top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Democratic Paralysis

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...

Democratic Paralysis

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.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page