In six decades, a visible sea change in parliament

New Delhi: When it opened six decades ago, it was a highly revered institution, packed with stalwarts who won freedom for India and where debates were of high quality. As parliament markes its 60th anniversary yesterday, analysts and even MPs admitted that disorder has become the order of the day in both houses.

A lot of other sweeping changes have also taken place.

The first Lok Sabha, formed after the 1952 election, was dominated by the Congress and the towering presence of Jawaharlal Nehru, with the Communists being the main opposition.

Today, while still heading the ruling coalition, the Congress is a much weakened political force, surviving on the support of not so loyal allies. The Communists are a pale shadow of their former self.

The percentage of MPs without secondary education — many gave up schooling for the independence struggle — was almost a quarter in 1952. It is now just three per cent.

Most MPs in the first house were lawyers by training. Now most are linked to agriculture. There is a noticeable shift in the age profile, too.

In 1952, only 20 per cent of MPs were 56 years or older. In 2009, when the last Lok Sabha election was held, this increased to 43 per cent, said Devika Malek of PRS Legislative Research.

The members of the first Lok Sabha included, in the treasury and opposition benches, besides Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Vallabhai Patel, B.R. Ambedkar, Abul Kalam Azad, A.K. Gopalan, Sucheta Kriplani, Jagjivan Ram, Sardar Hukam Singh, Asoka Mehta and Rafi Ahmad Kidwai.

Speeches, debates and interventions in the house were of a very high order. Even when they differed with their opponents, everyone maintained decorum.

Sixty years later, this has been the biggest casualty.

Senior politicians fondly recall the days when disruptions were infrequent and ruckus, sloganeering and rancour were almost unheard of.

Cabinet Minister Virbhadra Singh, who entered the Lok Sabha in 1962, told IANS: "Disruptions on small issues never happened earlier. Members strongly expressed their differences of opinion but there was hardly an occasion when parliament was disrupted. Now this is the rule rather than the exception."