Willpower, the secret weapon of the Vietnamese during the war

Willpower, the secret weapon of the Vietnamese during the war

A reminder of the strength of collectivism, 50 years since re-unification

Srinivasan Ramani

NOTEBOOK

In Satyajit Ray’s classic Pratidwandi, set in the late 1960s in Kolkata, the protagonist Siddhartha, played by Dhritiman Chatterjee, goes for a job interview. The panel asks, “What would you regard as the most outstanding and significant event in the last decade?”

With little hesitation, Siddhartha responds: “The war in Vietnam”.

“More significant than the landing on the moon?”

“Yes,” he says. “We were not unprepared for the moon landing. We knew about advances in space technology. It was remarkable but not unpredictable. On the other hand, the Vietnam War revealed the extraordinary power of resistance of the Vietnamese people... the ordinary people... peasants... nobody knew they had it in them. This isn’t just technology, it’s about plain human courage, and it takes your breath away.”

Prompt comes the question: “Are you a communist?”

Siddhartha replies, “I don’t think one needs to be one to admire the Vietnamese”.

This may be a dialogue from a film, but it is still a powerful reflection of how thinking and informed people across the world, especially among the poor and developing countries, perceived the Vietnamese struggle for reunification of their partitioned country. Faced with the onslaught of a much superior and heavily armed superpower, the Vietnamese relied on their collective spirit and ingenious ability to use their terrain and peasant knowledge. While they did get help from other countries of the former Socialist bloc, their success was largely owed to the implementation of their own ideas and their hunger for freedom.

I got an opportunity to study the thought process of that generation recently. I was one of the many journalists who was invited to cover the 50th anniversary of Vietnam’s reunification, celebrated with pomp on April 30. Vietnam is today among the fastest-growing and upper-middle-income economies in the world. Ho Chi Minh City — the present-day name of Saigon, the outpost and capital of South Vietnam, and the fall of which signalled the end of the Vietnam War — betrays little about the war-torn city that it was five decades ago. However, a few miles away from the city, the Cu Chi tunnels showcase how the Vietnamese managed to outwit their opponents through sheer willpower.

Using just shovels and wicker baskets, the Vietnamese resistance forces built a 250-km-long, three storey tunnel complex. This consisted of simple ventilation provisions, water wells, resting rooms, kitchens (with carefully designed chimneys to avoid smoke detection), military bunkers, medicinal facilities, and camouflaged areas facilitating shooters to attack the enemy. Most of the implements used to build this complex were as old as the Iron Age, but they were still enough to cause terror among the Americans and the South Vietnamese infantry.

The Vietnamese also retold stories of guerrilla fighters in the Can Gio mangrove forest, located about 70 km from Ho Chi Minh City. Here, the Viet Cong guerrillas, many wearing simple loincloths to wade and swim across crocodile-infested waters, used harsh terrain such as mangrove forests and the Lòng Tàu River, to plan raids and ambushes on U.S. vessels and South Vietnamese facilities. When firebombs, including the use of the notorious napalm bombs, and heavy artillery were dropped on them, the survivors used the remains of the unexploded ones to be repurposed for their own artillery. The remarkable feature of the armed resistance was the steadfast emphasis on collectivism and the avoidance of a personality cult, except for the strong reverence for the tallest leader of the Vietnamese liberation movement, Ho Chi Minh. On this anniversary of re-unification, it is worth remembering how forceful ideas and willpower in fighting for a just cause can triumph over brute force.

srinivasan.vr@thehindu.co.in

Reviving a far-sighted but forgotten Bill mechanism

1 of 2 Mehul Chhabra

is a Legislative Assistants to Members of Parliament (LAMP) Fellow 2024-25

Reviving a far-sighted but forgotten Bill mechanism

Private Member’s Bills (PMBs) are a mechanism through which Members of Parliament (MP), who are not Ministers, can propose their own legislation. In India’s parliamentary system, most laws are introduced by the government, drafted by Ministries and tabled by Ministers. In contrast, PMBs come from individual MPs, both ruling party or the Opposition. In each session, Fridays are usually reserved for discussion on PMBs. PMBs are perhaps the last remaining intervention wherein MPs are not strictly guided by party mandate.

However, this crucial intervention has steadily eroded. Frequent disruptions, pre-emptive adjournments, and the increasing prioritisation of government business have reduced the PMB to a symbolic gesture rather than a serious legislative exercise. Ignoring the PMB is a procedural lapse and also signals a democratic backslide.

PMB trends, 17th and 18th Lok Sabha

Since Independence, only 14 PMBs have been passed and received presidential assent and none has cleared both Houses since 1970. In the 17th Lok Sabha (2019-24), 729 PMBs were introduced in the Lok Sabha and 705 in the Rajya Sabha. However, only two in the Lok Sabha and 14 in the Rajya Sabha were ever discussed.

In the 18th Lok Sabha, only 20 MPs have introduced PMBs so far. During the inaugural and Budget Sessions of 2024, 64 PMBs were introduced in the Lok Sabha, but not a single one was discussed.

In the winter session, two Fridays in the Lok Sabha were lost to disruptions, while another was taken up by a general discussion on the Constitution. Even in the Budget Session, the first Friday, usually reserved for private members, was used for discussions on the Union Budget. Only one Friday in the Lok Sabha saw any private member business-related activity, and even this was limited to a resolution. In the Rajya Sabha, out of 82 PMBs listed during the Budget Session, only 49 were introduced on a single Friday, and discussion began on just one, only to be cut short as the House was adjourned sine die.

PMBs have long provided a platform for MPs to introduce pieces of legislation that reflect personal convictions, constituency demands, or emerging social needs, regardless of party affiliation.

A notable example is the ‘Right to Disconnect’ Bill introduced by Supriya Sule of the Nationalist Congress Party, in the Lok Sabha on October 28, 2019. The Bill proposed granting employees the legal right to disengage from work-related communication beyond official working hours, addressing the increasing intrusion of work into personal life in the digital age. Though it did not proceed beyond the initial stage, the Bill sparked an important national conversation on mental health, work-life balance, and labour rights in a hyper-connected economy. It exemplifies how PMBs can be vehicles for forward-looking and unconventional ideas.

In contrast, some PMBs have had a more tangible legislative impact. In 2014, Tiruchi Siva of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Rajya Sabha), introduced the ‘Rights of Transgender Persons Bill. On April 24, 2015, the Bill made history by becoming the first Private Member’s Bill in over four decades to be passed by the Rajya Sabha. Though it did not clear the Lok Sabha, it laid the groundwork for the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, introduced and passed by the government. This Bill is a powerful reminder of how private initiatives can shape the legislative agenda and compel government action on socially sensitive issues.

PMBs also offer space for MPs from the ruling party to express independent thought. Bharatiya Janata Party MP Gopal Chinayya Shetty’s Bill calling for free medical and health-care facilities to the senior citizens in all Government and private hospitals is an example. His intervention demonstrates that even Treasury Bench MPs, often bound by government priorities, can use PMBs to introduce legislation based on personal insight or constituency feedback.

Shrinking space for independent action

One cannot overlook the institutional changes that have contributed to the reduced space for individual legislative initiative. The 52nd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced the Anti-Defection Law through the Tenth Schedule, aimed to ensure political stability. However, it has also had the unintended effect of limiting the ability of MPs, particularly the Treasury Benches, to independently question or deviate from their party’s legislative agenda. In such a structured environment, the PMB remains one of the few avenues through which MPs across party lines can suggest constructive policy alternatives.

While voters in India may cast their ballots for candidates contesting on party symbols, their choices are often equally influenced by the individual’s integrity, expertise and track record within the constituency. MPs are elected not solely to reiterate the party’s position, but to serve as a voice for the aspirations and concerns of their constituents.

To safeguard the PMB process, a series of procedural and structural reforms must be considered.

Reforms to pursue

The first is the need to treat the time earmarked for PMBs as sacrosanct. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business should explicitly protect this time from being overridden, except in cases of a national emergency. Dedicated hours for PMBs must not only be preserved but also enforced with consistency, enabling meaningful debate and potential adoption of the PMB.

Parliament could consider instituting a review committee specifically for PMBs, responsible for screening Bills for quality, relevance, and constitutionality. It could even recommend a priority list for discussion based on public importance and cross-party support. A fast-track mechanism may also be introduced for high-impact or broadly supported Bills to reach the floor in a time-bound manner.

In instances where the government feels constrained by time to transact its own legislative business, it should consider extending the overall working hours of Parliament, rather than encroaching upon the Fridays reserved for PMBs. The working hours in both Houses typically run from 11 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., which includes a lunch break. A modest extension, even by an hour or two, would significantly improve the productivity of Zero Hour and Question Hour, while ensuring that PMBs remain undisturbed. With the prospect of delimitation and a likely increase in the number of MPs in both Houses, the urgency of reform is greater than ever.

One compelling reform that could be adapted from international practice is the Ten-Minute Rule of the U.K. Parliament — any MP can make a short speech of up to 10 minutes in support of a PMB along with its introduction after which another MP may oppose it for an equal length of time. This allows Bills to be introduced, heard, and recorded without long time slots. Adopting a similar provision in the Indian context, either as an addition to or as a substitute for existing PMB procedures, could create a channel for a greater number of legislative ideas to enter the public domain.

The Vice President of India/Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar, has laid emphasis on the role of private member’s business in deepening democracy. He described PMBs as “far-sighted, forward-looking, and a gold mine” for India’s legislative landscape. These are words that reflect both the value and the potential of this mechanism when nurtured with sincerity.

The Private Member’s Bill has the potential to be a gold mine for India’s legislative landscape