Editorial 1: ​ Reviving a far-sighted but forgotten Bill mechanism

Context

The Private Member’s Bill holds the potential to greatly enrich India’s legislative framework, serving as a valuable source of innovative and impactful lawmaking.

Introduction

Private Member’s Bills (PMBs) let MPs who are not Ministers propose their own laws. While most laws come from the government, PMBs come from individual MPs, whether in the ruling party or the Opposition. Fridays are usually set aside to discuss them. They are one of the few chances MPs have to act independently. But PMBs are now mostly ignored due to disruptions, early adjournments, and focus on government business, making them more symbolic than serious. This is a sign of democratic decline.

PMB trends, 17th and 18th Lok Sabha

The Declining Role of Private Member’s Bills in Indian Parliament

Since Independence, only 14 Private Member’s Bills (PMBs) have been passed and received Presidential assent. Alarmingly, none has cleared both Houses since 1970.

1. Trends in the 17th and 18th Lok Sabha

• During the 17th Lok Sabha (2019–24), a total of 729 PMBs were introduced in the Lok Sabha and 705 in the Rajya Sabha.
  • However, only 2 in the Lok Sabha and 14 in the Rajya Sabha were ever discussed.
• In the ongoing 18th Lok Sabha, only 20 MPs have introduced PMBs so far.
  • During the Inaugural and Budget Sessions (2024), 64 PMBs were introduced in the Lok Sabha, but none were taken up for discussion.

2. Sessional Disruptions and Loss of Deliberation Space

• In the Winter Session, two Fridays in the Lok Sabha were lost to disruptions, while one was used for a general discussion on the Constitution.
• In the Budget Session, the first Friday — typically reserved for PMBs — was used to debate the Union Budget.
  • Only one Friday saw any PMB-related activity, limited to just a resolution.
• In the Rajya Sabha, of the 82 PMBs listed, 49 were introduced on a single Friday, but only one was taken up for discussion, which too was cut short due to adjournment sine die.

PMBs as Platforms for Innovation and Representation

1. Despite institutional neglect, PMBs remain crucial for expressing:

• Personal convictions
• Constituency needs
• Emerging social concerns

2. Progressive Example: Right to Disconnect Bill (2019)

• Introduced by Supriya Sule (NCP) in the Lok Sabha on October 28, 2019, this Bill proposed a legal right for employees to disengage from work communication outside office hours.
• Though it didn’t move past the initial stage, it triggered national debate on mental health, work-life balance, and labour rights in the digital age.

3. Tangible Impact: Rights of Transgender Persons Bill (2014)

• Brought forward by Tiruchi Siva (DMK) in the Rajya Sabha, it became the first PMB in over four decades to be passed by a House of Parliament.
• Though it wasn’t passed in the Lok Sabha, it laid the foundation for the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 — later introduced by the government.

4. Ruling Party Interventions

• PMBs also offer space for ruling party MPs to express independent thinking.
• BJP MP Gopal Chinayya Shetty’s Bill sought free healthcare for senior citizens in both government and private hospitals — showcasing how even Treasury Bench members can raise constituency-driven issues.

Shrinking space for independent action

• Institutional changes have significantly reduced the space for individual legislative initiative in Parliament.
• The 52nd Constitutional Amendment introduced the Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule) to promote political stability.
• However, this law has had the unintended consequence of curbing the independence of MPs, especially those on the Treasury Benches, by discouraging deviation from the party line.
• In such a highly structured environment, Private Member’s Bills (PMBs) remain one of the few platformswhere MPs across party lines can propose constructive policy alternatives.
• Although voters often choose candidates based on party symbols, their decisions are also shaped by the individual MP’s integrity, expertise, and constituency track record.
• MPs are elected not just to echo party positions, but to represent the aspirations and concerns of their constituents.
• To preserve and strengthen the PMB process, there is an urgent need for procedural and structural reforms in Parliament.

Reforms to pursue

Reform	Key Proposal	Purpose & Impact
Protect PMB Time	Declare PMB hours as sacrosanct in Rules of Procedure, override only in national emergencies	Safeguards space for private legislative initiatives
Strict Time Enforcement	Ensure Friday PMB hours are preserved and consistently held	Prevents routine disruptions or substitution by government business
PMB Review Committee	Set up a dedicated committee to screen PMBs for quality, constitutionality, and relevance	Enhances legislative value and filters impractical Bills
Priority Listing of Bills	Committee ranks PMBs by public importance and bipartisan support	Increases chances of impactful Bills reaching debate stage
Fast-Track Route	Special mechanism for high-impact or widely supported PMBs to be taken up quickly	Ensures timely attention to pressing issues
Extend Parliamentary Hours	Increase daily working hours instead of using PMB time for government Bills	Maintains PMB space while improving overall productivity
Prepare for Delimitation Impact	Reform procedures anticipating more MPs post-delimitation	Ensures Parliament remains efficient with higher legislative load
Adopt UK’s Ten-Minute Rule	Let MPs introduce and justify PMBs in 10-minute speeches, followed by brief opposition	Enables more MPs to present Bills and widens idea base

Conclusion

The Vice President of India and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar, has underscored the importance of Private Member’s Business (PMB) in strengthening democratic processes. He referred to PMBs as “far-sighted, forward-looking, and a gold mine” for India’s legislative development. His remarks highlight the immense value and untapped potential of this mechanism when approached with genuine intent and commitment.

Editorial 2: China’s strategic push — Asia ties amid tariff tensions 

Context

Beijing’s outreach to Southeast Asia could hinder the U.S. in its attempts to form a coalition aimed at isolating or deterring China economically.

Introduction

Xi Jinping’s three-nation tour (April 14-18, 2025) to Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia aimed to present China as the most reliable partner. With 145% tariffs from the Trump administration, China is adjusting its economic strategy, focusing on countries with strong ties. The visit is part of Beijing’s effort to ease external economic pressure, maintain stability, and strengthen its leadership in the Indo-Pacific, following the Central Conference on neighboring countries.

As a buffer and bridge

• China’s Strategy to Insulate Itself
  • China aims to protect itself from the impact of a deepening trade war with the U.S., which includes tariffs, export controls, technology bans, and financial decoupling.
  • Southeast Asia serves as both a buffer and a bridge, offering resilient trade channels, manufacturing alternatives, and diplomatic partners to counter the U.S.-led narrative of de-risking and containment.

Country	Tariff Impact (Under Trump)	China’s Rebuttal
Cambodia	Up to 59% combined tariff (10% universal + 49% post 90-day pause)	China’s support for business and multilateralism; largest investor and trade partner
Vietnam	46% tariff	45 cooperation agreements signed during Xi’s visit; focus on economic and diplomatic ties
Malaysia	24% tariff	30+ agreements on digital economy, AI, agriculture, and infrastructure

• Mr. Xi’s Visits and Agreements
  • In Vietnam, Mr. Xi’s meetings resulted in the signing of 45 cooperation agreements.
  • In Malaysia, discussions led to the signing of over 30 agreements covering sectors like digital economy, artificial intelligence, agriculture, and infrastructure.
  • Cambodia (first visit since 2016): China reaffirmed its role as Cambodia’s largest investor and trading partner, with bilateral trade exceeding $15 billion in 2024.
• Funan Techo Canal Project
  • The Funan Techo Canal project in Cambodia exemplifies China’s continued commitment to offering economic opportunities while the U.S. leans toward protectionism.

To project a contrast

Aspect	Details
Ideological and Normative Competition	Beijing contrasts its model of non-interference and economic engagement with U.S. interventionism and ideological rigidity.
Resonance in Cambodia	The narrative resonates strongly in Cambodia, a close political ally of Beijing.
Resonance in Malaysia	To a lesser extent, the narrative also resonates in Malaysia, which seeks to maintain a balanced foreign policy.
Soft Power Strategy	Mr. Xi’s emphasis on a code of conduct in the South China Sea, BRI infrastructure development, and cultural linkages aims to recast China as a normative leader in regional order-building and offer an alternative to the U.S.-led liberal international order.
Political Significance of Timing	The visit is politically significant as U.S. engagement with Southeast Asia has been episodic, often perceived as reactive, while China offers tangible deliverables like infrastructure projects, digital collaboration, trade facilitation, and security dialogues.
U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy	U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy is often seen as security-heavy, focused on countering China, while China’s approach emphasizes economic diplomacy.
Intra-ASEAN Dynamics	Mr. Xi’s visit plays into intra-ASEAN dynamics, deepening ties with Vietnam and Malaysia. Vietnamreassured on the South China Sea, and Malaysia is drawn to peaceful dispute resolution and BRI collaboration.
U.S. vs China Economic Diplomacy	While the U.S. emphasizes security partnerships (AUKUS, Quad, bilateral alliances), China focuses on economic diplomacy, with clear offers of investment and trade. The U.S.’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework is criticized for lacking market access incentives compared to China.

The larger picture

• Beijing’s ability to position itself as an indispensable economic partner may hinder U.S. efforts to form a coalition to isolate or deter China economically.
• If Southeast Asia becomes more economically interdependent with China, Washington will struggle to implement an effective economic counter-strategy.
• Mr. Xi’s Southeast Asia tour is a strategic move to solidify Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific during a time of systemic flux.
• In the U.S.-China contest for regional dominance, this diplomacy serves as calculated strategic positioning, with significant long-term consequences for regional alignment, economic integration, and rule-setting.

Conclusion

This tour also signals domestic political support for Mr. Xi, showing that China is not isolated despite Western pressure. Warm receptions, economic deals, and strategic dialogues bolster his authority and counter negative narratives about the economic slowdown or diplomatic tensions with the West. It also reassures the region and the Global South that China remains a reliable partner, though it remains to be seen how Southeast Asia will respond to his outreach despite Beijing’s unilateral actions.