Not GGP, but I assume they mean that bills were passed through parliament without any real debate or amendments, since the governing party holds a super majority.
The UK has done the same when having a party majority in the House of Lords and House of Commons.
In the US things are different. Even if there is a party majority in the Senate and House, the Filibuster is powerful enough to table the party majority’s bills.
Unfortunately, the way things proceed in India tend to be more crass - where the opposition often tries to physically prevent the tabling of controversial bills. We've had occasions where members grabbed papers off the Speaker's desk, and members routinely try to block proceedings by entering the well of the House and sloganeering. This leads to the Speaker adjourning the session and/or the opposition staging a walkout during the actual vote. It's not uncommon to see parliamentary sessions with only the treasury benches full for the vote.
Maybe India takes inspiration from her colonizers?
"How did the British Parliament become a place where the person speaking is constantly interrupted while the US Congress is one where the audience is quiet?"
Answer:
"It didn’t become such a place, it always was such a place. It started life as a collection of people sent by various towns to meet the King to petition him for some action or other. It was a totally formless group of individuals admitted to the King’s larger meeting hall when and if the King permitted. As such they would shout over each other in the attempt to get the King’s attention. Over the centuries it became more formalised and more structured, and a modicum of order imposed. But it has always had the character of a rowdy everybody against everybody discussion rather than an academic debate.
Famous Parliamentarians, particularly Winston Churchill, have enjoyed it being so and encouraged it. The width of the gangway is still two swords lengths, so they cannot engage swords across it, and the cloak rooms outside still have ribbons intended for you to hang your sword before entering the chamber. Parliament values its traditions of being a barely orderly town meeting."
I don't know how accurate that answer is, but it was the top comment in quora. Other sites show similar answers.
Makes sense that it's the system we inherited. For what it's worth, I'd rather have my representatives voice dissent loudly rather than compliance. I wish that dissent was channelled productively rather than show for the TV cameras, but alas, that's what we've got. I do think it's a superior system to the two party US system, especially for such a large and diverse nation like India. It desperately needs reform, though.
The party holds a simple majority (~ 55%) in the Lower House, while the alliance holds a near super majority (~ 63%) - the Indian system holds a super majority at 2/3rds of each house present and voting, not the total membership of the house.
The alliance does not hold the upper house, though they have a near simple majority.
1984: Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (77%)
1980: Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (65%)
1977: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (56%)
1971: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a super majority (68%)
1967: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (55%)
1962: Nehru's Congress Party at 73%
1957: Nehru's Congress Party at 75%
1952: Nehru's Congress Party at 74%
If the complaint is, "Supermajorities aren't a Democracy", then it must be agreed upon that India hasn't been been a Democracy under the Congress Party for 32 years out of the 75 years of independence.
> If the complaint is, "Supermajorities aren't a Democracy"
Is anybody actually saying that? For what its worth, I do think super majorities are corrosive long term for the multiparty Westminster style parliamentary systems. There is little incentive for compromise building or genuine debate on bills. It might even work if political parties had visible internal debate and discussion, and we can largely agree that this is not a thing in Indian political parties.
The original claim was that the senate was bypassed (non-democratic).
A majority in the Senate is democratic if democratically elected etc.
I'm not sure what this means - that the NDA government could bypass the Rajya Sabha for 90% (the number quoted in the original claim) of bills? That doesn't make sense. I don't see how that is even possible.
The only way that the Rajya Sabha can be effectively bypassed is by the Lok Sabha speaker certifying a bill as a Money Bill (famously, the Aadhaar Bill was a Money Bill). In that case the objections raised by the Rajya Sabha are non-binding on the Lok Sabha and can be rejected by the lower house, and is deemed to have passed after 14 days. I do not think that 90% of bills introduced by the Modi government were Money Bills. So how does the claim of 90% work?
>>Also Modi has the distinction of passing maximum bills without debate and bypassing the state senate altogether
I think this comment can be interpreted that way to some extent. Reads like one person has the power to bypass an entire legislative house. That's not the reality though.
I do agree with you that having supermajority for a long time is not a good thing. Unfortunately for India, that's how it has been historically (Congress for long periods of time and now it looks like BJP)
In the US things are different. Even if there is a party majority in the Senate and House, the Filibuster is powerful enough to table the party majority’s bills.