Theatrics First

Rahul Gandhi’s latest intervention in the Lok Sabha offered yet another study in intellectual recklessness that the Congress leader apparently enjoys revelling in. By attempting to indict the Modi government on the basis of an unpublished memoir filtered through a magazine article, the Leader of Opposition reduced debate on national security to political ventriloquism. Critiquing decisions using material that cannot be read, verified or contextualised is not parliamentary vigilance scrutiny.

During the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address, Gandhi waved a magazine article based on General M. M. Naravane’s unreleased memoir, Four Stars of Destiny and sought to read out purported excerpts. Senior ministers objected by invoking parliamentary rules that bar members from quoting unpublished material. Speaker Om Birla repeatedly cautioned Gandhi under Rule 349(i) but Gandhi persisted and the House descended into chaos.

What Gandhi presented as fearless truth-telling was an assault on the basic grammar of parliamentary reasoning. Memoirs are not depositions. They are retrospective narratives shaped by hindsight and personal framing.

Gandhi’s repeated invocation of Chinese tanks entering Indian territory was calculated to shock. The claim may or may not be borne out when Naravane’s book eventually appears. But Parliament is not a rumour mill, nor a preview hall for embargoed manuscripts.

More damaging still was Gandhi’s disregard for the authority of the Chair. Parliamentary democracy rests not merely on free speech but on agreed procedures that make speech meaningful. By repeatedly defying the Speaker’s ruling, Gandhi conveyed that rules matter only when they suit his argument. It is an irony he seemed blind to. Having long accused the government of undermining institutions, he chose to trample one of the few institutions where the Opposition still commands moral leverage.

The episode also exposed a deeper confusion in Gandhi’s political method. He appears to mistake provocation for persuasion. Raising questions about the 2020 Ladakh crisis is legitimate. The clash at Pangong Lake and the subsequent standoff revealed serious shortcomings in India’s China policy. But serious questions demand serious sourcing. A Leader of Opposition worthy of the title would have marshalled official statements, sought clarifications on record or demanded a structured debate. Instead, Gandhi opted for a shortcut with his ‘shock-and-awe’ tactics.

His defence, that the magazine article was “100 percent authentic,” was absurd. If unpublished books become fair game, the Parliament opens itself to fabrication masquerading as foresight. Today it is a former Army Chief’s unseen memoir; tomorrow it could be any phantom text conjured to smear an opponent.

Gandhi has spent years attempting to shed the reputation of impulsiveness and superficiality. By racing ahead of publication and substituting insinuation for argument, he reinforced the very caricature he claims to resist.

Oppositions exist to test power, not to cheapen argument. In doing the latter, Rahul Gandhi weakened not just his own case, but the standards of parliamentary accountability he claims to champion.