Rajya Sabha
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Nominated members
Questions over absence of Sachin, Rekha in RS| Mar 31 2017 : The Times of India (Delhi)
SP member Naresh Agarwal pointed out, “There are 12 nominated members in RS according to provisions of the Constitution. The council of ministers recommends their names after which President nominates them. These people have been nominated to represent Parliament but we don't see them (in the House).“
2017
Besides Sachin Tendulkar and actress Rekha, other nominated members included Anu Aga, Sambhaji Chhatrapati, Swapan Dasgupta, Roopa Ganguly , Narendra Jadhav, M C Mary Kom, K Parasaran, Gopi Suresh, Subramanian Swamy and KTS Tulsi.
SP member Naresh Agarwal questioned the continued absence of sportspersons and Bollywood stars, nominated to Rajya Sabha, from the House even as he cited the case of Sachin Tendulkar for not being present during the session.
Without taking any name, Agarwal said a Bollywood actress has also not been attending Parliament and had not come to the House during the session. “If they are not interested, shouldn't they resign,“ he asked.
Agarwal had raised the issue through a `point-of-order' when the House met for the day . Deputy chairman P J Kurien said this was not a point of order and Agarwal could use his good offices to convince the nominated members to be present in the House for a few days.
Parliamentary behaviour
Etiquette towards women
Mar 23 2015
Dhananjay Mahapatra
In a BBC documentary on the Nirbhaya case, two advocates forgot lessons from their noble profession and blurted out their obscurantist views on women.Civil society roundly condemned them. Women lawyers have moved the Supreme Court seeking appropriate punishment for them. The controversy had hardly died down when JD(U) president Sharad Yadav, in Rajya Sabha, spoke in a derogatory tone about south Indian women. As a member of the House of Elders, a known Lohia follower and a lawmaker, a responsibility was cast on him not to lower the dignity of women. Only he can answer why he made the anti-women statement during a an insurance bill discussion. His comments were in no way an insurance to maintaining dignity of women in the country . It evoked protests from DMK MP Kanimozhi.She was made to sit down by House members , who were cackling at Yadav's ludicrous description of south Indian women. Yadav did not realize the gravity of his utterance and repeated it the next day in the House.
This time, HRD minister Smriti Irani stood up and lodged a strong protest. Yadav challenged her to a debate, reiterating that he had not said anything wrong. This meant he believed in the correctness of his pathetic comments.When Irani reminded him about the harm his comments were causing to women's dignity in general, an unrepentant Yadav mockingly told her “I know what you are.“
He actually meant to tell her “you know who I am“ and silence her with his political weight. Absence of support from the “el ders“, which included Irani's colleagues in the Cabinet, emboldened him to challenge her in an unpleasant way . Did he not deserve to be censured by the House of Elders, members of which are regarded as the Parliament's conscience keepers ? Can there be two standards one for commoners and another for MPs when it comes to censuring one for derogatory comments on women? Only after finance minister Arun Jaitley sought a clarification two days later did Yadav express “regret“ without tendering an apology . Yadav had recently taken the lead in gathering signatures of MPs in RS to move a motion for removal of a MP HC judge for alleged sexual harassment of a judicial officer. Forgetting that act of his, he spoke in a crude manner on women in Parliament.
Did he understand that his comments made a huge dent in his standing as an MP? Did RS members realize their complicit reaction to Yadav's comments dented the dignity of women as a whole? There cannot be two standards when it comes to punishing people who make public assault on dignity of women through their utterances. If civil society condemned the two advocates, the House of Elders should have taken appropriate action against Yadav to assure women that it will not tolerate any misdemeanour against them.Similar double standards was shown by Maharashtra when it banned dance bars. It had told the SC that similar dance performances in exclusive, high-society clubs would not evoke sexual arousal of male audience as opposed to the male audience frequenting the banned establishments meant for lower classes having lesser income at their disposal.
Rejecting the logic, the SC in July 2013 in Maharashtra vs Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association case had ridiculed the Maharashtra government and said, “How is it possible that enjoyment of same kind of entertainment by the upper classes leads only to mere enjoyment and in the case of poor classes, it would lead to immorality, decadence and depravity? Morality and depravity cannot be pigeon-holed by degrees depending upon the classes of audience.“
In a country governed by rule of law, we cannot allow pigeon-holing of our reaction for the same offence. The two lawyers are facing showcause notice from Bar Council of India. The outcome of proceedings could result in cancellation of licences. Why can't similar action be initiated against Yadav? If Yadav can take a lead in stalling the proposed legislation on land acquisition, he should also know the art of stalling his tongue when it is about to give away his bias against women. Moreover, as a lawmaker, he would have surely read the SC's January 1999 judgment in Apparel Export Promotion Council case.The SC had referred to the Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 1979 and the Beijing Declaration. The court had said, “These international instruments cast an obligation on the Indian state to gender sensitize its laws and the courts are under an obligation to see that the message of international instruments is not allowed to be drowned.“ Though Parliament had commenced gender sensitization of the laws, it must begin a similar exercise for the MPs.
2016, party positions
See graphic
