People watching Rahul Gandhi in the Lok Sabha during the June and July sessions were hoping that his new tag of leader of opposition would have made him a bit more serious and responsible. But alas, old habits die hard. In his first speech on the motion of thanks to the president’s address, he tried to usurp the Hindutva agenda. In his speech on the budget, he returned to dividing society to carve out a vote bank. Every time the Congress sees such an opportunity, instead of shaping its own narrative it copies what the British did—dividing the people for the sake of politics.
In the first session of the current Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi had to surrender to Lord Shiva and display the deity’s portrait in the House. He tried to make the point that the BJP can’t be equated with the entire Hindu community. Indirectly, he suggested that the BJP-RSS can’t be called the sole custodians of Hindu interests. With this, Gandhi tried to move few steps farther from his 2018 assertion that wrongly equated Hindus with Brahmins.
However, the credibility of the Congress’s attempt to occupy the Hindutva space cannot stand the scrutiny of history—of the recent past or a distant one. If Rahul Gandhi’s 2018 ‘janeuadhari’ statement smacked of a me-too approach, in 2024 he is openly eyeing all believing Hindus—an exercise the Congress is clearly unaccustomed to. The party’s record of taking Hindus for granted can’t be hidden behind a Shiva portrait. Rahul must know that his party is incapable of even imagining the hurt Hindus have been serially subjected to by successive Congress regimes.
The history of the Congress’s keenness to win the hearts of Muslims started from its attempt to have Muslims in its fold during the independence struggle. The party wanted to paper over a communal divide that was a spiritual divide too. But refusing to learn from some Muslim leaders’ recalcitrant approach that eventually led to the partition, the Congress continued to pamper some leaders who eventually exploited this approach and earned a kind of veto power. Post-independence, the Congress’s cowardice continued, thanks to the lure of en-bloc Muslim votes.
During the pre-partition era, some instances of condoning violence by Muslims emboldened the party to ignore the fundamental rights of Hindus. In the post-independence era, the party became a habitual appeaser. So much so, that for all its key policy decisions “How would Muslims react?” became a major determining factor.
Notwithstanding its rediscovered love for the Constitution, successive Congress governments have disregarded three key points of the guiding principles. Abrogation of Article 370, introduction of a common civil code and banning cow slaughter across the country are, in a way, constitutional mandates. In the pre-partition days, the likely reaction of Muslims resulted in the Congress accepting a truncated ‘Vande Mataram’ as our national song and disregarding Babasaheb Ambedkar’s suggestion to have Sanskrit as our national language.
So Hindus know the Congress doesn’t mind playing vote-bank politics even at the cost of national interest. There are at least three instances in recent history—its dealing with illegal infiltration from Bangladesh, handling of the Shah Bano case and espousal of faith-based quota for Muslims.
Come the budget session and the Congress leadership switched to harping on narrower identities by portraying itself as a protector of SCs, STs and OBCs. The mere political assertion of identities can’t be an antidote to caste-based discrimination. One has to accept that neither the upper castes nor the scheduled castes or OBCs are monolithic blocks. There are deep internal divides along with notions of hierarchy. Politically exploiting the composition of finance ministry officials at a halwa ceremony is, therefore, just immature politics.
Besides, the Congress’s record on social justice is utterly uninspiring. Jawaharlal Nehru’s reservation about the quota system is on official records. Both Indira and Rajiv Gandhi were unenthusiastic about OBC quota. On the other hand, it was Atal Bihari Vajpayee who established a ministry for tribal affairs and converted the social welfare ministry into one for social justice.
Two other factors also merit attention—the deteriorating standards of parliamentary debates and the media coverage of House proceedings.
Once upon a time, House debates used to be educative, enlightening and listening to them would lead to some understanding of issues. Today, that hardly happens. There are occasions when members raising a starred question are absent while the answer is given. At times, especially in state legislatures, ministers are found wanting in preparation and understanding of issues.
The quality of debates is determined by both the treasury and opposition benches. Ruling party members are obviously supportive of the government, but they too can bring additional points to the government’s attention. The opposition has always been clamouring for lengthier debates. But more often than not, they fail to add substantive dimensions to a debate.
In order to prevent rampant indulgence in a politics of pandemonium, it is also necessary to revisit the rules for parliamentary proceedings. Popular expectations have changed and the older style of debate and dialogue is becoming outdated. The emerging generations expect more purposive discussions, where an opposition MP doesn’t hesitate to compliment the government if warranted and a minister accepts constructive criticism.
A part of the blame also goes to the media—its role in reporting parliamentary debates needs to be re-examined too. While MPs indulge in sensationalism aimed at grabbing headlines, the media obliges. The headlines go for fiery speeches and not logical arguments, sharp attacks and not profound comments, breaking of norms and not adherence to discipline.
If the media ignores or at least downplays sensationalism, constructive and contributive parliamentary behaviour can get an impetus. Regardless of their scholarly interventions full of arguments and homework, the speeches by several serious MPs rarely find mention. Unless this approach is changed, MPs would increasingly feel they are just heads to be counted. Ignoring their constructive observations is an affront to the electorate that sent the MPs to parliament.
Let’s use the upcoming 75th anniversary of the Constitution’s adoption to reform our parliamentary procedures and strengthen the people’s confidence in parliamentary democracy.
(Views are personal)
(vinays57@gmail.com)
Vinay Sahasrabuddhe | Senior BJP leader
.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress)