Published: February 3, 2012
LAHORE: In its founding days, God knows what was in the minds of creators of the British Parliament at the time of drawing red lines between the treasury and the opposition, but it is clear that they never wanted a brawl between the two sides.
In the British Parliament these red lines in front of the two sets of benches, used by members to sit during debates and House business, are two sword-lengths or slightly further apart and the members from both sides are traditionally not allowed to cross the line during debates. The precaution was purely because the honourable legislator might not be able to attack his colleague sitting on the other side of the House. Keep in mind it was the time when the ‘honourable Lords’ and the ‘valuable commoners’ were allowed to carry weapons into the House.
The tradition is still alive though only two incidents in the recent past took place in the House of Commons — in 1972, during a dispute over the conduct of British soldiers on ‘Bloody Sunday’, independent Socialist MP Bernadette Devlin punched Conservative Party Home Secretary Reginald Maudling. Her aggression was in response to comments made by Maudling, who was maintaining that the British Army had fired at Bloody Sunday protesters in self-defence, contrary to the testimonies of civilian eyewitnesses (including Devlin herself). The other incedent took place in 1976 in the aftermath of a rancorous debate with Labour MPs over the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. Conservative MP Michael Heseltine was enraged by a group who began singing “The Red Flag”. He seized the chamber’s ceremonial mace and brandished it over his head, but was restrained by Jim Prior, and after his departure legislative action was suspended for the day.
The history of the British Parliament has no more evidence of any pandemonium but the safety measure is still there. It is also an undeniable truth that scuffles between legislators with different political affiliations on the floor of assemblies during proceedings is something strange and unexpected and can be witnessed even in the most productive parliaments, but most of the times it is issue based. Remarks by colleagues fly across the aisle and heat up the atmosphere of the legislature. In many legislatures, incidents of members jumping from their seats and on to their opponents, and even exchanging blows have also been observed. Certainly those legislatures have no red lines marked in front of them.
However, in the case of the Punjab Assembly the situation is different, as the opposition has only one agenda for the past week — bringing the chief minister in the house. This was the demand of the opposition on Tuesday and such insistence was the ‘word of the day’ on Friday by the honourable leader of the opposition in the Punjab Assembly Raja Riaz Ahmad Khan.
The demand might not be unreasonable if made sensibly, but the modus operandi of the opposition — the House would not work until the Chief Minister was in the House – left a lot to be desired.
“We want to discuss the catastrophe of Punjab Institute of Cardiology (PIC) and the killings of innocent patients. Bring him (chief minister) in the House,” Raja Riaz asserted. He left his seat availing his right of ‘point of order’, challenged the treasury and started criticising the chief executive of the province. The situation led to members sitting across the political divide in the House to lose their cool and both sides almost came to blows.
The opposition ladies, especially Samina Khawar Hayat, started shouting slogans which were responded to by the treasury benches. The speaker’s attempt to pacify the two groups only added fuel to the fire, as many MPAs from both sides intensified their efforts to grill the other’s leadership. Owing to the ruckus, the speaker was left with no option but to adjourn the House for 10 minutes and call the parliamentary leaders of all political parties in his chamber to set the agenda or adjourn the House for next day.
The meeting was held and it was decided that the agenda set for the day’s proceedings would be set aside and debate on PIC situation would take place and the chief minister would wind up the discussion on Monday or Tuesday, if the debate lasted that long.
The House proceedings were normal but what the honourable members discussed is a story that cannot be told here. They only recited the horrors and played blame games as no constructive proposal came from any of the five members’ speeches who spoke on Friday. Raja Riaz did not utter even a single word on the issue and rather left the House when members had cooled down.
It is worth mentioning here that this is not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last, as the honourable members would continue this practice until such stories would be reported on front pages of newspapers in bold headlines. But is it not the responsibility of the opposition to make sense in their deliberations or the government to keep the temperature in the House within manageable limits?
Yes! We believe that unparliamentarily expressions have justification in the guise of legislators’ privilege of freedom of expression, without which they cannot effectively discharge their responsibility, but an equally important aspect to this right is the dignity of the House.
What is dignity of the House? — let us read the words of Lord Hardinge uttered in 1909 while speaking at the Indian Legislative Council.
“It is the duty of this council to discuss subjects that are generally complex and sometimes contentious. It would be neither natural nor desirable that these questions should not provoke disagreement amongst us; but I hope and believe that a frank expression of opinions may assist us to understand each other and to appreciate one another’s point of view.
At the same time I trust that our deliberations may be animated by a spirit of mutual concession, and I am confident I may count upon you, gentlemen, to assist me in maintaining the high standard of dignity and courtesy.”
After the passage of 103 years of his address, will the honourable speaker remind his colleague that use of abusive language is against the norms, as the words uttered by a member elected on a Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) ticket and becoming part of Unification Block, Shaikh Alauddin and Samina Khawar Hayat cannot be repeated by any sane person? Mr Speaker! Please tell your colleagues it should not happen again since it is highly unwarranted and undesirable, as the electorates attach high hopes with you.
News Categorization:
Indo-Pak 
