The Parliament has just concluded one of its more dispiriting Monsoon Sessions, and the spectacle should worry anyone who still believes that parliamentary democracy is about argument rather than obstruction. As India approaches her 80th year of Independence, the Opposition led by Congressman Rahul Gandhi has demonstrated that it can shout, protest and stall but appears increasingly incapable of doing the one thing Parliament actually exists for: debate. The most revealing episode was the confrontation over the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill. The Opposition had a legitimate opportunity to scrutinise the legislation and corner Home Minister Amit Shah. Instead, disruption became the strategy. The FCRA Bill and other important legislative business were caught in the resulting paralysis. The session ended after repeated disruptions. More damaging for Gandhi and the Opposition was that Shah had said he was ready for a debate. Having spent days demanding that the Home Minister come to Parliament and answer questions, the Opposition was presented with precisely the opportunity it had demanded. Instead, Rahul Gandhi’s tepid response was that the Opposition was “not interested” in listening to a lecture. This is not merely political opportunism but an astonishing display of irresponsibility. A politician who demands that a minister speak and then refuses to let him speak has forfeited the moral right to complain that Parliament is not functioning. Gandhi cannot simultaneously claim that the government is afraid of scrutiny and then prevent the government from being scrutinised in the only place where that scrutiny carries constitutional weight. This is less an exercise in holding power to account than an exercise in avoiding accountability to the electorate for how Parliament is being used. There is something particularly reckless about converting Parliament into a stage for slogans while denying the country the substance of parliamentary argument. The Opposition does not have to agree with Shah or the government. It does not even have to be polite. But it has a responsibility to debate. Blocking debate is not dissent but a dereliction of parliamentary duty. The allegations that Gandhi or anyone else has been paid to disrupt Parliament are serious. But the deeper indictment requires no conspiracy theory. The record of disruption is visible for all to see. Gandhi’s own conduct provides sufficient cause for criticism. A political leader should be judged by what he does in the House, not merely by what he says outside it. A Parliament where the Opposition refuses to engage makes mockery of democracy in the truest sense of the phrase. India, on the eve of its 80th Independence Day, deserves a better and more constructive Opposition.
Comments