Journalism of Courage
“If husband and wife are estranged and their daughter is getting married, they will sink their differences and come together for those hours to do the kanyadaan,” said an observer I called to check on the current controversy over the Opposition’s boycott of the new Parliament Sunday. “For their daughter’s well-being might depend on the start she gets in her new life.”
As in the life of a family, so also in the life of a nation, there come moments when all else needs to be put aside because it marks a once-in-a-history occasion with a bearing on the future.
The inauguration of the new Parliament on May 28 is one such moment.
Twenty Opposition parties have decided to boycott the occasion because they consider it to be violative of the Constitution arguing that the PM — and not the President as the Constitutional head of Parliament — is inaugurating the new building. They feel it is an insult to the President who is a tribal woman. They have also criticized the Government for not adhering to democratic norms in the way it has treated the Opposition parties.
Yes, the Prime Minister, who started his Prime Ministerial journey by touching his forehead on the steps of the Parliament building, could have been more inclusive in his approach and, personally, invited Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge and, indeed, all leaders of all the major opposition parties.
Given the historic significance of the occasion — a Parliament built in independent India to replace the one built during colonial rule — the PM could also have invited all the Chief Ministers and the Leaders of Opposition from all states, representing India’s immense diversity and divergence of views, in what might have been a rare, unifying moment. Yes, a much larger plaque would have been needed but imagine the message etched in stone for all generations to come.
That’s not to be.
As with everything else in these contested times, there were, in fact, sharp differences right from Day One, on whether a new Parliament building was needed in the first place. Some wanted the old building, designed by Edward Lutyens and Herbert Baker and inaugurated in 1927, to be renovated, strengthened and expanded with modern technology, as has been done in other countries, including the UK.
For, Parliament House had become an iconic landmark, steeped in history, from Nehru’s “tryst with destiny” speech on the midnight of August 14-15, 1947 to the adoption of the country’s Constitution ensuring adult suffrage, and, over the decades, the memorable cut and thrust of debates by stalwarts who built a modern nation. After all, icons and iconic symbols sustain a nation’s story.
But that is now history — and a new Parliament, designed by architect Bimal Patel from Gujarat and built by Tata Projects, is about to be opened.
Opposition leaders say they are boycotting the building, not Parliament, making a distinction between the two. But it’s this Parliament building they will fight hard to enter in 2024. They cannot boycott it indefinitely so as to de-legitimise it. So why make its inaugural a symbol of their protests? There are a hundred other ways of protesting. Particularly, when Parliament belongs as much to the Opposition as to the Treasury benches.
Mamata Banerjee’s TMC or Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Admi Party or other regional groups can be provoked into taking an extreme position — and they can get away with it. Not so the Indian National Congress. That, too, eight days after its government swept into power in Karnataka — a signal that people are beginning to view the party with renewed interest.
The party keeps complaining that the BJP is co-opting its heroes. By staying away, India’s Grand Old Party is going to make it easier for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to claim sole credit for being the one to give India a new Parliament and once again frame the party as a perpetual naysayer.
It was the Indian National Congress which gave the country Parliamentary democracy in 1947, and is the legatee of a rich legacy. That is why it has to be more judicious in its decision-making, mindful of the long-term impact of the positions it takes: whether it is to stall Parliament indefinitely or to walk out of the Houses repeatedly — or to boycott the inauguration ceremony.
As for the Opposition’s demand that Rashtrapati Droupadi Murmu should have inaugurated the new building, yes, she could have opened it as the Constitutional head of Parliament, and the government could have still taken the credit for its authorship and creation.
True, the PM is the executive head of government — though he is also the leader of the Lok Sabha and he is the one who envisioned the project and pushed for its completion in the teeth of opposition.
In the past, of course, as the BJP has been quick to point out, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and other Opposition leaders inaugurated the Parliament Annexe or Parliament Library building or state Assembly buildings, without worrying too much about constitutional niceties. But then, whataboutery is neither here nor there.
It’s hard to believe that by focusing on what it calls the BJP’s neglect of a tribal woman president, the Congress hopes to score political points with the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. The Congress did well in the tribal and Dalit seats in Karnataka, and earlier in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, not because of symbolism but because it pursued pro-poor policies and programmes for them.
Of course, there is nothing to stop the Opposition campaign against Modi’s penchant to hog the limelight, erosion of democratic institutions including Parliament, and call for the restoration of Parliamentary procedures and practices.
They can — and should — oppose the ordinance to nullify the Supreme Court verdict on the powers of an elected government in Delhi, which has sent panic signals amongst the state satraps about what could be in store for them. And for tribal president Droupadi Murmu to be given her due.
While Parliament is made up of the President, the two Houses (including the ruling party and the opposition), it is larger than the sum total of all these — for it is a repository of the will of the Indian people, symbolizing their supremacy in a parliamentary democracy.
It belongs to India and will last beyond Modi and those who come after him. Seventy-five years on, it should not be said in the record that the Opposition was missing the day the new Parliament was dedicated to the nation. No one will go into why they were not present.
Even at this late hour, many in the country would hope that the Congress and the Opposition parties will reconsider their decision to stay away. And that Prime Minister Modi will make an effort to bring them around. For this is about India’s ever so precious — though fragile — democracy.
(Neerja Chowdhury, Contributing Editor, The Indian Express, has covered the last 10 Lok Sabha elections)
