The Opposition parties sitting in the Lok Sabha need to move beyond simply registering their outrage at the tragedy in Manipur and do something that any parliamentary opposition should be expected to do – move a Censure Motion against Union Home Minister Amit Shah under Rule 184 of the Constitution.
Let the government beat this motion. It can do that with its majority.
But first, let the government defend itself on the floor of the Parliament on its handling of this crisis which has claimed hundreds of lives, displaced tens of thousands, razed homes and divided communities for over three years now.
There comes a point where answers cannot be sought through press releases, political speeches and well-worded explanations. The people of Manipur deserve an explanation.
There have been various explanations and emphasis offered by the Union Home Minister at various points regarding the reasons behind the violence in the region. The first reason given was the order of the Manipur High Court regarding the Scheduled Tribe status of the Meitei community. Another explanation given later in the Parliament was that it was an ethnic conflict whereas the situation in Myanmar and influx of refugees was another reason offered.
It is not wrong for the government to fine-tune its analysis based on the changing situation and new findings. However, at some stage, the evolving analysis turns into a question for the parliament.
What exactly is the analysis of the Union government on the Manipur crisis?
If the cause is known, then how was it that the government could not stop the escalation of violence? If the nature of the problem is understood to be an ethnic issue, then what stopped the Union government from restoring the confidence and security? If outside elements were a factor, then how were those handled? And if the government had the requisite intelligence and security, then why were thousands of people displaced for years?
According to Article 355 of the Constitution, the Union shall protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and shall ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
It is perfectly acceptable for a government to reassess the situation in light of developing circumstances and evidence. There comes a time, however, when an evolving analysis must also be a matter of parliamentary scrutiny.
Just what, then, is the considered assessment of the Union government in respect of the Manipur situation?
A technical note: Rule 184 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha is not formally called a “Censure Motion”. But there is ample precedent for moving substantive motions by way of vote under Rule 184, even if they are Censure Motions against individual Ministers. Also, it needs to be pointed out that there is a marked difference between a No-Confidence Motion under Rule 198 and a Censure Motion. The latter is directed against an individual Minister while the former pertains to the collective council of ministers.
This distinction must not come in the way of parliamentary action.
If the Opposition MPs think the Union Home Minister has failed in the task he has been assigned, they must move a formal Censure Motion and not just ran. Bimol Akoijam and other Opposition MPs have repeatedly raised the issue and expressed their frustration over the Centre’s handling of the crisis. But repeated expressions of anger, however justified, cannot substitute for parliamentary action.
Move the motion. Put the charges in writing.State the grounds.Demand answers.
Force the government to defend its record.
Let the Home Minister explain why the violence continued despite the enormous security apparatus available to the Union. Let him explain the policy decisions taken during the critical stages of the conflict. Let him explain the government’s assessment of the causes. Let him explain the measures taken to protect civilians. Let him explain the prolonged displacement of citizens. Let him explain what went wrong.
And let Parliament vote.
The Opposition may lose.
Indeed, given the government’s numerical strength, defeat may be almost certain.
A defeated motion is not necessarily a wasted motion.
The debate becomes part of the parliamentary record. The government’s defence becomes part of the record. The arguments of Manipur’s representatives become part of the record. The vote becomes part of the record.
And records outlive governments.
For Manipur, this matters enormously.
The Opposition particularly – MP Dr. Bimol Akoijam and Alfred Arthur should therefore not wait for another statement, another committee, another assurance or another round of political blame.
