No confidence is no answer. But onus is on Speaker to earn trust of MPs, especially in Opposition

With Opposition MPs giving notice for a no-confidence motion against Speaker Om Birla on Tuesday, the question is: Is this an answer? In a climate of polarisation, amid repeated adjournments of the House, the Opposition has a set of grievances that are legitimate. Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi was not allowed to complete his speech on the motion of thanks on the President’s address, the rulebook was waved to silence him when he tried to read out from the unpublished memoirs of a former Army chief. Nor was this an isolated instance — even earlier, rules have been interpreted to discourage debate, rather than encourage it. This was followed by the Speaker suspending eight Opposition MPs for the rest of the session, even as he let BJP MPs get away with similar conduct. And then, Speaker Birla said he had advised the Prime Minister against attending the Lok Sabha because of “credible information” that Congress MPs would create an “unprecedented incident” after reaching the PM’s seat — this, even by the standards of the current political exchange, stretched credulity. So yes, the Speaker’s conduct has invited criticism. But no, a no-confidence motion is not a prudent response to it.

The no-confidence motion against the Speaker is an instrument sparingly used — only thrice so far in post-Independence parliamentary history, and it did not succeed in unseating the Speaker even once. No-confidence motions were more recently moved in the Rajya Sabha against Deputy Chairman Harivansh and Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, but both notices were rejected. Of course, the numbers game favours the ruling party. But a no-confidence motion against the presiding officer is not an answer also because it signals a breakdown, leaves no room for manoeuvre for both sides. In the current situation, the Opposition faces a government nearly two years into its third term, more than three years remaining. Having ratcheted up the pitch, it needs to ask where it can go from here.

Has it done its own work in the House, has it used its space in Parliament effectively and wisely, coordinating with allies and presenting a united front? If it finds its voice stifled, if it finds that less and less legislation is being debated or being sent to standing committees for scrutiny, it needs to find a way out politically. Walking out or name-calling is no substitute for strategy. As for the Speaker, the onus is on him — and his office — to earn the confidence of those in the Opposition benches, motion or no motion.