United, Progressive 038; Ugly

Marxist-DMK clash in House was not about ideology but crude, rival chauvinisms

Even those thoroughly inured to the consistent and persistent debasement of Parliament over nearly four decades by a surprisingly large number of its members hell-bent on disrupting its proceedings on any pretext whatsoever, have been shaken by Tuesday8217;s egregiously ugly events. How dated, and ironic, seems Jawaharlal Nehru8217;s famous phrase, 8220;majesty of Parliament8221;, today! For, the apex legislature of the world8217;s largest democracy has been shown to be so perilously susceptible. Failure to take effective measures 8212; even at this lamentably late stage 8212; to stem the galloping rot cannot but have catastrophic consequences.

There is a qualitative difference between the latest outrage and what can only be called routine rowdiness during past years right through the current session since its start. As the hitherto ineffectual leader of the Opposition, L.K. Advani, rubbed it in, Tuesday8217;s utterly unprecedented upheaval did not result from the usual and chronic enmity between the Congress-dominated ruling combination and the Opposition, led by the BJP. It was the outcome of an unrestrained clash between two political formations that are part and parcel of the ruling alliance, which is supposed to be both 8216;united8217; and 8216;progressive8217;. Incidentally, the only difference between the two outfits is that while the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam DMK shares power with the Congress and other UPA allies, the CPM-led Left Front supports the UPA government 8216;from outside8217;. But for the intervention of the Lok Sabha marshals and some sensible MPs, the two sides would almost certainly have come to blows, as has sometimes happened in the past, too, not necessarily with the same intensity.

Five adjournments of the House by Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, whose distress over the loss of Parliament8217;s dignity has often driven him to threaten to resign, and repetition of raucous scenes after the lemming-like rush to the well of the House cannot be brushed aside with a flippant wave of the hand. No wonder, Advani, seizing his opportunity, spoke of a 8220;civil war8221; within the UPA. Nor were the ritual apologies by CPM leader Basudeb Acharia and others, including the leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee, enough.

By far the worst feature of the unspeakably squalid episode is that the Marxist-DMK warfare was triggered not by any ideological or policy differences but by a crass conflict between two rival chauvinisms, and that too over the introduction of a legislation to locate the Indian Maritime University in Chennai, the DMK8217;s citadel and the hometown of the measure8217;s sponsor, Shipping Minister T.R. Baalu. This clearly was something the Marxists of Kolkata just could not tolerate. So they took 8216;direct action8217;, made a beeline for the well of the House and tried physically to obstruct Baalu.

On the merits of the rival claims, there can surely be genuine differences of opinion. But is violence inside Parliament the only way to settle the issue? Looking back at the evolution of Parliament since 1950, I cannot recall any such disgraceful display of regional or parochial chauvinism. Not even during the high emotion and searing controversies over states8217; reorganisation along linguistic lines in 1956. The worst that happened then was the threat by N.V. Gadgil, a former member of the Nehru cabinet and later governor of Punjab, that if Maharashtra was denied the city of Bombay, the issue would be 8220;taken to the streets8221;. Nehru retorted that those who 8220;want to take to the street will be met on the street8221;. Nothing further happened.

In all fairness, it must be said that in the matter of provincial chauvinism West Bengal is the undoubted champion. I have lived and worked in Kolkata, the life and soul of the state, for four years, from 1967 to 8216;71. Those were horrendously turbulent years. In a remote village called Naxalbari, Indian Maoists had lit the spark they vainly hoped would start a prairie fire. Twice during this period, the CPM-led United Front ministry came to power and twice it was got rid of, by largely undemocratic means. Because of the unending and virulent agitation and violence that followed life should have been hell. Instead, Kolkata was a hell of city to live in largely because of the warm friendliness and intellectual stimulation that surrounded one. Except, of course, when one unwittingly hurt Bengali sensitivities.

Everyone knew, of course, that even a single disrespectful word about Gurudev Tagore and the incomparable Satyajit Ray was taboo. Today this is true also of Sourav Ganguly. Yet, at a convivial adda once I courted trouble by quoting Nehru to the effect that the Americans, 8220;with the exception of the Bengalis, are the world8217;s most excitable people8221;. An erudite and generally Anglophile colleague used to curse the British constantly for 8212; of all things 8212; shifting the country8217;s capital from 8216;Calcutta8217; to 8216;an oversized village named Curzon Nagar8217;. Under the circumstances, it should not be difficult to comprehend why the Marxists of Kolkata were driven to blind fury by the thought of the maritime university being located at any place other than their beloved city, especially because the Marine Engineering and Research Institute is located there.

Story continues below this ad

At the same time there is no doubt that in the department of chauvinism, Tamil Nadu is a close second to West Bengal. The relentless competition between the two principal Dravidian parties ruling the southern state alternatively inevitably accentuates their arrogance. Baalu has succeeded in introducing the Bill. Anyone who thinks that its reference to Parliament8217;s standing committee would solve the problem is evidently out of touch with reality.

In fact, a painful question about the entire shameful affair remains unanswered. Why wasn8217;t the easily foreseeable problem anticipated when the Manmohan Singh cabinet approved the Bill that has blown up in its face? Furthermore, after the fury had started raging in the Lok Sabha, why did both the prime minister and the UPA chairperson remain conspicuously absent? And couldn8217;t the usually eloquent minister for parliamentary affairs, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi, responsible for floor management, think of anything better than confessing that he had been 8220;taken aback8221;?

The writer is a political commentator