Parliament and Legislatures constitute the head and front of the body-politic in India. They are the institutional embodiment of the audacious experiment in democracy launched by the founding fathers of our Republic. Though British in origin they had their roots in India's ancient Panchayat system, as Gandhiji pointed out, and today they have become established Indian institutions with character and dynamics of their own. There is no precedent in history in which a nation of such colossal size, complexity and population adopted the Parliamentary form of government and used democratic methods and processes for the development of a country of such stark poverty, illiteracy and ill-health and historical economic stagnation. We have made steady and substantial progress in this endeavour without sacrificing the freedoms of our people and imposing on them intolerable hardships. But much more need to be done in consolidating and extending democracy and in resolving some of the major problems. "However theoretically good", Jawaharlal Nehru once said of Parliamentary democracy, "it has to answer the questions put to it by the age. If it answers the questions, it is well-established." In the present age when both India and the world have changed and are changing, new questions are being put to it on the top of the old ones and the system has got to address them if it is to succeed.
 
In order to meet this critical challenge Parliamentary institutions have to be strengthened and have to adapt themselves creatively to new conditions and tasks. The first pre-requisite for this is to ensure their unobstructed, smooth and efficient functioning. If the Parliament and the Legislatures are perpetually assailed by disorders and disturbances they will not be able to function, not to speak of address the questions put to it by the age. Therefore, to obstruct their functioning and to besmirch their image is to jeopardize the future of the democratic system itself. A heavy responsibility thus rests upon the elected representatives, the government and the political parties to make the presiding institution in our political system function smoothly, purposively and with dignity and decorum. That is not to say that the Parliament and these Legislatures should be reduced to tame and boring bodies, though even in the din and noise that often prevail there today they manage somehow to bring about sufficiently long periods of boredom also. A Legislature ought to be an exciting place reverberating with debates and arguments and scintillating with wit and humour. It is a forum for the play of what Winston Churchill once called "the wild freedoms of democracy." But the wildest of democratic freedoms envisaged by Churchill did not include the type of disorders and disturbances that rock Parliaments today.
 
I am not one of those who believe that the current phenomenon of disorders and disturbances in Legislatures is going to be a permanent thing or such as to subvert the Parliamentary system. They are like the infantile disorders or the measles of the middle-aged. They are bound to pass, but pass they must, otherwise the system will be in mortal danger. It is necessary that all those involved in the working and maintenance of the Parliamentary system -- the Government, the Opposition and the political parties and groups both at the Centre and in the States -- work together to contain this disturbing phenomenon within limits.
 
It has been said such disturbances are not peculiar to India but are a world phenomenon. I recall that in the Australian Parliament the leader of the opposition threw a glass filled with water at the Prime Minister sitting on the Treasury bench. In the same House the Speaker once collapsed on the floor and breathed his last under these stress of an all-night troubled debate. In the Japanese Diet free-for-all fist fights had sometimes taken place and the police had to be called in. In the early fifties I remember that the Speaker of japan's House of Representatives threw a large reception to which the diplomatic corps was invited; the first item in the entertainment was the demonstration of sumo wrestling by the Speaker himself, presumably to impress the members of the Diet present. The French Chamber of Deputies is reputed for uproarious scenes, and in the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, disorders and disturbances have become frequent during the last decade.
 
To say that this is a world phenomenon bring neither credit nor consolation for us in regard to increasingly disorderly behaviour in our Legislatures. We take pride in being an old civilization and culture. The elected representatives of our people are expected to maintain certain standards of courtesy and behavior. Besides, though our democracy is an established system, it still needs nurturing in order to ensure the unity and progress of our 850 million people. While fissiparious forces have torn apart several monolithic States in the recent past, our nation with all its diversities and differences has cohered, partly, because of the vent our democratic structure has provided for airing the grievances and demands of the people, and satisfying their urge for self-expression. Every Member of Parliament and Legislature ought to bear in mind the over-riding obligation to preserve this precious heritage, when he rises to disturb the proceedings of the House.
 
The argument has been advanced that, when there is unrest in society, sometimes bordering on violent outbreaks, whether it would be realistic to isolate the Legislatures entirely from such developments? It is unavoidable for the Legislatures to reflect the mood of the people, but then as elected representatives they must not only reflect the mood, but also mould it giving a lead to the thinking and activities of the people in the right direction. As Walter Lippman, one of the perceptive thinkers of a foregone generation has said: "Those in high places are more than administrators of government bureaus. They are more than the writers of laws. They are the custodians of a nation's ideals, of the beliefs it cherishes, of its permanent hopes, of the faith which make a nation out of a mere aggregation of individuals." Every Parliamentarian and legislator I believe is a custodian of the nation's ideals, hopes and faith. This is clear to anyone who has observed the fervent hopes and the pathetic faith the ordinary masses repose in their would be representatives during election time. It is a hope and trust that transcends mere demands for doing things for the constituency. In the final analysis it is the craving for a better future, and for law and order and security in society. If there is disorder in our society today it is, at bottom, "a divine rage for order". The proper way to voice this "divine rage" of the people is not through riotous and rowdy behaviour in the Legislatures by people's representatives. It is through constructive, persuasive and passionate advocacy of people's demands and expectations, and not by shouting, making discourteous remarks, throwing shoes, or doing dharna or satyagraha in the well of the Houses.
 
This Conference is the first one called in the last 45 years to discuss the issue of disorders and disturbances inside the Parliament and the Legislatures. That is a compliment to the Parliamentarians of earlier years. But today the problem has become acute, if not intolerable. Even such solemn occasions like the President's and Governor's address have been rudely disturbed. The telecast of even the more peaceful hour, the Question House, conveys the image of an unruly and rumbustious forum. A wise and experienced Member of Parliament is said to have remarked: "For heaven's sake do not expose our children to the Question House in Parliament." A cartoon in a newspaper showed a TV announcer saying: "No news from Parliament today as nothing could be heard in the din." One very irritating habit is that of members indulging in almost running interjections during the speech being made by another Member. Prolonged riotous scenes frequently paralyse the functioning of the House. The Presiding Officer's rulings are often ignored and on occasions even his physical security is threatened. A House of Commons Committee has stated"...we consider the authority of the Chair to be paramount, since from it flows all other conditions necessary for orderly debate and the efficient despatch of business." It is of supreme importance in our Legislatures that the authority and dignity of the Chair is respected and upheld. At the same time, the Presiding Officers have got to be sensitive to the aspirations of the Members and make the fairness and impartiality of their attitude demonstrable to the members as well as the House at large. However, in cases of incorrigible erring on the part of members he has to have recourse to one or other of the weapons available in his disciplinary armoury.
         
In most cases, disorders in the House arise out of a sense of frustration felt by Members due to lack of opportunities to make his point, or clear his chest of grievances of the people that move him or out of the heat of the movement. They are perhaps easier to deal with. What is more difficult to tackle is planned Parliamentary offences and deliberate disturbances for publicity or for political motives. Even more serious are disturbances caused by decision taken by political parties to disrupt the functions of the House to get a demand conceded by the Government or to ignite or support some political movement outside the Parliament or the Legislature. The Presiding Officer or the Government as the case may be will have to take a firm stand or make a concession to tackle often a judicious gesture made by the Government to the Opposition at the right moment could defuse the situation. But that is within the realm of discretion and leadership of the Presiding Officer or the Government. Lloyd George once said: "the House is the sounding board of the nation; it both speaks for, and speak to the nation. It is the ideal instrument for the Government to expound its policies and objectives. But it is not a forum to be steam-rollered by its brute majority. Taking the House into confidence, when there are no compelling reasons of State for not doing so, is the best way of promoting good relations between Government and the Opposition. As for the members, it is certainly not through deafening din and noise that their messages can be transmitted to the people.
 
The responsibility for the orderly functioning of the House rests on all its three constituents, namely the members, the Ministers and the Presiding Officer. Rules of procedure are there not to dampen the spirits of the members but to help them to raise matters in an orderly fashion. By violating the rules no one benefits. In exceptional circumstances when the members are truly agitated by an event or an issue the Presiding Officer, leaders of Political parties and groups, and party whips can all sit together and explore ways of finding a solution. Indeed this is the most effective method of dealing with all serious Parliamentary problems.
 
I have earlier pointed out that often the reason for disorder and disruption in the house is that the members feel frustrated by the absence of opportunities for them in participating in discussion and debates. The Speaker can overcome this lacunae to some extent. Some kind of Parliamentary reforms also may be needed. The recently proposed Standing Committees of the Parliament would also give opportunities to Members for participation and self-expression. But the Committee cannot be a substitute for the well-publicised and full-fledged drama of a Parliamentary debate. For participating intelligently in Committee discussions or in debates in the House the average Member has to be given a lot of help. Research assistance is and secretarial assistance is a must, if Members are to fulfill their Parliamentary responsibilities. The sense of frustration with regard to Parliamentary participation can be overcome to some extent, if such facilities together with meaningful orientation courses by senior Members are progideed. It is the absence of a sense of involvement and participation in the parliamentary process that is largely responsible for disorderly behaviour in the House.

There are perhaps deeper reasons behind the phenomenon of disorders and disturbances in Parliament and the Legislatures. There is some kind of a revolt against tradition in our country, as in the rest of the world, even in the midst of revivalist exuberance. There is distemper in society peculiar to a period of change. There is also a new materialistic appetite affecting the educated and the entrepreneurial classes and filtering down to the rural masses. Perhaps as an offshoot of this, some sort of "hoodlum politics", to borrow a phrase used by the veteran Parliamentarian Shri Hiren Mukjherjee, is emerging at the periphery of our political system. Thus disorderly behaviour is acquiring bit a heroic aura assisted by the attention given to it by the media. What attracts publicity are not the serious speeches made in the House, but the unparliamentary remarks and disorderly activities of the Members.

The publicity that is given to and the fuss that is made of personages who have acquired notoriety and possess trouble-making capacity is a little surprising in a society that has always attached importance to certain basic values and virtues. However, I believe that the ordinary people in this country hold on to certain values and norms. Without advocating telecast of all the proceedings of the House, I may say that it might be good if the conduct of the Members is exposed to the full view of the constituents whom they represent. I am aware that this has to be done gradually and judiciously. Ultimately, only the opinion of the people can check the undesirable behaviour of their representatives. I may also add that, in the final analysis only, the good sense of the members themselves will rid the House of disorders and disturbances. Another angle from which the problem can be tackled is the process of selection of candidates for elections by the political parties. There is no reason why the parties should not pay greater attention to qualities and qualifications in the choice of candidates. The quality and the performance of the Parliament or the Legislature lie in the human stuff of which it is made.
 
In any society or institution courtesy and rules of behaviour are of paramount importance. A great sociologist has said that "an increasing degree of national unity is maintained not by call of blood and land, but by vague, intermittent and routine allegiances to a civil State supported by governmental use of police power and ideological exhortation." Neither police power nor ideology is enough to cement national unity; they are only supports to "the vague, intermittent and routine allegiances to a civil State." Routine allegiances to the Constitution, to the Head of the State, to Parliament, to the judiciary, to the Presiding Officers of Parliament and the Legislatures, to the national flag and the national anthem are among the intangible loyalties that unite an aggregate of individuals into a nation. I should, therefore, like to assert that respecting Parliament is an important intangible that contributes to the sustaining of our nation. And enabling the smooth and unobstructed functioning of the Parliament and the Legislatures, upholding the authority and the dignity of the Presiding Officers, and acknowledging the Members as representatives of the sovereign people, are essential for the cohesion of our body-politic and the functioning of our political system.
 
I have great pleasure in inaugurating the Conference, and I wish you all success in your deliberations.