Unfortunately, death does not seem to leave the living alone. Some even claim that the politics of martyrdom is way past its expiry date and should have no place in modern, superpower-aspirant India.
The demise of Indian Union Muslim League leader E Ahamed after he suffered cardiac arrest during the President’s address to both the Sabhas of Parliament January 31 was sad. And it was more unfortunate that the House could not pay respect to the departed soul in the customary manner — by adjourning the Lok Sabha for the day — and that the Union Budget-2017-’18 was forcibly presented as scheduled.
The way the House went about its business betrayed political malfeasance and it seemed to be a forced exercise when faced with a choice between so-called national interest and a matter of healthy parliamentary tradition.
Ahamed was a distinguished politician who had held fairly important portfolios such as minister of state for external affairs. He was one of the ministers from Kerala to have held a portfolio of note in the central government.
Leaders who raised the demand for adjournment of the House to pay tribute to the departed soul were correct in doing so as the constituency Ahamed represented would have favoured it. Not only his own constituents but in general Ahamed, who was well known as a crusader against radicalism among Moslems in Kerala, would have had his stand vindicated had the Parliament kept up its own tradition.
Sadly, it was pointless to expect this present day dispensation to have rescheduled the presentation of budget for paying homage to the deceased Member just because custom was to be maintained.
In today’s atmosphere, political-administrative-judicial and the common citizen all seem hell-bent on breaking down every single tradition, custom and rules or laws. This ingrained trait in the Indian character does not seem to bode well for the future of a large nation that cannot and should not be controlled by some individuals’ whims.
While the government need not be harshly criticised for sticking with the newly decided schedule of the budget, it cannot also be spared for ignoring to make alternative arrangements to pay due respect to a deceased Member of Parliament.
One possibility suggested in some reports was that the Speaker could have adjourned the Lok Sabha and the budget could have been presented in the Rajya Sabha instead. Churlish attempts were also apparently being made to cite precedents for the government’s action.
Sections of the media have reported two instances from the past in which the governments apparently went ahead with the presentation of the budget following the death of ‘sitting MPs’; one case cited was that of MB Rana and the other of Jujhar Pal Sorein. In either case the dates cited in the reports do not correspond with dates of either the Union Budget or the Railway Budget.
What however was worrisome and certainly deplorable was the coerced behaviour and actions of the staff and doctors at Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) hospital of New Delhi. When the body was carried to the hospital from the Parliament, the doctors checked and were about to issue a ‘received dead’ statement.
A powerful Minister of State of the Union cabinet rushed to RML and ordered the doctors to take the body into a special room and instructed no one was to be allowed to enter. Bouncers, instead of the Police, were immediately summoned to guard that particular room. When the daughter and son in law (both doctors) of Ahamed arrived at Delhi, proceeded to the hospital and wanted to see their father, they too were stopped from entering.
The drama continued till well past midnight with the arrival of various non-BJP leaders who condemned the manner in which the government was showing utter disrespect to the body of a senior MP.
When finally the family did manage to see the body, they claimed it was bloated and disfigured beyond recognition primarily because instead of life support systems, it was being pumped air at high pressure to make the chest heave.
This was intended to show to any onlooker that Ahamed was still alive and therefore there was no need to adjourn the House the next day, 01 February 2017.
Such actions will only muddy the water further. While it is clear that there never was a precedent of the government postponing the budget following the demise of a sitting MP, there is also no doubt that the House was always adjourned immediately after verified information that an MP had died reached Parliament.
The House was, of course, adjourned for a day on 02 February and the notice was read out after the completion of the reading of the budget. In other cases such as the demise of Union minister Gopinath Munde, the first day’s sitting of the Lok Sabha was adjourned for the day June 4, 2014, after paying homage to Munde.
It has been the custom to adjourn the concerned House whenever a sitting MP dies. At times, House has shut half way through its deliberations due to the death of a current Member.
Now it seems, tradition and customs may only be followed if they are found convenient and adhere to the scheme of things planned and devised by those in power.
