Mr Speaker, walk the talk

Four days have elapsed since the vandalism and manhandling by Maoist lawmakers in the House but they remain unpunished still -- and there are signs that they will continue to walk about with apparent impunity. The man who is responsible for taking action against the unruly lawmakers and has also vowed to do so, Speaker Subas Nembang, is now wavering. Privately, he has begun to excuse himself, arguing that no law empowers him to take action against lawmakers.



Really? If that is true, why did the Speaker, immediately after the skirmish in the House, say that he would take action against those who were involved in the vandalism. Just for the record, here is what he said: The incidents that have taken place today [in the House] are unfortunate and deplorable happenings in the entire history of our parliament. I express deep sorrow and regret over the incident and vow to take action, in accordance with the existing laws, against those involved.



If there is no legal provision for punishing lawmakers, as the Speaker is now privately arguing, why did he in the first place commit himself publicly to taking action against those who manhandled ministers and vandalized the physical property of the House? Is our Speaker so incompetent that he doesn´t know the House regulations? The Speaker should confess either his incompetence or his lack of guts.



Many experts on parliamentary proceedings have argued that the Speaker should have instantly taken action against the lawmakers before he adjourned the House and left his chair. But he chose not to and it now appears, with hindsight, that he had wanted to spare the Maoist lawmakers right from the beginning.



We are still not ready to buy the argument that the Speaker has no authority or discretionary powers to keep the House in order and punish lawmakers who disobey his orders. No one is asking him to slap harsh punishment on the lawmakers, but punish them he must even if for symbolic reasons alone so that a clear message goes out that the sanctity of the House is inviolable. For example, he can suspend the lawyers involved in the manhandling for three days, which would serve them and others as a warning for the future.



And the Maoists are not going to bring down the sky over such modest punishment-- they know they deserve more. With high public office comes great responsibility, and it is the Speaker´s duty to maintain the decorum of the House. For that he doesn´t have to depend too much on his law books. He should learn to think like a Speaker, not like a petty lawyer.

Related story

Deputy Speaker Ruby Thakur assumes office