In New India, criticism is unparliamentary

Just ahead of the start of the monsoon session of parliament, it was reported that terms like corrupt, ashamed, hypocrisy, betrayed were declared unparliamentary

To paraphrase a line borrowed from the Reader’s Digest, whether the thesaurus is a friend or foe (confidante or nemesis), it’s a book for our parliamentarians to keep at hand (hereabouts or accessible) so they can find a word that’s just right (consummate, first-rate, or dandy).

One thing is for certain: if whoever came up with the idea of inserting (slipping or sliding) several words (terms or expressions) into a booklet (pamphlet or brochure) of prohibited (banned, proscribed, forbidden) words, had his (her or their) way, the sales of thesauruses (thesauri) would go up steeply.

Just ahead of the start of the monsoon session of parliament, it was reported that terms like corrupt, ashamed, hypocrisy, betrayed, drama, incompetent, abused and many more nouns and verbs have been declared ‘unparliamentary’, and could be expunged from members’ remarks in parliament.

Fortunately, our parliamentarians can breathe easy, as the Speaker has clarified that “All members have complete freedom to express their views,” except that the presiding officer may then proceed to expunge words that he or she considers ‘unparliamentary’. But whether or not the Speaker’s assurance permits freedom of speech in parliament, one wonders if parliamentarians (lawmakers) would ever be caught struck dumb, speechless, mute or tongue-tied merely because a word is forbidden.

After all, if one is to be prevented from calling a spade a spade, what does one do? Either entirely shut up or call it a shovel, digger or spud et al. But just imagine, calling a spade a spud. It’s like saying “Where there is a will, there is a path.” Besides, a rigid ban on such words would have forced parliamentarians to speak truth not straight as an arrow, but straight as a sickle. Here is some linguistic help for our parliamentarians to ponder upon, just in case they want to avoid words that could be hurtful to sensitive ears, or in imminent danger of being expunged:

In place of corrupt, they could try alternatives like bribe-taker, dishonest, dishonourable, unscrupulous, amoral, unprincipled, underhanded, bought-off, debased, et al. In a parliamentary debate, assuming you are a parliamentarian, assuming you wish to call someone corrupt, you could try, “You Sir (Shriman or Mahoday), are so amoral, unscrupulous, debased and dishonourable a bribe-taker that you have…”

If one member wished to pull up another for uncouth behaviour in the house, ‘ashamed’ could easily be replaced by hang-dog, red-faced, mortified, embarrassed, humiliated, degraded and such, as in, “Sir, you should be wearing a hang-dog expression for your abysmal conduct of viewing pornography when parliament was in session.”

Hypocrisy has many variants. They could always try forked-tongue, deceitful, duplicitous, deceptive, insincere, double-dealing, and many more. “Sir, your serpent-like forked tongue says one thing from one tip when you are in the left wing, while saying the exact opposite with the other when you defect to the treasury benches! I find that duplicitous, deceitful and double-dealing, to say the least.”

The synonyms for ‘betray’ can’t let you down either. Desert, deceive, abandon, bluff, and perfidious are some of the words that come to mind. But there can be more imaginative ones, too. For example, “You gentlemen, by crossing the floor, have fairly hoodwinked the party by joining forces with the opposition.”

‘Drama’ can easily be substituted (replaced or represented) by melodrama, play, production, comedy, theatre, show, farce and many more. Try, “The farce that’s unfolding in this house in the name of a debate is sad enough to qualify for a Bollywood tear-jerker.”

‘Incompetent’ has umpteen (many, plenty) of companions. Bungler, inept, amateurish, incapable, ineffectual, not cut-out for, floundering, useless, clumsy, not equal to, bush-leaguer, third-rate, et al are some that readily come to mind. A parliamentarian could go, “Ladies and gentlemen, the opposition in the house is such a Bush-leaguer and so inept that despite our countless blunders, they are unable to make any dent on our electoral numbers.”

‘Abuse’ can be substituted with misuse, exploit, pervert, misdeed, delinquency, desecration…one could go on. So, a parliamentarian polished in his or her use of language could say something like, “Sir, your party, through its misdeeds, has perverted the very privileges that this House has bestowed upon you.”

Well, you get the gist. When did lack of words ever stop anyone, and least of all, a parliamentarian, from letting the other know exactly what they thought of them. So, our honourable parliamentarians do not need to be unduly concerned at this half-hearted attempt to clean up the parliamentary air of foul-sounding words.

And of course, our concern seems to be only about the words used to describe actions, not the actions themselves. To be corrupt is fine (consummate, first-rate, or dandy); it is only if one calls the other “corrupt” that it becomes offensive.

And that goes for shameful conduct, too. It's kosher to watch pornography during parliament time and get away with less than a rap on the knuckle, but not kosher to tell a worthy that he should be ashamed of his conduct.

Hypocrisy may be the other name for politics. Politics may be nothing but posturing. We know it, they know it, everybody knows it. But calling someone a hypocrite hurts our sensibilities in a way that our inclination towards such hypocritical conduct doesn’t.

The same goes for all those who betray their parties and ideologies for rank opportunism, or play outright Shakespearean drama, carting parliamentarians or councillors away by bus or aircraft to other states, holing them up in luxury hotels. But beware: calling those actions betrayal or drama could hurt their sensibilities.

Whoever said anything about walking the talk? It is just that we are sensitive about talking our walk.

At another level, one wonders why there has not been a whiff about improving the attendance or the quality of debates in parliament. After all, demonetisation, GST, Citizenship Amendment Act, the now-repealed farm laws, the Agnipath scheme were all passed or given effect to, without parliamentary debate. If that’s not a betrayal of parliamentary democracy and its people, what is it? Perfidy, deception or deceit?

(The writer is an academic and an author)