Democracy disrupted?

Dr. Pranjit Saikia

(dr.pranjit1981@gmail.com)

The winter session of the Indian Parliament for this year has now come to a close, and the extraordinary events that transpired during its final days have undeniably raised grave concerns about the integrity and vitality of parliamentary democracy in India. The virulent discord between the ruling and opposition parties that emerged in this period is not only unfathomable but deeply alarming. While historical instances of ideological fissures and political disagreements between the government and opposition have certainly existed, such tensions have never precipitated the disintegration of the traditionally dignified and cooperative relationship between these two factions. On this occasion, however, the developments unfolded in a manner entirely contrary to the established norms. It appears that all parties involved have egregiously abandoned their institutional roles, constraints, and responsibilities. Rather than nurturing reasoned, insightful, and substantive debates essential to the democratic process, the parliamentary environment has descended into a theatre of puerile insults, personal slurs, and gratuitous disruptions. In such a milieu, the profound aspirations of 1.4 billion citizens, who entrusted their representatives with the solemn responsibility of governance, seem to have been flagrantly disregarded.

The winter session convened from November 25 to December 20, during which the Lok Sabha convened for a mere 20 days, and the Rajya Sabha met for just 19. Data from PRS Legislative Research reveals that the Lok Sabha managed to complete only 52% of its scheduled working hours, while the Rajya Sabha’s completion rate languished at a meagre 39%. Alarmingly, in the session’s first week, both houses utilized a mere 10% of their allocated time for substantive legislative work. Furthermore, during the session, the Rajya Sabha conducted Question Hour on only 15 out of 19 days, while the Lok Sabha failed to sustain the Question Hour for more than 10 minutes on 12 of its 20 sitting days. As a result, numerous issues of significant public interest went unaddressed, leaving the electorate in the dark on pressing matters. Moreover, PRS Legislative Research reported that a total of only 15 bills were introduced during the session, yet a paltry single bill was passed—marking the lowest number of legislative enactments in the first six months of the last six Lok Sabha terms.

On December 10, opposition members collectively submitted a notice for a motion of no confidence against the Vice President of India and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar. Simultaneously, 55 opposition MPs levelled serious allegations against a judge of the Allahabad High Court, prompting the issuance of a notice in the Rajya Sabha. Furthermore, in a bid to implement comprehensive electoral reforms, the central government introduced a pivotal bill titled “One Nation, One Election,” though it was subsequently referred to a joint parliamentary committee for further deliberation and scrutiny.

Amidst these turbulent developments, on December 18, Home Minister Amit Shah made a provocative statement in the Rajya Sabha regarding Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the eminent architect of India’s Constitution, which prompted the opposition to launch a vehement political assault on him, calling for his immediate resignation. In his defence, the home minister accused the opposition of “insulting” Dr. Ambedkar, a charge that precipitated widespread disruptions in both houses of Parliament, effectively halting legislative proceedings as members of the INDIA alliance coalesced in protest. In stark contrast, the ruling party contended that Shah’s remarks had exposed Congress’s alleged “anti-Ambedkar” stance, which, they claimed, garnered substantial support for the home minister’s position. On December 19, both factions staged protests in front of Parliament’s ‘Makar Dwar,’ culminating in a violent altercation between Members of Parliament that left two BJP lawmakers injured. This physical confrontation among legislators marks a potentially unprecedented episode in the annals of India’s parliamentary history.

The recent events within Parliament have glaringly revealed a harsh reality: contemporary Members of Parliament are increasingly consumed by acrimonious and antagonistic politics, with little regard for the fundamental ideals and values of governance. In previous epochs, when contentious issues arose, both the ruling and opposition parties would engage in pointed criticisms, yet always within the framework of their respective ideological positions. These debates, though intense, remained confined to the parliamentary arena, and outside its confines, MPs from both sides maintained cordial, even amicable, relations. A notable example of this tradition can be seen in 1999, when terrorists assailed the Parliament building. Despite the grave threat, Congress President Sonia Gandhi immediately reached out to enquire about the welfare of the then Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was trapped inside. Similarly, during the 1971 war, when India triumphed over Pakistan and facilitated the creation of Bangladesh, opposition leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee lauded Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s bold decision, likening her to the warrior goddess ‘Maa Durga,’ a symbol of strength and determination. These instances underscore a political milieu characterized by mutual respect, even amidst profound ideological divergence.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s career further exemplified this tradition. Upon his election to Parliament in 1957, he was vocally critical of several government policies, particularly Prime Minister Nehru’s stance on Kashmir. Yet, when Nehru introduced the young Vajpayee to foreign dignitaries as a potential future Prime Minister, Vajpayee, in turn, penned a poignant tribute upon Nehru’s death, poignantly stating, “A dream has been shattered, a song silenced, a flame has vanished in the infinite.” This encapsulates the ethos of Indian parliamentary politics—a tradition of respectful ideological confrontation paired with personal admiration and mutual recognition of each other’s contributions, even in the face of profound political differences.

In a parliamentary democracy, the fundamental right of every party to voice its perspective is incontrovertible. The opposition is entitled to hold the government to account on matters of public interest and offer constructive critique, while the government, in turn, bears the responsibility of addressing the opposition’s inquiries. However, in the contemporary political landscape, rather than fostering reasoned deliberation or informed debate, the focus has tragically shifted towards a relentless cycle of allegations and counter-allegations between the ruling and opposition factions. The pervasive influence of social media has exacerbated this trend, facilitating the facile weaponization of falsehoods and duplicity, thereby transforming them into central instruments of political maneuvering. This phenomenon has, regrettably, intensified the toxic nature of modern politics, eroding the potential for meaningful discourse and undermining the integrity of democratic processes.

The trajectory of parliamentary politics in India is profoundly shaped by the principles of diversity and cooperative engagement. Each pivotal moment in the nation’s history possesses intrinsic significance, reflective of the socio-political milieu of its time. Decisions taken in any given epoch were, by and large, a product of the prevailing socio-political conditions and thus can be understood as rational responses to the exigencies of their era. Nevertheless, such decisions, when viewed through the prism of contemporary values and norms, may appear erroneous, just as a policy enacted today may be regarded as flawed in the future, fifty years hence, by the standards of a different age. The contemporaneous importance of present-day decisions, however, cannot be dismissed or diminished. The peril arises, however, when historical contexts are insufficiently scrutinized and when distorted or fragmented truths are disseminated through selective media narratives, driven by ulterior political or electoral motives. Such practices fabricate a skewed narrative that foments societal discord, gradually eroding the previously established rapport between the ruling and opposition factions, thus contributing to the destabilisation of democratic dialogue and cooperation.

The incident that transpired on December 19 in the precincts of the Parliament complex undoubtedly conveyed a profoundly detrimental message to society. It is incontrovertible that party leaders and their supporters meticulously observe and emulate every move of their respective leadership. The volatile atmosphere engendered that day between Congress and BJP MPs inevitably triggered a cascade of animosity among grassroots-level functionaries, thereby exacerbating intra-party hostilities. This was starkly evident during the bye-election in the Samoguri constituency, where the unprecedented display of aggression between Congress and BJP cadres marked a watershed moment in Assam’s political history. In such a context, the disturbances within Parliament only served to intensify the agitation among rank-and-file party workers. To avert the further escalation of this highly charged environment, both political factions should have exercised restraint in their post-incident rhetoric, prioritizing the greater good of the national political ecosystem. Rather than engaging in a reflexive, petty game of political deflection, both sides should have extended a public apology for the deplorable conduct exhibited by their respective Members of Parliament. Parliament, after all, does not belong to any single political entity, and its sanctity must be preserved. Regrettably, instead of adopting a responsible course of action, both factions devolved into parochial partisan squabbling, thereby contributing to the deepening chaos within the nation’s political discourse.