Trouble began when two Opposition MLAs TV Rajesh and James Mathew, rushed to the Speaker’s dais on October 14 questioning his ruling on a matter the House was discussing. The watch and ward staff formed a human wall in front of the Speaker. In the melee that followed the two opposition MLAs were seen rushing to the Speaker’s podium. A woman watch and ward staff lost her cap.

The ruling party members accused the two opposition MLAs of manhandling the watch and ward staff. The two MLAs and the opposition, however, vehemently denied having manhandled the woman watch and ward staff member. The video clippings also showed that there was no manhandling of the woman watch and ward staff.

The Speaker held repeated discussions with the leaders of both the fronts and evolved a patch up formula. The next day while he was giving his ruling in the house, the Speaker said the two MLAs had expressed their regrets over the incidents the previous day. But both the Opposition MLAs stood up and denied having expressed regrets in their meeting with the Speaker in his chamber. All that they had done was to voice their dismay for the manner in which they had rushed to the Speaker’s dais.

The Speaker pulled them up saying that shouting at the Speaker was a show of disrespect and amounted to a breach of code. The Speaker then asked the Chief Minister whether he had anything to say in the matter.

The CM stood up and suddenly read out a resolution which proposed that the two MLAs be suspended for two days for disorderly conduct and showing disrespect to the chair and the house.

The Opposition LDF protested against this and started a satyagraha inside the assembly. The Speaker adjourned the house for the day.

The CM’s sudden action caused many eyebrows to be raised. As per the rules, no resolution can be moved in the assembly without the permission of the Speaker. In this particular case, it was evident that Chief Minister Oommen Chandy had not taken the Chair’s permission to move the resolution. By going ahead with the resolution, the CM, who never loses an opportunity to proclaim his highest regard for democratic institutions, belittled the dignity of the Speaker’s office and encroached on his powers.

Strangely, the Speaker, who should have objected to the manner in which the CM went ahead with the so-called resolution, did nothing of the kind. The Speaker’s inaction prompted leader of the Opposition V S Achuthanandan’s comment that the Speaker was functioning as an UDF Speaker and not as the Speaker of the Assembly.

The Speaker’s pro-government attitude became evident when he refused the request of VS to suspend Agriculture Minister KP Mohanan, who made an inappropriate and indecent gesture to the satyagrahis, including a number of women who were staging it in the well of the house. Video clippings showed the minister placing his left leg on the table in front of him, as if in an attempt to jump over the table to reach the sitting satyagrahis. Mohanan claimed he was provoked by the shower of abuse by the opposition MLAs. But video clippings again contained no proof of the abuse by the opposition MLAs.

The Speaker not only took no action against the Minister. Instead, he justified Mohanan’s action saying that he was provoked into it by the abuse heaped on him by the opposition MLAs. True, Mohanan went to the Speaker’s chamber and apologised for his conduct. Obviously, the Speaker was in no position to suspend the Minister given the wafer-thin majority the Government enjoys. Already, two ruling party MLAs are not attending the assembly session as both are in hospital. The Minister’s suspension would have exposed the Chandy government to the risk of being voted out. Hence the Speaker’s inaction in the matter.

But the Opposition charged that the whole incident proved, if proof was needed, the Speaker’s double standards in dealing with members of the ruling and opposition MLAs. VS went to the extent of saying that the Speaker’s office had degenerated into a Congress office.

Tensions have eased a bit with the Speaker revoking the suspension and the opposition ending its satyagraha inside the house. But signs are there that there will be no let-up of the face-off outside the Assembly. VS has signaled the Opposition’s intent to continue the struggle outside till the police officer who fired at the DYFI students who were protesting against the illegal admission of a student to the engineering college in Kozhikode. It was the brutal police action against the student agitators which had led to the unprecedentedly stormy scenes inside the assembly.

Whatever be the denouement, one thing can be said with certainty. It was the UDF government’s insistence on suspension of the two Opposition MLAs which led to the explosion of tension and anger both inside and outside the Assembly. The ugly happenings could have been avoided if only the CM had acted with greater tact. What is of greater concern is that the CM not only failed to exercise restraint but went to the extent of overruling the Speaker and usurping his powers. Mr Oommen Chandy stands further diminished in the wake of the incident.

In fairness, it must also be said that the Opposition MLAs should exercise greater restraint in their conduct both inside and outside the assembly. If they do not do so, they would be repeatedly walking into the ‘trap’ set by the ruling party members and get a bad name. Also, the Opposition should have gone by the ruling of the Speaker, who, according to VS himself had done his very best to defuse the tension. The LDF leaders should have prevented the two young MLAs, who obviously did not know how to conduct themselves in the house, from making their protest in the manner in which they did it. It was a tactical mistake on the part of the LDF. That failure gave the CM to cash in on the opportunity and fulfill his agenda of having the two opposition MLAs suspended. One hopes the front learns appropriate lessons from the unfortunate episode and mend its ways accordingly. (IPA)