Reversal of roles

The latest batch of entrants into the Rajya Sabha provides yet another occasion to ponder over the wonder that is India. There is nothing particularly remarkable about the new MPs themselves "" if one overlooks their business friends, that is "" but it does make one wonder about the role of the upper house. It used to be argued that the Rajya Sabha served the purpose of bringing people of real calibre and relevant experience into Parliament, but that claim cannot be made with the same confidence today. Most of the performing ministers in the present government are from the Lok Sabha (P Chidambaram, Pranab Mukherjee, Lalu Prasad, Mani Shankar Aiyar, and so on). The Rajya Sabha makes its contribution too with people like Praful Patel, and of course, the Prime Minister himself. But it is worth noting that there is also no shortage of non-ministerial talent in the Lok Sabha, including the crop of young MPs who feature regularly in the media (Jyotiraditya Scindia, Sachin Pilot, and others). That competent, educated people can also build a popular base and therefore win elections, is a great strength to the system, though the number of people with a criminal record who also get elected tells of the same system's deficiencies. What is worth noting in the immediate context is that in the calibre market, the Rajya Sabha has progressively lost its edge.

This may or may not be something to fret about, but there is a larger issue which is that in many senses, the roles of the upper and lower houses of the legislature have been interchanged over the last decade-and-a-half. This became clear as far back as 2003, when the Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an amendment to the Representation of People Act which did away with the requirement of domicile in a state as a pre-requisite for getting elected to the Rajya Sabha from that state. That ruling effectively ended the role of the Rajya Sabha as a chamber of the states. Such a chamber had been regarded as being essential by the makers of India's Constitution for protecting the rights and interests of the states. Now any Indian living in the country can be elected to the Rajya Sabha from anywhere in India. Contrast this with what B R Ambedkar had said: "States are represented in the Rajya Sabha and the people in the Lok Sabha."

While the Rajya Sabha has ceased to be a chamber of the states, the Lok Sabha comprises far more than before members who represent state-level interests "" DMK (Tamil Nadu), RJD (Bihar), SP (Uttar Pradesh), BSP (Uttar Pradesh), PMK and AIADMK (both Tamil Nadu) and TDP and TRS (both Andhra Pradesh), not to mention Akali Dal (Punjab), Nationalist Congress (mostly Maharashtra) and National Conference (Jammu & Kashmir). Indeed, even some of the national parties are now purely regional, like the CPI(M). These and other regional parties now account for nearly half the seats in the Lok Sabha. This proportion may well increase in the elections due next year.

The problem at its root lies in the fact that India copied American bicameralism without paying attention to the fact that American states were almost sovereign until the time when the union was formed. What was truly surprising about this was that India had had a better model to adapt and adopt, namely, the Chamber of Princes. This is because a key issue to be decided upon by the Constituent Assembly pertained to the question of how to devolve considerable amounts of power to the provinces that surrendered crucial elements of their power to the Centre, which was a distant authority. However, the solution worked out in 1950 has over the years been distorted beyond recognition. It is virtually impossible now to conceive of a new scheme. So it is just as well that when it comes to legislation, it is Parliament that matters, not this or that House.