Reading The Parliament

AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES AND QUESTIONS
DECEMBER 2021
For limited circulation, not for sale
© CPR, 2021
Reading the Parliament:

An Analysis of Parliamentary Debates and Questions
Published in December 2021 by Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi
Cover photograph: Getty Images

Report Design: Niyati Singh
Disclaimer: The material in this publication is copyrighted. No part of this report can be
reproduced either on paper or electronic media without permission in writing from CPR.
Request for permission to reproduce any part of the report may be sent to CPR.
Usage of information: Forwarding/copy/using in publications without approval from

CPR will be considered as infringement of intellectual property rights.
Printed by:
Elegant Enterprises
198/41-B, Ramesh Market, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065, India
E-mail: infoelegant@yahoo.co.in; anilselegant@gmail.com
Mobile: +91-8860127811, 9810803375
Reading the Parliament

An Analysis of Parliamentary Debates

and Questions
DECEMBER 2021
READING THE PARLIAMENT CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH | 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUT CPR.............................................................................. I
THE TEAM............................................................................... II
ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................... III
ABOUT THE PARTNERSHIP..................................................... IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................ V
INTRODUCTION........................................................................ 1
WHY STUDY PARLIAMENTS: DEBATES AND SPEECHES.......... 2
ANALYSING PARLIAMENTARY SPEECHES............................... 3
PARLIAMENTARY STUDY IN INDIA......................................... 5
METHOD NOTE...................................................................... 6
ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 9
CONCLUSION........................................................................ 21
REFERENCES.......................................................................... 22
i.
ABOUT
The Centre for Policy Research (CPR) has been one of India’s leading public policy think tanks since 1973. The
Centre is a non- profit, non-partisan independent institution dedicated to ethical and high-quality scholarship
on all aspects and processes that shape life in India.
CPR fosters a community of distinguished academics and practitioners committed to its values of robust public
discussion. Through different verticals of research, the Centre engages in questions of economic policy, state
capacity and governance, law and state regulation and domestic and international politics. These verticals, while
separate in their functioning, often have overlapping research interests, which promotes Centre- wide dialogue
and collective intervention in India's policy domain.
The vibrant community at CPR regularly collaborates with the central and state governments, civil society
organizations and other think-tanks on research projects. This makes the Centre especially visible in the public
sphere, where it is known to lead conversations from the front.
The Politics Initiative is a new addition at the Centre. The team aims to examine questions of political economy
in a rapidly changing India. This report provides a snap-shot of their work in the previous year. The team
members regularly write commentaries in leading media outlets, a comprehensive summary of which is
available on the CPR website.
i.
TEAM
PROJECT COORDINATOR
Rahul Verma. Fellow
RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Amal Jose Phillip

Asim Ali
Dhruv Beri
Jatin Rajani
Niyati Singh
Rupak Kumar
Shamik Vatsa
Shantanu Kulshrestha
Talha Rashid
Vaibhav Parik
RESEARCH ASSISTANTS
Abdul Najah
Ilika Trivedi
Nishant Ranjan
COMMUNICATION & DESIGN SUPPORT
Atul Kumar Verma

Dhruv Bhasin
Sristi Bhatt
Praveen D'Souza
ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT
Puneet Aggarwal
ABBREVIATIONS
AIADMK: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

AIMIM: All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen
BJP: Bharatiya Janata Party
CPM: Communist Party of India (Marxist)
JDU: Janata Dal (United)
TDP: Telugu Desam Party
MP: Members of Parliament
UNDP: United Nations Development Program
UK: United Kingdom
iii.
CPR-RLS PROJECT 2021
Our project is supported by the Rosa Luxemburg-Stiftung (RLS)*, a German political foundation that is part of
the grassroots movement of democratic socialism. Bearing the name of Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919), the
foundation serves as a forum for debate and critical thinking about political alternatives, as well as a research
centre for progressive social development.
Our partnership with the RLS, South Asia has been a rewarding experience. 2021, much like the previous year,
has been challenging: the research and academic community has found its projects stalled and carefully laid
timelines go awry. In the midst of this, our partnership with the RLS has only expanded and improved. What
started as a pilot project in 2019 has matured in its third year to become a comprehensive research output
shedding light onto crucial, yet understudied. aspects of India's democratic system.
As we expand our research agenda to study the changing nature of party politics across the country, RLS'
commitment to the values of freedom and fairness adds to the quality and non-partisanship of our work.
Our expanding network of researchers, academics and journalists create opportunities for both organisations for
greater public outreach. Such outreach enables us to inform and participate in discussion on issues that matter.
We present our research output in the hope that it adds value to this discussion, and to our on-going
partnership.
*DISCLAIMER: Sponsored by the RLS with funds of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and
Development of the Federal Republic of Germany. This publication or parts of it can be used by others for free as
long as they provide a proper reference to the original publication. The content of the publication is the sole
responsibility of the partner and does not necessarily reflect a position of RLS.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Legislators across the world believe that their role as parliamentarians gets them the least electoral payoff. Yet, in their
personal belief, this is their most important role. In India, the Parliament is the highest law-making body in the country. In
addition to this legislative function, the institution serves numerous other purposes: maintaining oversight on the
functioning of the government, passing the country’s budget, and discussing issues of national importance. Effective
participation of MPs ensures the fulfillment of this mandate. The role of MPs in India, however, has been consistently
diminishing in importance, especially since the passing of the anti-defection law. Also, there is little incentive for an MP to be
present in Parliament even when important pieces of legislation are passed because India does not record the votes, thanks
to the practice of passing legislation by a voice vote.
Research shows that voting for legislation is often a signalling device and Members of Parliament’s (MPs) participation and
expertise in debates can evoke acknowledgement and praise from colleagues across party lines. Parliamentary speeches are
however not necessarily used for persuasive effect in the legislative process, but rather work as a tool for the position-taking
of MPs, and for sending policy signals as part of party competition. Speech analysis can also serve to show dissent from the
party line to secure personal support or to distance themselves from a difficult reform being pushed by the party leadership.
The scope of this paper, therefore, is to provide the first in a series of original contributions to the study of speeches made in
India’s Parliament. It seeks to outline the importance of studying Parliamentary speeches and provides an overview of
existing literature on the material, both within India and globally. It then provides an analysis of our findings—undertaken
for debates and questions, to gain sociological insights into the profiles of ministers most likely to participate in these
sessions, their priorities in doing so and whether attendance has an impact on levels of participation.
INTRODUCTION
Legislative institutions function as key markers of a democratic political system. They serve as representative bodies that
define and enact law and public policy. These institutions allow members to debate, discuss and dissect public policies, new
laws and other issues of interest. Parliamentary roles of oversight and representation should then, ideally, culminate in the
output of effective legislation. As we approach the 70th anniversary of the first session of the Lok Sabha, the following
document seeks to analyze parliamentary debates and questions in order to gain sociological insights into the profiles of
ministers most likely to participate in these sessions, their priorities in doing so and whether attendance has an impact on
levels of participation.
Legislators across the world believe that their role as parliamentarians gets them the least electoral payoff. Yet, in their
personal belief, this is their most important role (UNDP, 2012). Research shows that voting for legislation is often a
signalling device and Members of Parliament’s (MP) participation and expertise in debates can evoke acknowledgement
and praise from colleagues across party lines (Kaushiki, 2011). Parliamentary speeches are however not necessarily used for
persuasive effect in the legislative process, but rather work as a tool for the position-taking of MPs, and for sending policy
signals as part of party competition (Proksch & Slapin, 2012). Speech analysis can also serve to show dissent from the party
line to secure personal support or to distance themselves from a difficult reform being pushed by the party leadership.
There is considerable literature that analyses speeches in the UK House of Commons, the Bundestag, Canadian lower
house and other western democracies to determine intra-party heterogeneity and the correlation of speeches with
electoral incentives (Slapin et. al, 2018; Riabinin, 2009; Kam, 2009). In India, the Parliament is the highest law-making body
in the country. In addition to this legislative function, the institution serves numerous other purposes: maintaining
oversight on the functioning of the government, passing the country’s budget, and discussing issues of national
importance. Effective participation of MPs ensures the fulfillment of this mandate (PRS, 2015). The role of MPs in India,
however, has been consistently diminishing in importance, especially since the passing of the anti-defection law (Vaishnav
& Khosla, 2021). Also, there is little incentive for an MP to be present in Parliament even when important pieces of
legislation are passed because India does not record the votes, thanks to the practice of passing legislation by a voice vote
(Madhukar, 2011).
Remmer (1997) explains the fuzzy role of political institutions as a ‘black box’ through which ‘societal interests are
translated into policies and policy outcomes’. Codifying Parliamentary speeches and debates, and analysing them, as done
in this project, can illuminate an aspect of this ‘black box’.
The scope of this paper, therefore, is to provide the first in a series of original contributions to the study of speeches made
in India’s Parliament. Divided into various sections, this paper seeks to outline the importance of studying Parliamentary
speeches and provides an overview of existing literature on the material, both within India and globally. It then provides an
analysis of our findings—undertaken for debates and questions. Beyond this paper, further work will provide greater
1.
understanding on whether there is any ideological coherence/divergence between the MPs’ statements, and
gauge rising authoritarianism and shrinking federalism within the democratic structure. This will shed further
light not only on the study of legislative institutions, but also on political parties, regional politics and politicians
Why Study Parliaments: Debates and Speeches
Parliaments constitute a ‘fundamental part of democratic law making’ (Proksch & Slapin, 2015). As dynamic
political bodies, they offer a rich universe of information and provide an insight into the opinions, attitudes and
policy preferences of elected politicians.
Over the course of studying the Parliament, varied data sets have been produced for understanding both the
design of our Parliamentary democracy and its institutional functioning over the decades, particularly against
claims of declining relevance. These data sets lend themselves to a study of the socio-economic background of
parliamentarians, temporal aspects to measure productivity, the composition and functioning of various
committees, the criminal profile of MPs, and their attendance and performance (Mehra, 2018). A final dataset,
and perhaps most important, is that of Parliamentary debates.
Political scientists have only fairly recently begun looking into Parliamentary speeches and debates, prompted
by certain questions: do such debates hold relevance only because they’re procedural requirements, or are they
effective means by which the opposition can put forth its opinions, modifications and reservations about
policies, programmes and the agenda of the government? Further, do these debates matter because the
representatives in a democracy are responsible to bring substantive change in peoples’ lives? Or are they simply a
marker of preserving and respecting a tradition of freedom of speech and expression of MPs, irrespective of their
orientation towards the ruling party/ies?
Parliamentary speeches are generally supposed to be ‘a careful consideration of all policy alternatives, broad
participation and careful reasoning to arrive at a consensus’ (Smith, 1989). Nevertheless, the growing
confrontation, obstructions and disruptions in the House lay bare the limitations of debate and deliberation.
Nevertheless, according to Bäck, Debus and Fernandes (2021), Parliamentary debates are crucial tools of
communication. Speeches made in legislative assemblies spotlight the party’s position on issues and form a
means of communicating this to voters. They also signal policy alignment within a particular party and may
significantly ‘influence the policy-making process’ by persuading opponents to accept a particular viewpoint, or
they could help generate ‘decisions that are better reasoned and informed, more public oriented and consensual
and consequently more legitimate and effective’ (Bächtiger 2014). Further, this dataset is also instrumental in
highlighting both inter- and intra-party politics. Something analyses of composition and attendance cannot
provide.
2.
Parliamentary debates also serve as an aid to make sense of the ‘level of political polarisation…which
political issues get discussed publicly, which do not and why; how parties handle internal divisions and
dissent; and how parties and their MPs represent the various interests of their publics’ (Proksch and Slapin,
2021). Comprehending these debates would help us understand party ideology and preferences.
Laver (2021) considers parliamentary debates ‘mostly ritualistic’ in nature as the final outcome of any
‘debate’ on bills is already known to the politicians, making the processes mere formalities. On the matter
of significance of these debates, Austin-Smith (1990) felt that if these debates, interjections, interventions,
apprehensions, assurances, and questions were not bringing any qualitative change in the matters being
discussed on the floor of the House, then the institution was merely an ‘echo chamber’ or a forum where
speeches were ‘cheap talk’ and served only a function of ‘public communication which parties and their
MPs exploit for electoral purposes’ (Proksch & Slapin 2015). They also dismiss the view that parliamentary
discourse reflects the deliberative ideals of democracy, claiming that ‘politicians put greater emphasis on
position-taking than on deliberating and arguing’ (Proksch & Slapin, 2015).
Some scholars question the basic technicality of such speeches serving as debates. In his work, Steven
Smith (1989) argues that a ‘debate is inherently strategic, with each side of the argument anticipating the
arguments of the other side, preparing to refute those arguments and avoiding arguments that weaken
one’s own case’. Laver (2021) too hesitates to call the parliamentary proceedings as debates. According to
him, they constitute ‘a series of statements and restatements of positions and attitudes that are already
common knowledge. Seasoned politicians do not expect to have their minds changed by arguments they
hear in legislative debates–their minds are already made up before they go into the debating chamber’
(Laver, 2021). Neither the opposing arguments nor the relative persuasiveness of the speakers decide the
future of the bill. In practice, a distinction between parliamentary speech ‘as a debate versus deliberation’
(Smith, 1989) is instrumental in defining the effectiveness.
Analysing Parliamentary Speeches
Bäck, Debus and Fernandes (2021) categorised parliamentary speeches into three approaches, namely, the
deliberative approach, the discourse approach, and the strategic and partisan-rhetoric approach. The
deliberative approach primarily highlights the significance of informed and reasoned decision-making in
parliament. The ‘Discourse Quality Index’ (Steiner, Bachtiger, Sporndli & Steenbergen, 2003) falls in this
domain as it focuses on the quality of the debate by ‘measuring common good orientation, providing
information on whether speakers draw in the common good in their justifications’. This index also
emphasises ‘respect, and analyzes whether speakers downplay, treat neutrally, or support demands from
other speakers’. The discourse approach focuses on the ‘rules, conventions and routines of parliamentary
debate’. The strategic approach looks at the floor participation of the members. In a similar vein, Max
Goplerud (2021) talks about three different methods to study parliamentary debates, namely, analysis
based on ‘the volume
3.
of activity by representatives’, on drawing inferences about latent concepts from analysing text, and based
on the content of speeches.
Apart from this, individual-level markers are also seen to have an impact on legislative participation. On
matters of gender representation, for instance, Taylor-Robinson (2014) analyses legislatures across the US,
France and Australia to show that ‘women are equally active debate participants’. Bäck and Debus (2019),
however, show that the type of debate matters—men are likelier to speak on 'masculine topics'. In a similar
vein, debates on topics that are seen as ‘morally loaded’ are affected by gender as well as the family
backgrounds of participating MPs (Bäck, Debus and Fernandes, 2021). Yet other studies show that the
backgrounds—religion, family background, class, etc. of Parliamentarians matters as well. In the German
Bundestag, for instance, it was found that MPs with an immigrant background were more likely to give
speeches on civil and minority rights than on other matters.
The purposive function of parliamentary debates does not disregard the primacy of the electorate. These
debates are a platform ‘to communicate parties and candidates’ position to the voters’ (Maltzman &
Sigelman 1996); and ‘to signal policy positions within the party, such as representatives who want to show
loyalty to the party to increase the chances of getting renominated as a candidate’ (Baumann et al. 2017).
These debates can therefore be considered fundamentally political acts, where the motive is to achieve the
best possible outcome amongst the competing parties, either through attaining a majority vote or through
consensus. Parliaments devote time to debate because it ‘may affect policy outcomes as MPs try to
persuade colleagues of the superiority of their position or present new policy alternatives’ or ‘speech
[might] allow MPs to stake out a position and communicate it to their parties and to voters’ (Proksch &
Slapin, 2015). To the extent, therefore, that parties want to present a unified stand to voters, what is said on
the floor of the house will be controlled. Strong incentives are created for this. However, in countries where
Parliamentarians find greater incentives to cultivate their own views, even if contrarian, lesser control is
exercised by the party over its members. It is worth noting that ideological rebels in parties are more likely
to dissent when their party controls the government and are loyal when their party is in the opposition
(Slapin et. al, 2018).
Debates are broadcasted and reported by the media which ultimately reaches the people. MPs usually
articulate arguments in two ways, first, in a universal idiom stating how a proposed policy is beneficial for a
larger population; and second, by addressing a specific concern for the constituency. It is in this sense that
parliamentary debates are also performative tools for MPs to show their constituents and the larger
audience that they ‘stood up for their concerns in parliament’ (Proksch & Slapin, 2015).
Similarly, Russo (2011) has analysed Parliamentary questions to understand the extent to which
Parliamentarians focus on their geographical constituency in Italy. The government-opposition divide has
been studied in detail in order to observe the differences in the level of participation. While increased
activity by MPs in the opposition is a given, those in
4.
power also ask questions to increase their engagement and to highlight the achievements of the
government (Saalfeld, 2011).
A study of parliamentary questions (PQs) encourages analysis of legislators, both as individuals and also as
an important element of the overall political system. Most studies of PQs focus on analysing their
usefulness as a tool of accountability (Martin, 2011).
Parliamentary Study in India
There exist numerous seminal studies that focus on the structure of the Indian Parliament (Kashyap, 2001;
Sharma 1986; Singh, 1973). Some have focused on specific aspects of institutional functioning such as the
role of the MPs, the speaker and other procedural aspects (Chaudhuri, 1993; Malhotra, 1998; Gehlot, 1985).
These however are unable to provide an analysis of MP behaviour or Parliamentary functioning. Yet others
have looked at Parliamentary decline. Kumar (2018) for instance, examines this decline in terms of
increasing criminalisation and growing wealth of MPs, and rise in disruptions, among other aspects. Arora
(2003) however claims that the ‘signs of disorder that India’s parliamentary system frequently displays are
in fact the consequences of its progressive democratisation’.
We note that scholars have only as yet begun to study Parliamentary texts as a data source. Rohit and Singh
(2018) have conducted manual analysis of debates from 2014 to 2017 for stance classification of
parliamentary speeches i.e., whether a speaker is for or against the issue. Similarly, whether Muslim MPs in
India raise issues related to Indian Muslims in the Question Hour of the Indian Parliament is being studied
to answer the question of the importance of the sociological background of MPs (Bhogale, 2018). But
comprehensive analysis of parliamentary speeches and debates has only been done on a limited scale. This
study attempts to go a step further in this field.
Sessions of Parliament are predetermined. While members can raise a variety of issues on the floor of the
House, and the government can introduce bills, the tone and tenor inside the House is often dictated by the
politics taking place outside it. This gets reflected during Zero Hour, Question Hour, Adjournment Motions,
and motions on Urgent Matters.
Ayyangar and Jacob (2014) explored the behaviour of legislators in the Question Hour of the Lok Sabha
from 1980 to 2009. Factors like personal characteristics, states and legislative roles were studied. There is
significant variation with some MPs being silent throughout their tenure even while being in the
opposition, while others use the Question Hour more effectively. Further, while symbolic representation of
women and Scheduled Tribe MPs has increased, substantive representation in terms of participation is not
at par with other groups like male, upper caste MPs, those who are young and those who have a college
education. Participation of MPs also differs by state.
An analysis of the Parliamentary Questions asked during the Question Hour allows us to see whether the
questions asked were related to local matters or not. If the name of the Constituency was present in the
question, then we can say that the question was related to local matters. The overall result illustrates that
2,68,916 questions asked between the 13th to 16th Lok Sabha were not related to local matters, i.e., 97.4
percent of the questions were
5.
unrelated to issues of the respective constituencies and as low as 2.61 percent of the questions were related
to local matters in these four Lok Sabha terms. This ratio is consistent in all the terms of the Lok Sabha. 3.2
percent of the questions asked during the 13th Lok Sabha were related to local matters while 2.6 percent, 2.2
percent and 2.3 percent of the questions were related to local matters in the 14th, 15th, and 16th Lok Sabha
respectively.
Method Note
Currently, the data of Parliamentary debates of the 15th and 16th Lok Sabha is available for analysis i.e.,
debates from 2009-2019. Data available on the Lok Sabha website is categorised according to dates,
sessions, type of debate and name of the members. Of these, the type of debate is a helpful filter to narrow
down the data for further analysis.
There are 49 types of debates identified on the Lok Sabha website. Debates like Address by the Chair,
Announcement by the Chair, Assent to Bills, etc. are more concerned with procedures followed by the
House. But different motions and discussions which draw the attention of the Parliament towards issues of
general public interest are better tools for content analysis. These include the Adjournment Motion, Calling
Attention Motion, Government Bills, Government Resolutions, Half-an-Hour Discussion, Matters under
Rule 377, Motion to consider Policy or any other matter, No-day-yet-named motion, Private Member’ Bills
and Resolutions, Short Duration Discussions, Special Mentions, Statements by Ministers and Submissions
by members. Since multiple viewpoints are usually expressed in a single speech and strict classification is
not easy, narrowing down the debates according to type is a good method for deeper content analysis.
To compile the data, the debates between 2009-2019 were initially downloaded in a readable format and
then they were converted into a structured pattern that would have been suitable for analysis but this
process was extremely time intensive. So, instead of this, a script was written in Python to automate the
downloading of the debates directly from the Lok Sabha website. Since the data is very extensive, with
almost 11,000 speeches in one session, the data downloading process took two to three months. The
debates are available in both Hindi and English. At present, the scope of this report is limited to the English
text.
Once the debates of two Lok Sabha sessions (2009 and 2014) were compiled, the data was cleaned by
removing white spaces and non-uniformity in order to get a proper format.
Besides this, the data of the Question Hour from the 13th to the 16th Lok Sabha has also been scraped from
the Parliament website. Questions asked in Lok Sabha terms 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th are available online in
individual documents which can be downloaded. Data was scraped from these documents and then
compiled into a database for the purpose of analysis.
6.
Samples of 15th Lok Sabha data sheet
7.
Our initial analysis had provided us with certain counterintuitive results. Therefore, instead of using the
quantitative measure of mean, we chose to use the median, which is the midpoint of a number set, in
which half the numbers are above the median and half are below. This is preferred in a dataset when the
data contains significant outliers resulting in a skewed value of the mean. In such a scenario, the value of
the mean is dominated by outliers rather than the typical data. The median is better suited for skewed
distributions to derive at a central tendency since it is relatively more robust and sensible. In the case of
analysis of Parliamentary debates, the median can be seen as a better measure for answering the basic
questions of analysis like those related to states and MPs’ participation in debates.
A separate level of analysis was undertaken through the textual analysis of parliamentary debates in order
to understand the nature of speeches that take place in Parliament during the period of our analysis.
Cortext is a data-analysis and data-processing tool that is often used for Natural Language Processing
(NLP) and textual analysis. We cleaned and uploaded a dataset of the 15th Lok Sabha and ran it for top
words, i.e., words ranked in order of their frequency. Given that the text was a mixture of English and Hindi
words, and that Cortext cannot process Hindi stopwords, we manually cleaned the dataset to remove any
stopwords (like the, to be, or आप, करता हूँ in Hindi). This gave us a cleaned list of about 100 top words. We
divided this list of top words into Procedural and Substantive discussions. Procedural discussions are those
where the textual content references parliamentary procedure or concerns a procedure. Examples of this
can be the laying of paper, requests to maintain order in the house by the speaker, etc. Substantive
discussions include words that refer to non-procedural matters, including the content of bills, questions,
and matters concerning local/national issues.
While the original scope of the planned project had involved the scraping of data to analyse what these
debates tell us about the federal structure and powers of the state vis-à-vis the centre; what this tells us
about variations in regional and national parties and their concerns; and finally, the role and scope of
elected representatives and their influence on politics, this study’s focus has remained on the personal
characteristics of MPs such as age, education, gender, etc. This is due to a number of reasons: difficulties in
cleaning the voluminous data set and references to individuals and subject matter in numerous different
ways which added complexity in standardising the data. A sociological analysis gives us some concrete
insight into the participation of MPs and the socioeconomic factors that possibly determine their
participation. We envision this as the first step to future research, where we will undertake a comparison of
ideological positions in Parliament against party manifestos.
8.
ANALYSIS
All proceedings of the House at each of its sittings are published, printed and distributed by the Lok Sabha
Secretariat under the authority of the Speaker according to Rule 379 and Rule 382 of Rules of Procedure and
Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha. The Original Version contains proceedings of the House in English
and Hindi. An analysis of the language used in Parliament shows that 44 percent of the debates in the 15th
Lok Sabha and 53 percent of the debates in the 16th Lok Sabha were in the Hindi language.
In the 15th and 16th Lok Sabha, 27,047 debates were scraped from the parliamentary repository. Out of
these debates, 41 percent were from the 15th Lok Sabha session (2009-2014) and 59 percent from the 16th
Lok Sabha (2014-2019). Within this too, there were variations in debates belonging to different categories:
nearly 34 percent from matters Under Rule 377, 28 percent were from the category of Special Mentions, 10
percent from matters related to Parliamentary Committees, 5 percent from Statement by Ministers and
almost 4 percent from the category of Government Bills in 15th Lok Sabha. In the 16th Lok Sabha, 19 percent
belonged to Matters Under Rule 377, 27 percent under Special Mentions, 5 percent were related to
Parliamentary Committees, and 5 percent to Private Members’ .
9.
Bills. Many of these categories incorporate day to day formal procedures of the Parliament while other
important categories like Half-an-Hour Discussions (Rule-55) contain the entirety of the debates on a
specific issue of concern raised by the members. Analysing the debates using state wise breakdown
predictably shows expected results with larger states having more MPs participating in higher number of
debates while the smaller states and Union Territories have lower participation. In terms of absolute
numbers, the maximum number of debates were given by MPs from Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and
Rajasthan.
However, the moment we take median as a unit of analysis, state wise distribution of debates irrespective
of the numbers of the MPs shows a proportional outcome. One can see from Graph 2 that Himachal
Pradesh, Sikkim and Kerala participated enthusiastically followed by Jammu & Kashmir and Tamil Nadu in
15th Lok Sabha. Graph 3 illustrates that Tripura, Kerala, Rajasthan and Sikkim performed well in the 16th
Lok Sabha. Unlike with absolute numbers, the median of debates for Uttar Pradesh are less than 30 in 15th
and 16th Lok Sabha, despite having the maximum number of MPs. Similarly, the participation of Rajasthan
and Maharashtra also reduces if one looks at the median number of debates, in the 15th Lok Sabha before
rising in the 16th. For Union Territories, MPs from Delhi have a higher participation rate from
approximately 30 debates in the 15th Lok Sabha to approximately 60 debates in the 16th Lok Sabha. Others
with a high member participation rate according to the median number of debates are Andaman & Nicobar
Islands and Lakshadweep Islands.
Women MPs are often not taken seriously, as Kaushik (1992) notes, a fact often borne out by their poor
representation in the House. The 15th Lok Sabha had 58 women MPs, while the 16th Lok Sabha had 63
women MPs; the share of women members therefore rose from 10.68 percent to 11.60 percent. While one
would think that low share would reflect in participation, interestingly however, an analysis of the data
according to the median gives a contrasting result. For both sessions of the Lok Sabha, the median number
of debates by women MPs is 29.5 while this number for men is 24. In the 15th Lok Sabha, the median
number of debates by women MPs were 25.5 while by men MPs was 24. In the 16th Lok Sabha, the
participation rate of women increased to 33.5 while that of male MPs’ remained at 25. So, the participation
of women MPs is more than men MPs if one takes median into account during analysis.
The participation of MPs according to the reservation is another important social marker of analysis in order
to understand the participation of historically marginalised groups. In the 15th Lok Sabha, the median of
debates is highest for MPs from Scheduled Castes with 31 debates, followed by MPs of the General seats
with 25 debates. The least participation was by MPs from Scheduled Tribe seats with only 10 debates. The
minimum participation remained almost the same in the 16th Lok Sabha with 11 debates for MPs from ST
seats. The highest participation according to the median of debates was by MPs from General seats with 29
debates. The median number of debates decreased from 31 to 22.5 for MPs from SC seats.
11.
Using education as our marker of analysis, of all MPs who participated in the debates in the 15th and 16th
Lok Sabha, the median of debates were highest by Post Graduates at 37 followed by 36 debates by those
who have a Doctorate and 25 debates by Graduate MPs. If analysed specifically for each session, in the 15th
Lok Sabha, participation was highest by Doctorates with 53 debates followed by 49 debates for Others
category which refers to members who aren’t educated formally or are not literate. In the 16th Lok Sabha,
Post-Graduate MPs participated the most with 45 debates followed by MPs with Doctorates with 30
debates and 12th pass MPs with 28 debates. The number of Members with a doctoral degree had also
increased, between the two analysed sessions, from 3 percent in 15th Lok Sabha to 6 percent in 16th Lok
Sabha.
The age distribution of MPs in the 15th Lok Sabha was such that 43 percent of the MPs were over the age of
55. 4 MPs out of every 10 were above the 55 years of age between 2009-2014. In the 16th Lok Sabha between
2014-2019, almost 5 MPs out of every 10 were above the age of 55. If the participation of MPs according to
age is taken into picture, then the median number of debates shows a significant change between the 15th
and 16th Lok Sabha.
In the 15th Lok Sabha, MPs between the age group of 61-70 years participated the most having a median
number of debates at 28 followed by MPs who were more than 71 years old with the median number of
debates at 27. Compared to this, during the 16th Lok Sabha, MPs belonging the age group of 25-30 years
have the maximum median participation with 49 debates, followed by in the age group of 41-50 years and
51-60 years of age group with 31.5 debates each. Participation in debates by the older MPs declined sharply
in the 16th Lok Sabha despite their numbers increasing. This is even more surprising because only 71 MPs
(13%) were elected to the 16th Lok Sabha who were under the age of 40. Since the participation of younger
MPs was much higher, the overall result for 16th Lok Sabha the median results saw maximum participation
by MPs in the 20-30 years bracket with 36 debates followed by 29 debates by MPs belonging to the 41-50
age group and 28 debates by MPs belonging to the 61-70 age group.
If one were to analyse participation in these debates, Bhairon Prasad Mishra from Uttar Pradesh
participated in the maximum number of debates at 1,722 debates in 16th Lok Sabha. This was followed by
Pushpendra Singh Chandel with 1,563 debates. Seen comparatively, Arjun Ram Meghwal of Rajasthan held
the top position in participation in the 15th Lok Sabha with only 430 debates while Bhairon Prasad Mishra
participated the most with 1,722 debates in the 16th Lok Sabha. Of the 10 Members with the maximum
overall participation in terms of the number of debates with their name as a participant, 4 were from Uttar
Pradesh, 3 from Rajasthan and one each from Kerala, Jharkhand and Gujarat. In the top 25, this distribution
remains similar with 7 members from Uttar Pradesh, 5 from Rajasthan, 4 from Kerala and 3 from Madhya
Pradesh.
12.
In addition to its law making role, various parliamentary procedures also exist to ensure that the actions
being taken by the ministers and the policies being made by the government can be held accountable by
representatives elected by Indian citizens. The first hour of a day’s proceedings in Lok Sabha is devoted to
the ‘Question Hour’. Members across parties can raise questions relating to the government’s activities.
Each question is related to the work of a specific ministry, and the Ministers are supposed to provide
adequate clarifications on the questions raised in the house.
Question Hour begins at 11 AM on all days of sitting in the Lok Sabha. The questions are classified as being
either starred or unstarred. Starred questions require an oral answer and are limited to 20 questions per
day, which are chosen through a lottery system. These questions are distinguished by an asterisk and can be
followed up by further supplementary questions. The second type is the unstarred questions which are
answered in writing and therefore, no supplementary questions can be asked. Ministries are asked
questions on a rotational basis and the questions are chosen through a ballot. A maximum of 20 questions
can be listed for an oral answer on a day. An MP is allowed to ask two supplementary questions in
pursuance of a starred question asked by him, and the speaker may allow any other MP to ask a
supplementary question. Only 230 questions can be listed for written answers in a day. 25 more questions
can be listed related to states under President’s Rule and in such a scenario, the number of questions may
not exceed 255 per day. There is a cap of 10 questions for a member per day and a notice period of not less
than 15 clear days must be given.
A total of 2,76,129 questions were

asked in the last four Lok Sabha
terms i.e., from 1998 to 2019. The
number of questions ranges from
56,000 to 80,000, with the
minimum being 56,901 in the 16th
Lok Sabha and maximum being
79,401 in the 15th Lok Sabha. The
year by year breakup of the
number of questions can be seen
in Graph 4. In 2004 and 2008, the
least number of questions, less
than 10,000 were asked. 2000
and 2010
were years where the highest numbers of questions, approximately 20,000, were asked. In absolute
numbers, Maharashtra leads by a fair margin with more than 40,000 questions followed by Andhra
Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh with almost 30,000 questions each. Smaller states and Union Territories are
understandably at the bottom with a much lower number of total questions.
13.
14.
While analysing the number of questions for the purpose of inter-state comparison, taking the mean
number of questions is a better measure since it shows a clearer picture than absolute numbers which are
impacted by the number of members from each state, which are lesser for smaller states and much more
for larger states.
According to the state wise mean number of questions, states like Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Kerala
asked the most number of questions with the first two asking more than 200 questions per member on an
average; while Odisha asked approximately 160 questions per member. Kerala was nearly equivalent to it.
The union territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep Islands had approximately 180
questions on an average.
The analysis of the number of questions asked according to Ministries shows that the Top 5 ministries for all
four terms are that of Finance, Railway, Agriculture, Health and Family Welfare, and Human Resource
Development. The highest number of questions, nearly 18,880, was asked from the Ministry of Finance.
15.
16.
A closer inspection of the data pinpoints certain minor changes between terms which can be observed. In
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Lok Sabha, the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology and
the Ministry of Agriculture were in the Top 5 ministries from which questions were asked. Replacing these
were the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Human Resource Development.The Sixteenth Lok
Sabha was unique in the sense that the maximum number of questions was related to the Ministry of
Human Resource Development instead of the Ministry of Finance, outlawing the trend.
An analysis of Parliamentary Questions according to political parties gives some unique insights. BJP MPs
asked the maximum number of questions, predictably followed by Congress. 30.77% of the questions were
asked by BJP MPs during 1998-2019 while Congress MPs asked 24.18% of the questions. BJP has almost
always taken the lead in terms of number of questions asked.
The gap between the number of questions between BJP and Congress was not as significant in the 13th and
14th Lok Sabha with a difference of 1,784 and 2,521 questions respectively. However, the maximum number
of questions were asked by Congress in the 15th Lok Sabha from 2009-2014. There was a significant gap as
well with Congress asking 34.5% of the questions while BJP members asked 24.8% of the questions,
reversing the difference with 7,719 questions.
17.
The 16th Lok Sabha from 2014-2019 shows a significant change in terms of the difference in the number of
questions asked with BJP members asking 46.8% of the questions while Congress members asked a mere
8.8% of the questions. There was an effective difference of 21,600 questions in favour of BJP, despite the
Congress being in opposition. This can be attributed to the fact that the Congress had less than 50 MPs in
Lok Sabha. In fact, Congress is at third position after BJP and AIADMK. While CPM members were active in
the 13th and 14th Lok Sabha, this party has not been in the top five since the last two terms due to fewer
MPs in the Lok Sabha. Shiv Sena has consistently retained its position in the top 5.
Another aspect of analysis of Parliamentary questions is finding out which ministries remain in focus by
various parties MPs. For BJP, the Railways and Finance Ministries were the most important from which they
asked more than 5000 questions each. For Congress, the priority has been the Finance ministry where they
asked 4836 questions followed by the Agriculture ministry with 3607 questions. Like the BJP, the CPM and
Shiv Sena prioritise Railways and Finance ministries in posing questions. While the Finance ministry is a
common link for all the parties, JDU breaks this pattern by focusing on the Ministry of Home Affairs after
the Finance ministry.
The participation of the Members of Parliament can also be studied through the number of questions asked
by them in the Lok Sabha. From the 13th to 16th Lok Sabha, the maximum number of questions has been
asked by Asaduddin Owaisi of AIMIM with 1384 questions in total. Hansraj Gangaram Ahir of BJP has asked
the second highest number of questions– 1,179. The other three members posing maximum questions are
Ummareddy Venkateswarlu, Gowdar Mallikarjunappa Siddeswara of BJP and Ambati Brahmanaiah of TDP.
Ummareddy Venkateswarlu asked maximum questions in the 13th Lok Sabha, Salarapatty Kuppusamy
Kharventhan asked maximum questions in the 14th Lok Sabha, S. Ramasubbu in the 15th Lok Sabha and
Asaduddin Owaisi in the 16th Lok Sabha.
Analysing such data could also potentially provide insight on the strategies used by individual MPs for
career enhancement. A study on Swiss Parliament by Bailer (2011) found that MPs with high career
ambitions tend to ask more questions as compared to their less career focused counterparts. Another
conclusion was that inexperienced MPs asked a greater number of questions in order to gain traction from
party leaders. A similar study of disruptions in the Indian parliament suggests this is an important strategy
for attracting attention of senior members of the party (Phadnis, 2016).
We also conducted a series of correlation tests and produced scatter plots to determine the existence of any
association between the attendance of MPs in Parliament and their participation in debates as well as in
asking questions. For this, we filtered out the top performing 150 MPs in each category for the 14th, 15th and
16th Lok Sabha respectively. We then tested the correlation between attendance percentage of these MPs
and their debate participation and questions asked, respectively.
18.
Correlating Parliamentary Debates and Questions with Attendance

All three Lok Sabhas had a moderately positive correlation between attendance and debate participation,
with the results being statistically significant even at the 1% level. As visible, the corresponding scatter plots
show certain positive trends. However, parliamentary questions were negatively correlated with attendance
in all three Lok Sabhas, and this result was only significant in the 15th Lok Sabha. As the plots also reveal, it is
harder to ascertain a clearer pattern in this case. Therefore, the overall findings indicate a consistent trend,
implying while there is a positive and statistically significant correlation between MPs’ attendance and their
participation in debates, the same cannot be said about asking questions.
In addition to the above, we also undertook a textual analysis of the data, in the top words into Procedural
and Substantive discussions. Procedural discussions are those where the textual content references
parliamentary procedure, or concerns a procedure. Examples of this can be the laying of paper, requests to
maintain order in the house by the speaker, etc. Substantive discussions include words that refer to non-
procedural matters, including the content of bills, questions, and matters concerning local/national
issues.Where the terms were ambiguous, we classified them as being both Procedural and Substantive (by
the government, in the ministry of, etc.). A preliminary analysis of our debates data shows us that for the
period studied, nearly 60% of the content of the debates largely pertained to parliamentary procedures.
Nearly 15% of the debates could be classified as being substantive.
20.
CONCLUSION
Democracies thrive on debate. Parliamentary debates are a critical part of democratic lawmaking and
holding the government to account. It is within Parliament that bills are debated on and policies
questioned on them. Speeches made within Parliament also function as tools of communication,
providing both an opportunity to represent the Views of constituents on the floor and acting as currency
for the electorate.
A debate can be effective if the treasury benches listen to it and respond to the concerns raised by the MPs.
The statistical analysis of debates and questions done here attempts to give a systematic understanding of
Parliament. The textual data conveys to us the role that MPs play while exercising their right to speech,
asking questions, raising urgent matters and demanding reassurances from the government in the
legislature. The above analysis enumerates some basic understanding of Parliament–providing us with
insights on the socio-economic markers of Parliamentarians, their participation as well as their ministerial
priorities.
This analysis, though limited in its present scope, can be further expanded in order to understand the
policy patterns, and ideological inclinations of those who speak in the House.
21.
REFERENCES
Arora, B. ‘Indian Parliament and Democracy’, in Ajay K. Mehra and Gert W. Keuck (eds.) (2003), The Indian Parliament: A
Comparative Perspective, New Delhi: Konark.
Austen-Smith, D. (1990). Information Transmission in Debate. American Journal of Political Science, 34(1), 124-152.
Ayyangar, S. & Jacob, S. (2014). Studying the Indian Legislature: What does Question Hour Reveal? Studies in Indian
Politics. 2. 1-19.
Bächtiger, A. (2014). Debate and Deliberation in Legislatures. In S. Martin, T. Saalfeld, & K. Strøm (Eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Legislative Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bäck, H., Debus, M., & Fernandes, J. M. (Eds.). (2021). The politics of legislative debates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bates, Stephen & Kerr, Peter & Byrne, Christopher & Stanley, Liam. (2012). Questions to the Prime Minister: A
Comparative Study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron. Parliamentary Affairs. 67. 253-280.
Baumann, M., Debus, M., & Klingelhöfer, T. (2017). Keeping One’s Seat: The Competitiveness of MP Renomination in
Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. The Journal of Politics, 79(3), 979-994.
Benedetto, G., and S. Hix. 2007. “The Rejected, the Ejected, and the Dejected: Explaining Government Rebels in the 2001–
2005 British House of Commons.” Comparative Political Studies. 40(7):755–781.
Bernauer, J., & Bräuninger, T. (2009). Intra-Party Preference Heterogeneity and Faction Membership in the 15th German
Bundestag: A Computational Text Analysis of Parliamentary Speeches. German Politics, 18(3), 385-402.
Bhogale, S. (2018), Querying the Indian Parliament. What can the Question Hour tell about Muslim Representation in
India? TCPD Working paper, 2018-1.
Chaudhuri, A K (1993) Legislative Control over Public Administration. Calcutta: Minerva Associates.
Diermeier, D., Godbout, J., Yu, B., & Kaufmann, S. (2012). Language and Ideology in Congress. British Journal of Political
Science, 42(1), 223-246.
Dios, Manuel & Wiberg, Matti. (2011). Questioning in European Parliaments. The Journal of Legislative Studies. 17. 354-
367.
Fernandes, J. M., Debus, M., & Back, H. (2021). Unpacking the politics of legislative debates. European Journal of Political
Research, 1-14.
22.
Gehlot, N. S. (1985). Office of the Speaker in India. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications.
Giannetti, D., & Laver, M. (2005). Policy positions and jobs in the government. European Journal of
Political Research, 44(1), 91-120.
Goplerud, M. (2021). Methods for Analyzing Parliamentary Debates. In H. Back, M. Debus, & J. Fernandes
(Eds.), The Politics of Legislative Debates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon. (2013). Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content
Analysis Methods for Political Texts. Political Analysis. 21. 267-297.
Huang, L., Perry, P., & Spirling, A. (2020). A General Model of Author “Style” with Application to the UK
House of Commons, 1935–2018. Political Analysis. 28. 1-23.
Jackson, N., and D. Lilleker. (2011). “Microblogging, Constituency Service and Impression Management: UK
MPs and the Use of Twitter.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 17(1):86–105.
Kam, C. J. (2009). Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kashyap, S. C. (1990). A new parliamentary initiative: Subject-based standing committees of parliament.

Economic and Political Weekly. 25(40). 2273–2279.
Kashyap, S. (2000). Parliamentary Procedure: The Law, Privileges, Practice and Precedents. New Delhi:
Universal Book Traders.
Kaushik, Susheela (1992). “Women and Political Participation.” In Women in Politics: Forms and
Processes, ed. Kamala, Sankaran. New Delhi: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
Kaushiki. (2011). Do we need the MPLAD Scheme. PRS Legislative Research.
Kumar, A. Why is the Indian parliament in a state of decline? on Mehra, A (ed.) (2018). The Indian
Parliament and Democratic Transformation. Routledge India
Laver, M. (2021). Analyzing the politics of legislative debate. In H. Back, M. Debus, & J. Fernandes (Eds.),
The Politics of Legislative Debates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laver, M., & Benoit, K. (2002). Locating TDs in Policy Spaces: Wordscoring in Dáil Speeches. Irish Political
Studies, 17(1), 59-73.
Laver, M., Benoit, K., & Garry, J. (2003). Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as
Data. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 311-332.
Laver, M & Benoit, K. (2003). Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data.
American Political Science Review. 97.
23.
Kam, A. (2001). Do Ideological Preferences Explain parliamentary Behaviour? Evidence from Great Britain and
Canada. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 7(4), 89- 126.
Khosla, M., & Vaishnav, M. (2021). The Three Faces of the Indian State. Journal of Democracy, 32(1), 111-25.
Madhukar, C.V. (2011). The Indian parliament: Frozen in Time? India in Transition (IiT), CASI.
Malhotra, G. C. (1998). ‘Parliamentary Committees with Special Reference to Departmentally Related Standing
Committees’, Journal of Parliamentary Information 44 (3): 236–64.
Maltzman, F., & Sigelman, L. (1996). The Politics of Talk: Unconstrained Floor Time in the U.S. House of
Representatives. The Journal of Politics, 58(3), 819-830.
Martin, L. W., & Vanberg, G. (2008). Coalition Government and Political Communication. Political Research
Quarterly, 61(3), 502-516.
Martin, Shane. (2011). Parliamentary Questions, the Behaviour of Legislators, and the Function of Legislatures: An
Introduction. The Journal of Legislative Studies. 17. 259-270.
McDonnell, Duncan & Ondelli, Stefano. (2020). The Language of Right-Wing Populist Leaders: Not So Simple.
Perspectives on Politics.
Mehra, A (ed.) (2018). The Indian Parliament and Democratic Transformation. Routledge India
Otjes, Simon & Louwerse, Tom. (2017). Parliamentary questions as strategic party tools. West European Politics. 41.
1-21.
Paul, S., & Vivekananda, M. (2004). Holding a mirror to the new Lok Sabha. Economic and Political Weekly. 39(45).
4927–4934.
Proksch, S., & Slapin, J. B. (2010). Position Taking in European Parliament Speeches. British Journal of Political
Science, 40(3), 587-611.
Proksch, S., & Slapin, J. B. (2012). Institutional Foundations of Legislative Speech. American Journal of Political
Science, 56(3), 520-537.
Proksch, S., & Slapin, J. B. (2015). The politics of parliamentary debate: Parties, rebels and representation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Remmer, K. (1997). Theoretical Decay and Theoretical Development: The Resurgence of Institutional Analysis. World
Politics, 50(1), 34-61.
24.
Riabinin, Y. (2009,). Computational Identification of Ideology in Text: A Study of Canadian parliamentary Debates.
University of Toronto.
Rozenberg, Olivier & Martin, Shane. (2011). Questioning Parliamentary Questions. The Journal of Legislative
Studies. 17. 394-404.
Rush, M. 2001. The Role of the Member of Parliament Since 1868: From Gentlemen to Players. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Russo, Federico. (2011). The Constituency as a Focus of Representation: Studying the Italian Case through the
Analysis of Parliamentary Questions. The Journal of Legislative Studies. 17. 290-301.
Saalfeld, T. (2011). Parliamentary questions as instruments of substantive representation: Visible minorities in the
UK House of Commons, 2005–10. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(3), 271–289
Shankar, A. & Singh, S. (2015). Parliamentary procedures: A primer, Rajya Sabha. PRS Legislative Research.
Sharma, P. (1986) Working of Parliamentary Democracy in India with special reference to UP, 1967–85. Delhi:
Modern Publishers.
Singh, B. (1973). Council of States in India: A Structural and Functional Profile. New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan.
Slapin, J. B., & Proksch, S. (2008). A Scaling Model for Estimating Time-Series Party Positions from Texts. American
Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 705-722.
Slapin, J., Kirkland, J., Lazzaro, J., Leslie, P., & O’Grady T. (2018). Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party
Disloyalty in the British parliament. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 15-30.
Slapin, J., & Proksch, S. (2021). Theories and Empirical Applications of Legislative Debate. In H. Back, M. Debus, & J.
Fernandes (Eds.), The Politics of Legislative Debates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, S. (1989). Call to Order: Floor Politics in the House and Senate. Washington (D.C.): The Brookings institution.
Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Sporndli, M., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing
Parliamentary Discourse. Camb: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor-Robinson, M.M. Gender and Legislatures. In Martin, S., Saalfeld, T. & Strøm, K. (eds.) (2014). The Oxford
Handbook of Legislative Studies, Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (2012). Global Parliamentary Report: The Changing Nature of Parliamentary Representation.
United Nations Pubns
Wallack, J. S. (2008). India’s parliament as a representative institution. India Review. 7(2). 91–114.
The material in this publication is copyrighted. No part of this report can be reproduced either on paper or electronic media without permission
in writing from CPR. Request for permission to reproduce any part of the report may be sent to CPR.
Usage of information: Forwarding/copy/using in publications without approval from CPR will be considered as infringement of intellectual
property rights.
25.

Reading The Parliament

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading The Parliament

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY

DEBATES AND QUESTIONS

Reading the Parliament:

Published in December 2021 by Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

Cover photograph: Getty Images

Usage of information: Forwarding/copy/using in publications without approval from

An Analysis of Parliamentary Debates

READING THE PARLIAMENT CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH | 2021

Rahul Verma. Fellow

Amal Jose Phillip

Atul Kumar Verma

AIADMK: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

CPR-RLS PROJECT 2021

Why Study Parliaments: Debates and Speeches

Analysing Parliamentary Speeches

Parliamentary Study in India

Samples of 15th Lok Sabha data sheet

A total of 2,76,129 questions were

Correlating Parliamentary Debates and Questions with Attendance

Kashyap, S. C. (1990). A new parliamentary initiative: Subject-based standing committees of parliament.

You might also like