Zero Hour’s infinite possibilities

Zero Hour is not a part of parliamentary rules, but it has been in place since the days of the chairmanship of S. Radhakrishnan. The ’60s in India saw the emergence of this concept, when parliamentarians, immediately on completion of Question Hour, started raising issues which upset or annoyed them, often without the permission of the chair. It was decided, after much debate, to institutionalise it as a convention, and as a designated hour. It refers to the one hour, just after Question Hour (which is over at noon) and before the lunch break, meant to enable parliamentarians to take up urgent issues of public importance, but after having served notice on them by late morning. It is a time when notices can range from issues as diverse as the ill-treatment of the Indian foreign minister by the Pakistan high commissioner to the Hubli incident or to the reported utterances of the Shiv Sena chief in the ’90s.

Predictably, as with all such things — despite the parliamentary affairs minister and the secretariat sending off the relevant proceedings of Question Hour to the concerned ministries to draw their attention to them and apprise them of the sentiment of the House — this was initially thought not to have any tangible utility. Discussed at length at Presiding Officers Conferences in Delhi and Goa in the late ’60s, Zero Hour was reportedly referred to by some as the ‘mad hour’, ‘a waste of public money’ and ‘an unwanted thing’.

As can be imagined, Zero Hour has been a difficult one for presiding officers. It has meant the venting of ire and free-for-all debates, not necessarily along party lines. So it is creditable that the current vice president has institutionalised it, and mandated it as a part of the parliamentary day.

The reason Zero Hour may be just what the doctor ordered is that it is fashionable nowadays to deride Parliament, with all its disruptions, as a waste of the taxpayer’s money. Zero Hour might just prove to be the time when parliamentarians begin again to start rehearsing what they must do as routine — engage and spar with each other on issues and matters that concern Indians. The concerns would be diverse and one representative’s concern might be something another regards as a waste of time, but the desire to be heard could induce a sense of regard for the other’s view.

In addition to Zero Hour being part of the timetable, the decision to finally use the German technology available in the audio system installed in the House, to cut out audio after three minutes per MP, is also interesting. It allows motley concerns to be taken up while imposing discipline on the process.

The hope is to be able to take up about ten notices each day if the three-minute rule is successfully enforced. Sound engineers watching MPs go on about a subject programme the microphones to turn off after 180 seconds, and this was enforced on Thursday. But alongwith the hope, there is a need for all MPs to also exercise discipline and develop the very rare art of listening to others’ concerns and points of view.

There is a lot that divides India’s citizens and their representatives today, and that is why parliamentary sessions are meant to be about much more than the mere passage of legislation. They are meant to inform our worldview with other possibilities and acknowledge the existence of counter-views. If Hamid Ansari’s enforcement of Zero Hour can ensure that, even if for that brief pre-lunch interlude, it would be worth its while.

seema.chishti@expressindia.com