedings adhere to parliamentary rules and protocols.

The government’s stance and assertion of having the necessary support signify its confidence in maintaining stability and its position in the Lok Sabha. However, the final decision on when the no-confidence motion will be taken up for debate lies with the Speaker, who plays a pivotal role in the parliamentary proceedings and upholding the principles of democracy and fair representation.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi responded to the No Confidence Motion moved by the opposition, clarifying that the motion is currently under the consideration of the Speaker, and there is a 10-day window within which the Speaker can decide to take it up for debate. Joshi asserted that the government is fully prepared and ready to face the debate and voting whenever the Speaker decides.

He expressed confidence in the government’s numbers, highlighting that they have the necessary support to withstand any challenge posed by the motion. Joshi further emphasized that the people trust the government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as evidenced by the strong support they have received.

In a separate incident during the same session, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar provided a comprehensive overview of the foreign engagements of the president, vice-president, and prime minister over the past four months. However, his statement was marred by loud sloganeering from the opposition. At one point, the slogans of “INDIA, INDIA” raised by members made it difficult for the minister’s voice to be heard, causing disruptions during the proceedings.

Such incidents of disruptions and sloganeering during parliamentary sessions are not uncommon in democratic settings, where contrasting opinions and political stances can lead to tense situations and debates. The challenge lies in maintaining decorum and facilitating a conducive environment for orderly discussions and debates, ensuring that the voices of all members are heard without disruptions. The role of the Speaker in managing such situations is crucial to upholding the integrity of parliamentary proceedings and ensuring that important matters are addressed with diligence and respect for parliamentary norms.

“INDIA” is an acronym that stands for the newly formed Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, which includes 26 opposition parties.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar strongly criticized the Opposition’s disruption during his statement in Parliament. He expressed his disapproval by questioning the credibility of the opposition parties claiming to represent “INDIA” while not being open to listening and respecting India’s national interests.

Jaishankar emphasized that if the opposition parties, represented by the acronym “INDIA,” are not willing to consider and respect the nation’s core interests, it raises concerns about their commitment to the welfare and development of the country. He further highlighted the importance of respecting the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and other significant authorities in the government. He also stressed the significance of allowing the External Affairs Minister, as a crucial representative of India’s diplomatic interests, to make a statement in Parliament without disruptions.

The Minister’s remarks reflect the frustration and disappointment with the disruptions that hinder the smooth conduct of parliamentary proceedings. The focus on respecting national interests and allowing open and respectful debates is essential to maintain the integrity of democratic processes and uphold the principles of parliamentary democracy.

In a critical remark directed at the Opposition leaders, Union Minister Piyush Goyal expressed his disappointment with their approach towards India’s foreign policy matters. He described it as unfortunate that the Opposition is choosing to politicize such a crucial and sensitive issue that pertains to India’s interactions and relations with other nations.

Goyal further conveyed his belief that the Opposition might not fully comprehend the progress and advancements that India is making on the global stage, especially in the context of the detailed briefing provided by the Foreign Minister, S Jaishankar, during the parliamentary session. The implication is that the Opposition’s approach might hinder a comprehensive understanding of the government’s efforts and achievements in international affairs.

The Minister’s statement reflects the ongoing political tension and differing perspectives between the ruling party and the Opposition regarding India’s foreign policy stance and engagements with other countries. While it is common for political parties to have varying views and engage in debates, there is a call for a more constructive approach that focuses on the nation’s interests and progress rather than on partisan politics. The aim is to ensure that India’s foreign policy decisions are made with the best interests of the country at heart and that there is a collaborative effort to strengthen India’s global position and influence.