Opinion Talk Gaza

Opposition parties have been pressing for a short-duration debate on the situation in West Asia and the violence visited on Gaza. The government has been doing its utmost to stall this debate.
Union Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj wrote to Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari, claiming that any discourteous remark could be detrimental to the “diplomatic ties with both nations”. This objection was overruled by Ansari as being technically untenable, given that her letter assumed Rule 169 (with voting provisions), and the discussion called by opposition parties was under Rule 176, which involves no voting. Though the discussion was listed for Wednesday in the RS, it was shifted to Monday, which led to more agitation by opposition parties, and another adjournment of the House.

The government’s shrinking from a debate is unwarranted, even if it is motivated by a desire to not disturb or make visible India’s finessing of its position on this conflict —  balancing a deepening engagement with Israel and solidarity with Palestine. In its eagerness to not offend, it has gone too far, trying to forestall even minimal parliamentary debate. There are deep fissures in Parliament on this conflict, between those who cite India’s long recognition of the Palestinian state and fellow-feeling towards its citizens, and others who value India’s increasing cooperation with Israel, in defence, intelligence, agriculture etc. The BJP and the Modi government have championed their intention to take this relationship further, but it was a Congress government that established diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992. No foreign policy engagement should impinge on democratic debate within India —  and indeed, no such exemption has been made on the most sensitive international matters, be it the Indo-US nuclear deal or the Iraq war. Foreign policy cannot be a realm sealed away from democratic debate —  if Parliament can spend hours discussing the Vaidik adventure, it should also be free to discuss India’s performance at the BRICS or the MH17 disaster in Ukraine. There is no reason why this debate should be confined to one House of Parliament either. With its numbers, the government has no reason to shy away from its positions. It must be prepared to justify them.

Advertisement

No diplomatic relationship is fragile enough to be bruised by a parliamentary debate. By resisting this discussion, the government has only focused attention on India’s position, made it seem implicated and defensive about a situation in which it has no real role to play.