P. A. Sangma’s Scathing Critique: An Anatomy of ‘Non-Governance’ and Institutional Decay (April 1999)
In a dramatic and highly critical address to the Lok Sabha on April 15, 1999, former Speaker and veteran leader Shri P. A. Sangma delivered a powerful indictment of the ruling dispensation during a crucial Confidence Motion. His speech, coming barely a year after the government had assumed office, painted a picture of administrative paralysis and, more alarmingly, a systematic erosion of the foundational institutions of Indian democracy.
The motion itself, according to Sangma, highlighted the deep instability plaguing the political landscape. He pointed out the sheer frequency of such events, noting that this was the fifth motion of confidence in just over 22 months, sharply contrasting with the ruling party’s election-era promise of a “stable government.” Far from stability, Sangma argued, the country was witnessing a period of “real non-governance.”
The Illusion of Stability vs. The Imperative of Governance
Sangma quickly dismissed the preoccupation with merely maintaining a majority, asserting that stability was meaningless without substantive action. He drew a crucial distinction: “The important thing today is not merely stability… it is good governance which is the issue.”
In his view, the 13 months since the government had taken charge were devoid of both stability and effective administration. While the government may have sought to project an image of endurance, Sangma declared that the lack of concrete and consistent governance had become evident to the entire country. The promise of a strong, capable government had resulted in a national failure to deliver on fundamental responsibilities.
The Systematic Denigration of Democratic Institutions
The most trenchant section of Sangma’s address focused on what he termed the “denigration of Institutions”—a dangerous trend where established systems were being weakened and destabilized. He argued that the preservation of India’s constitutional structures was more important than the fate of any single government.
The Office of the President and Erosion of Trust
The highest office in the Republic, the Presidency, was, in Sangma’s estimation, being deliberately compromised. He expressed distress over the President’s name being drawn into contentious floor debates. More damagingly, he highlighted the unprecedented leaking of “secret correspondences” and “confidential correspondence” between the government and the President to the media. This, he argued, was a clear act of denigrating the sanctity and authority of the Head of State.
Military Command and Executive Overreach
A key instance cited by Sangma was the controversial dismissal of Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, the Chief of Naval Staff. Sangma asserted that the President, who serves as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, was reportedly not even consulted or asked to approve the decision, but merely informed of it. He charged the government with a failure of transparency, noting that Parliament had to rely on electronic and print media for information rather than receiving a direct statement from the government.
The Paralysis of Parliament: Rule by Ordinance
Sangma reserved some of his strongest criticisms for the state of the Lok Sabha itself. He lamented that the Parliament had become “non-functional”, citing that over 17% of the time in the last session was lost due to disorder. While acknowledging the role of the opposition in creating disorder, he placed the ultimate responsibility squarely on the government, calling it a complete “failure of your floor management”.
Furthermore, he questioned the government’s respect for constitutional procedure:
- Ignoring Rajya Sabha: He noted the unconstitutional act of the government deciding not to send an Amendment Bill, passed in the Lok Sabha, to the Rajya Sabha.
- Ordinances over Lawmaking: Perhaps the most damning statistic was the promulgation of 35 ordinances in just 13 months, none of which had been ratified by the Parliament. Sangma asked pointedly, “Is it a government by ordinance only? Where is the relevance of the Parliament of India?”
Politicizing Constitutional Offices
The denigration was not limited to the central legislature. Sangma criticized the institution of Governorship, arguing that individuals appointed to this constitutional post continue to act as “party men,” thereby compromising the impartiality and dignity of the office. Similarly, he referenced turmoil within the bureaucracy, citing controversies involving the Enforcement Directorate and secretaries, suggesting that administrative systems were being undermined for political ends.
The Spectre of a ‘Hidden Agenda’ in Education
Moving beyond political administration, Sangma expressed deep-seated apprehension regarding the government’s cultural intentions. He reiterated his earlier suspicion of a “hidden agenda for saffronization of educational system”.
He recalled an incident involving the HRD Ministry where, at a conference of Education Ministers, a figure associated with the RSS was reportedly introduced as the person who would formulate the nation’s future education policy. This, coupled with alleged changes to syllabi and the reconstitution of bodies like the Indian Council of Historical Research, suggested to him a deliberate, concerted effort to reshape national institutions along ideological lines.
Conclusion: An Ominous Prediction
Shri Sangma concluded his expansive speech by summarizing the damage done and repeating a prediction he had made during an earlier confidence motion.
While expressing belief that the Prime Minister’s failures may not have been deliberate, he attributed them to a fundamental “lack of experience in governance”.
Finally, he referred to an earlier warning he had issued regarding the government’s approach to the Kaveri and Periyar water disputes. Using highly evocative language, he quoted his previous statement: “I am only afraid that the Cauvery and the Periyar water issues may wash away your government”. Citing this very issue as the precise reason for the current motion, he ended his address by declaring his complete opposition to the confidence motion moved by the Prime Minister.
About The Author
