& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

An honourable act by the Speaker

Parliamentary privileges are to protect public interest

Mahfuz Anam
For our parliament to
extend a collective apology to a citizen was unthinkable till Speaker Abdul Hamid showed the way. In what must be the very first act of its kind, he expressed regret on
behalf of parliament for the unfounded and unkind remarks made by uninformed MPs aboutProf Abdullah Abu Sayeed, one of our most outstanding scholars, writers and original thinkers. He expunged the offending remarks and said such criticism I was undesirable and | urged members of the House to desist from
doing so in the future.
Though the question remains in the public mind whether similar courtesy would have been extended if the victim of
the tirade was just any ordinary citizen and not the highly respected founder of Biswa Sahitya Kendra (World Literature Centre), yet we accept the Speaker's gesture as a public acknowledgement of the limits to which MPs can go against a citizen and also as a protection of the rights of ordinary people against the collective might of parliament. On both counts the general public can be said to have gained, for which we owe a debt of gratitude to the Speaker, and to the Deputy Speaker who really cast the first stone.
While we thank the Speaker for his extraordinary action of saying sorry when a wrong is done, which by the way is common practice in all other parliamentary systems, it must be pointed out that he did not, in our view, sufficiently put the onus on the offending MPs for not verifying the facts before using the sacred floor of parliament to vilify a citizen, who in this case happens to be a man enjoying universal respect.
The Speaker, in our view, should have come out far stronger in condemning the action of the MPs in question who did not feel the slightest need to ascertain the facts before castigating a citizen on the floor of parliament.
Most disappointing was the role of the presiding MP Prof Ashraf. Instead of discharging his onerous responsibility with circumspection and sobriety, he went further than others in suggesting that Prof Sayeed be summoned, made to stand and apologise before the whole nation. As the presiding MR in the absence of both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, it is he more than others who should have stopped the debate and suggest that reports of some newspapers be checked before the debate could be allowed to continue. We understand the chief whip could not play his due role as he was not present. But what about the leader of the House, who was present on the occasion?
Certain words of caution also need to be raised about the role of the media. There is no question that we need to improve our own standards. If all of us had reported correctly, this incident involving MPs and a citizen would not have occurred. While parliament, through the Speaker, has expressed regret the newspapers whose reporting caused the misconstrued debate in the first place, have remained silent. Such disregard for accuracy and the subsequent refusal to publicly admit it, is not healthy for freedom of the press and journalistic professionalism.
Just as we demand freedom, we must also do everything to be fair and factual. And when we fail, which can happen even when we are at our professional best, we must have the moral cour-
age to accept our fault and publicly apologise. Occasionally our performance can be flawed but our intentions should always be above question. And that can only be proven if we admit our failures when they occur.
Though we are happy that the incident surrounding Prof Abdullah Abu Sayeed's vilification has ended in a satisfactory manner, there are some fundamental issues that need to be addressed.
First is the question of relations between a common citizen and our MPs. Do we or do we not have the right to criticise an MP if he or she is involved in wrongdoing? Why should an ordinary citizen be subjected to vilification on the floor of parliament just for exercising his or her right to freedom of speech? If an MP is unjustly or falsely criticised by anybody he can go to court and sue him for defamation, a right that is available to every citizen. Why should the floor of parliament be used for that purpose?
Second, what is the function of parliamentary privileges? Are they to grant immunity to MPs against public criticism? Parliamentary privileges are facilities given to MPs so that they serve their constituencies better. They are meant to be used to protect the right of citizens and to promote freedom and are not to be used to protect the MPs themselves from public criticism and thereby throttle free speech.
The immunity from prosecution that MPs enjoy for their speeches in parliament is to promote the public interest, to fight corruption, injustice, abuse or misuse of law, to promote all sorts of rights, to protect minority groups from the onslaught of the majority. It is never to protect the personal interest or prestige of MPs either as individuals or as a group.
How many times have we seen instances of an MP using his privilege to raise an issue of public concern on the floor of parliament? There have been so many extra judicial killings, so many instances of abuse of the law, misuse of public property or public funds, abuse of authority in high offices or violations of human rights or minority rights, and yet in most cases our MPs have been silent. Shouldn't our MPs have raised the issue of stock market manipulation and the consequent pauperisation of millions in parliament when ordinary people were swindled out of their life’s savings? Have we heard our MPs raising a voice when our rivers are being choked due to land
grabbing and its water turn into cesspools? Yet they were so quick in attacking a citizen when they felt that their dignity was being compromised. The real dignity of public representatives comes from serving the public, and in no other way.
Our members of parliament never tire of telling us that they are elected representatives of the people and they should be respected. We fully agree. But they seem to forget that getting elected is a privilege to serve and not an opportunity to dominate or lord it over the very voters who have elected them.
MPs must always keep the public interest highest in their minds. When we see that on no issue of national interest, however urgent, can our venerable parliamentarians speak in one voice, and that the only time that MPs from all parties can unite is to expand their own perks, financial benefits and all sorts of privileges, including duty free cars, then the question automatically arises as to how much of the public interest our MPs keep in mind when discharging their duties.
Let the Speaker’s gesture give us a new start in relations between parliament and the public. Let our MPs realise more and more that their real power, respect and dignity come from how effectively and purposefully they represent the public interest and not from any legal framework of privileges.
From the media's side we pledge to support our parlia-mentarians in all their efforts to serve the public