Clap, clap, for what’s unparliamentary

A newspaper report from 1994 when a certain figure—420—was ruled not unparliamentary

In April 1994, the then chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the late K R Narayanan, was called on to settle a "recurring controversy" among the members of Parliament present. A Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member, K L Sharma, drew his attention to something that he thought was "unparliamentary." Narayanan had to decide if Sharma was right.

I have a feeling Narayanan would be ashamed at what's happening now, a quarter-century later, with parliamentary things that have recently been pronounced unparliamentary. Then again, scratch that. He's not allowed to be ashamed. Or at least, he's not allowed to say he's ashamed in Parliament. That word is unparliamentary.

In other words - unparliamentary or not - you can be a Member of Parliament but you better be aware that what you say in Parliament might betray you by being pronounced unparliamentary and struck from Parliamentary records. Got that?

Wait, can't say that either. "Betray" is unparliamentary. Sorry. Wait, is "sorry" unparliamentary too?

Our beloved government is giving us a whole new Parliament building. For which, many thanks, dear government of mine. I do have some concerns, though. Think of me as your garden-variety tourist in Delhi, interested in watching and learning from the goings-on at our temple of democracy. If you allow me to visit, what will I see happening in the exalted chamber? Spirited debates about one issue or another? Or the chairman constantly interrupting those debates to order one word or another to be expunged from the record, being unparliamentary?

I mean, it is a serious concern, dear government. The list is long, going way beyond "ashamed" and "betrayed". There's "abused" and "incompetent", "corrupt" and "hypocrisy", "drama" and "dictatorial". There's "jumlajeevi", "Shakuni", "tanashah", "vinash purush" and "baal buddhi". "Nikamma" and "nautanki" and "COVID spreader" also figure, and this is by no means a complete list. I hear that if I ever seek to scribble out the whole list, one word after the next on a strip of paper, the strip would stretch to the Moon and back.

So yeah, I have these visions of sitting up in some Parliamentary viewing gallery, looking down at our assembled MPs making statements, or arguing, or whatever they do, and every now and then one claps her hand to her mouth and says, "I used an unparliamentary word, I'm so ashamed!" And then she claps her hand to her mouth again and says, "I'm so incompetent, I used ‘ashamed'! I'm so ashamed!" And then she claps her hand to her mouth thrice more ... you get the picture.

Not a pretty picture, you'll agree. Not forgetting all the hard work of expunging unparliamentary words from Parliamentary records.

So I really worry about this possible visit to Parliament. Sure, it will be quite a drama - sound of a clap - it will be quite a sight. Almost anarchic - sound of a clap - almost chaotic, actually.

But what will it tell me about democracy?

As for the late KR Narayanan: KL Sharma pointed out that a certain question was numbered 420. Was this proper, he asked - isn't "420" unparliamentary? "Sharp exchanges" ensued among the MPs, nothing reported about claps.

Narayanan settled matters swiftly. "420" is not unparliamentary, he ruled, as it is "only a number."

Apparently that kind of common sense is now unparliamentary.

Dilip D'Souza is a Mumbai-based writer and journalist