Prime Minister Narendra Modi is right – when he said Sunday that Parliament is not just a building but a reflection of the aspirations and dreams of 140 crore Indians. That it is the sacred space where democracy gets to work, where elected representatives of the nation’s children, women and men, make laws that will make India walk more strongly on the path of justice, dignity and truth. That’s why as the new Parliament is dedicated to the nation by the PM, we, in the Congress, decided to stay away — our absence is our democratic response to the yawning gap between what the PM says and what he does.
The Parliament is of the people, by the people, for the people. But the entire project, from Day One — its framing, planning, design, construction — has been closely guarded. It has been of the PM, by the PM, for the PM. Now, by not inviting the Rashtrapati Droupadi Murmu, by getting her message merely read out, the government has not only disregarded the Constitution but also the fact that Parliament — and, ironically, the Prime Minister kept underlining this during his speech — essentially belongs to the citizens of this great country. It does not belong to voters depending on whom they voted for, it does not belong to elected representatives depending on which party is in power. The PM and all his men and women, most of whom depend on him and him alone to ensure their position in the party or government, ignore this fundamental reality.
Our 140 crore people, with a million dreams and hopes, even fears, with their astounding diversity, are held together not by a set of instructions, dos and don’ts, but by the living, breathing, Constitution of India enshrined on the bedrock of balance, delicate and enduring. A balance between different institutions, which draw power from the Constitution. And their powers are limited by the same Constitution. Any institution which transgresses the limits of the Constitution on the assumption that it reflects the popular will of the nation not only breaks this fragile balance but undermines the very concept of constitutional democracy, which our founding fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sacrificed their lives for and which all of us, irrespective of party or ideology, worked so hard to cherish.
This isn’t just a debating point. The Constitution is, indeed, constituted by several moments in our history. Who can forget April 8, 1929, when Bhagat Singh marched into Parliament along with his comrade Batukeshwar Dutt to hurl a bomb and yell Inquilab Zindabad so that the British would listen. It was here, at the stroke of the midnight hour, that Jawaharlal Nehru told a newly born nation about its “tryst with destiny,” stepping out from the old to new, “when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation long suppressed finds utterance”. It was here that 299 distinguished members put their heads together for 2 years 11 months and 7 days to write the Constitution, justify the assigned mandate laid by Babasaheb Ambedkar, the son of our new nation.
And, more recently, on December 13, 2001, all of us, cutting across party lines, watched terrorists breach Parliament and I shudder to think what would have happened had it not been for our selfless, intrepid “watch and ward” and security personnel, nine of whom lost their lives to protect us, to protect Parliament, to protect the idea of We, the People.
That’s a far cry from today’s dominant idea: I, the PM. Parliament doesn’t belong to one person, one person cannot, should not take credit. An edifice can be built on the whims and fancies of an Emperor but an institution is built only by the voluntary participation and persistent perseverance of the people. Not inviting the President to two of its key ceremonies, in the laying of the foundation stone and its inaugural, the government has reinforced the absolute primacy of the PM despite curbs laid down in the Constitution.
Article 79 of the Constitution says there shall be a “Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and the two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People.” Departing from the American precedent, the Indian Constitution, clearly makes the President a member of the Legislature. And although the various departments of government of India will be carried on under the control and responsibility of the respective ministers in charge, as per Article 77, the President remains the formal head of the administration and all executive action of the union must be expressed in the name of the President and authenticated in such a manner as many the prescribed by rules to be made by the President. Again, even though he/she may not be the real head of the administration, all officers of the Union shall be “subordinate” to the President (Article 53 (1)).
The question is: Can these subordinates appropriate or infringe upon the Jurisdiction of President?
By arrogating to himself the right to inaugurate the new Parliament building, to put his imprimatur on all aspects of it, Modi claims that he personifies the nation and, in fact, its democracy, too. Of course, he is the Leader of the House but we have all seen, over the past nine years, how little time he has to listen to those who disagree with him, they become distractions to be mocked or ridiculed. A majority of the Bills under his regime were passed without any scrutiny, many being arbitrarily marked as money bills to escape defeat in Rajya Sabha. The PM hardly attends Parliament, refuses to answer questions and if some member doggedly insists on answers, he is expelled from the House.
All of this has been brushed under the carpet behind the glitter of the inauguration and the deafening applause of the party faithful celebrating the Naya Bharat. Just weeks ago, the Indian National Congress, led by Rahul Gandhi, did the exact opposite, connecting the country through the most humble of means, a foot-march of 3,500 km, listening to critics and supporters, in the heat and dust, the Bharat Jodo Yatra becoming a symbol of resistance against economic distress and inequality.
Rahul Gandhi was also engaged in construction of a different kind: A display window for love in the bazaar of hate. At the beginning of the Yatra, the BJP and its digital partners chose to ignore it — until the Karnataka election results. Political analysts have been busy trying to underplay the win arguing that this is a freak result, suppressing the fact that the basic issues raised in Karnataka echo the ones in all parts of the country. And the win in Karnataka was a win for the Opposition, an assuring reminder that Treasury Benches alone do not — and can not — Parliament make. Old or new, 1927 or 2023.
The writer is leader of the Congress in Lok Sabha
