Opposition MPs protest against the Waqf Amendment Bill during the budget session of Parliament in New Delhi. , Photo Credit: Annie
TeaHe recently concluded that the budget session of Parliament got its place in history. Both houses sat through the night, closed before sunrise, when some parts of Delhi started stirring. Lok Sabha productivity was 118% and Rajya Sabha was 119% – Number which definitely makes the presiding officers happy.
This was a rare and important opportunity, but it does not fall under the category of ‘before independence’-a phrase that we hear about almost every event-2014. For me, however, it was the first as a parliamentary reporter. At 8:30 pm, the chair informed the Rajya Sabha that 22 members were still scheduled to speak. I prepared myself for a long night.
I imagined that such differences would have to be molded. But for my surprise, each member spoke with a feeling of urgency. With a look at the clock, they in a hurry, running through their points, passing through the chair after the last bell for a few more minutes for their final fruit. Often, the closing argument that they hope will surprise their colleagues, bring them to the news pages and will go viral on social media. However, miss more than the hit.
I was worried about the deadline of Lump print. I started receiving frantic messages from the desk seeking a copy. Like MPs, reporters also have a good dance. While we want to hear speeches in the fear that we can otherwise remember important details, we are also eager to send our copy so that it actually made it on morning paper. The same argument is the risk of repeatedly listening, especially at night, to tune out and then remember significant nuances – gray between black and white.
Once, the slight problem of filing a copy of the day ended, I settled to resume the debate. My tiredness and anxiety went away. Monologists with thunder provide riveting drama with monologue, veil humiliation, oral volcanic, entertaining fambal, and curious mix-up, parliamentary debate. Where can anyone else see an actor-made-man-storing trembling with anger, unable to speak violently in pesticides but a consistent sentence? I wondered if the lack of a written script trapped the poor. Fifty minutes before midnight, a female member, who launched an impure argument in favor of the WAFQ bill, called for Victor Hugo. He made Hugo qualified as a British writer. The Waqf Bill has a possible section, but the debate on it rebuilt a French senator and writer into a British citizen. And when everyone thought that there was some light at the end of the tunnel, a minister who only talks in rhymes increased to speak. Then came the clause by the clause passing of the bill. To pass a section, the chair says, “On the side they can say ‘A’ and those who can say ‘not’. Between “The Ayes Have It” and “The Nose Hess It”, and the bill was finally passed only at 2:30 pm, I definitely had certainty.
Do not misunderstand me: It is a good fortune to hear parliamentary debate. This is a privilege worked hard by our predecessors. The parliamentary debate in Westminster, which we copy so closely, were not public until the end of the 19th century. It was only in 1840 that the Parliamentary Paper Act allowed newspapers to publish debates until they did “with a bad intentions”. It was only from 1909 that the newspapers, which did not submit the debate until then, were allowed to report completely. All other borders were removed only in the House of Commons in 1970. In India, in the letter, the press has complete access to the parliament, but there are many physical obstacles to keep us away. Red lines are marked on the sparkling floor of the new Parliament, which are asked not to cross reporters. But we will continue to jump on obstacles during the day and at night, to hear the debate.
sobhanak.nair@thehindu.co.in
Published – April 11, 2025 01:28 AM IST