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.

Selective Outrage

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page