The two bills, – the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) bill, 2020 and the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020 – were passed by the Lok Sabha on 17th September 2020. These bills were introduced in the Rajya Sabha on the 20th. After the debate, the bills were going to be put to vote. The standard procedure is to have a motion to move the bill into a select committee for further scrutiny. If a majority of people are against moving the bill into a select committee, the bill is then put to vote for passing.
K. K. Ragesh of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Derek O’Brien of the Trinamool Congress and Tiruchi Siva of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam moved motions to send the bill to a select committee.
Deputy Chairman Harivansh Narayan Singh put the motions to vote. He called for a voice-vote after which he declared that 'The Noes have it. The Noes have it...' (Meaning the bill would not be sent to a select committee). A voice-vote cannot be counted very accurately. Specially in this particular session because many members are made to sit in different houses due to the Coronavirus. It is generally used only as a formality when it is clear which side has a majority. If there is a consensus that the voice-vote is final, there may be no division (a division is where they count exactly who supported and who opposed the motion), but even if a single person does not agree, a division must take place.
The opposition wanted a division, but everyone’s mikes were cut off. Even the members moving the resolution were not able to speak (Yes, even the Chairperson can switch off members' mikes). The Dy. Chairman had already declared that the motion was negated, and was moving on to the next step.
It is almost impossible to complain about mismanagement by the chair once something has already been done. Tiruchi Siva tried frantically communicating to the chairman, but could not be heard.
There was no way to communicate while sitting in the chamber. Derek O'Brien went up to the chair trying to explain the rules. He opened the rule-book and showed that there has to be a division since the Dy. Chairman’s opinion was challenged. However, the Dy. Chairman ignored all requests.
After that the opposition started protesting strongly. So many opposition members rushed into the well and were shouting slogans. No one could make out what they were saying. However, soon one could make out what they were saying. They got their act together and started sloganeering the problem more clearly: "We want a division!", they shouted. As long as there was chaos, proceedings were being recorded clearly. But as soon as the opposition started stating their problem clearly, the marshals removed the main mikes from the house.
After that no-one could hear what was being said. The house was later adjourned for 15 minutes.
After 15 minutes, the house reassembled and the bills were passed by voice-vote amidst the opposition protesting.
Why was the chair so desperate not to have a division?
If people are not in their seats, it is difficult to have a division. The chair often gives that as the reason for not having divisions. However, the chairman did not give warning before putting the bills to vote. The members had been protesting because they were not allowed to speak while introducing their resolutions. Only after the Dy. Chairman declared the bill passed without a division did the protests get bigger. What then can be the reason?
The other possible reason is that the government did not have a majority. If that is so, a division would have exposed the fact that they were actually in a minority.
BJP and its allies do not have a majority in the Rajya Sabha. They have roughly 105 seats, and the majority mark is 123. They normally get the support of AIADMK and BJD with 9 members each; YSRCP and TRS with 6 members each; which will get them past the majority mark. However, AIADMK, BJD and TRS spoke out against the bills during the debate. Among these parties, only YSRCP supported the bill. Without them, BJP is likely to have been in a minority.
Since there was no division, it is not possible to figure out how many members supported and how many members opposed the bill. However, one can get a close estimate by seeing what they said during the debate.
| Close details of the Rajya Sabha numbers on the farm bill. | ||
| Data of those present is from the Rajya Sabha attendance list. One exception is made for RPI(A) member Ramdas Athavale who was marked as absent, but participated in the debate | ||
| Party | Total | Present |
| Parties in favour of the bills | ||
| BJP | 86 | 71 |
| YSRCP | 6 | 5 |
| JD(U) | 5 | 2 |
| NOM* | 4 | 2 |
| RPI(A) | 1 | 1 |
| TMC(M) | 1 | 1 |
| BPF | 1 | 1 |
| AGP* | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 105 | 84 |
| Parties against the bills | ||
| INC | 40 | 27 |
| BJD | 9 | 9 |
| SP | 8 | 7 |
| DMK | 7 | 6 |
| AITC | 13 | 5 |
| AIADMK | 9 | 4 |
| TRS | 7 | 4 |
| CPI(M) | 5 | 4 |
| RJD | 5 | 4 |
| BSP | 4 | 4 |
| AAP | 3 | 3 |
| SAD | 3 | 2 |
| JKPDP** | 2 | 2 |
| CPI | 1 | 1 |
| TDP | 1 | 1 |
| IUML | 1 | 1 |
| JD(S) | 1 | 1 |
| KC(M) | 1 | 1 |
| LJD | 1 | 1 |
| IND** | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 122 | 88 |
| Parties abstaining | ||
| NCP | 4 | 3 |
| SHS | 3 | 3 |
| Parties which were not present: LJP, NPP, PMK, IND(Subhash Chandra), JMM, MDMK, NPF, SDF | ||
| *Parties which did not participate in the debate, but are likely to to have voted in favour of the bill | ||
| **Parties which did not participate in the debate, but are likely to have voted against the bill | ||
A total of 6 parties spoke in favour of the bill, while 18 parties spoke against it. The opposition has a majority of four votes if you go by the way they spoke.
AIADMK and TDP are two parties which did not clearly state they were with the opposition. However, even if both they voted in favour of the bill, the numbers would have been very close.
How this incident can be misleadingly reported:
If a procedure is not followed correctly, the impression it makes can be very subtle. Only those who are very clued in can point it out. It is not prominently visible. However, when protests are starting, everyone can see them, and it is not so easy to see what the protests are about.
The reason there was chaos was that the Dy. Chairman was proceeding without heeding to his request of holding a division. However, the first 'prominently-visible' disruption was when Derek O'Brien was seen fighting with the Dy. Chairman and the marshal.
Only the fight can be seen clearly.
It may appear that Derek O’Brien went to attack the chairman. Had he really been planning to, he would not have held the book open in front of the Dy. Chairman’s face. He went to explain the rules. While he was trying to show the rules, he got into a fight. Some reports said that he tore the book. That is not true.
When the house reassembled, members began protesting asking the chair to redo the voting for sending the bill to a select committee. He did not redo the voting for K. K. Ragesh’s resolution. Though he re-did the voting for the other resolutions, he introduced them very fast. Even under normal circumstances, it takes around five minutes for everyone to get ready for a division. However, the Dy. Chairman gave only a few seconds before saying that it was not possible and moved on to the next step. Later, the government claimed that they could not hold a division because the opposition was disrupting proceedings. It is true that they could have gone to their seats for the rest of the voting, but they wanted those particular resolutions to be put to vote. If they had gone to their seats, it would have been like accepting that what happened was okay.
What may happen next?
Many people really like Prime Minister Narendra Modi's speeches. Modi made speeches strongly in favour of both these farmer's bills. Some people like him so much that they may sometimes forget about the way the government is suppose to function. It is wrong for the Dy. Chairman not to have called for a division. But many people may have just one thing in mind: 'Modi says these bills are good.' What the Dy. Chairman did may not be seen as 'wrong' but as 'smart.' Some people won't care about how the bill gets passed, they will just want it passed.
The trouble is, people might not realise the seriousness of what happened. What has happened once may happen again. The government may start passing many bills without proving their majority. The parliament is meant to represent the people and see what the majority of people want. If motions are not put to vote, how will the parliament represent the people?
Venkatavaradan Vanav
Commented 23 Sep, 2020
Lovely Even parliament chaos can be described so beautifully--more or less in a poetic way If you can write such delightful articles "Let there be more pandemonium"
sunder and sonati
Commented 23 Sep, 2020
I don't know about the people; but Parliament should at least represent Parliament :-)