On Monday, when the special session of Parliament started, Prime Minister Narendra Modi struck an unusually conciliatory note. In his eulogy to the old Parliament building—lawmakers will henceforth be convening in the new building—he unequivocally endorsed the role played by all his predecessors in consolidating the faith of the people in Parliament, which, in turn, reflects their faith in India’s democracy. This, he correctly remarked, is Parliament’s greatest achievement. He shunned the ‘give no quarter’ approach the Opposition often accuses him of by talking about the legacy of previous governments. He even mentioned Jawaharlal Nehru quite a few times, but most notably twice—once, invoking the latter’s historic ‘Tryst with destiny’ speech in Parliament, and later, when he rhetorically asked who wouldn’t applaud when Nehru’s achievements are spoken of.
This was remarkable, given the ideological abhorrence most members of his party and its fount, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, reserve for the country’s first prime minister. Most of all, Modi strongly endorsed, entwining in his speech India’s parliamentary and Constitutional history, the country’s unshakeable democracy and how it has preserved so far. The hope is that the ruling dispensation walks Modi’s talk and carries forward the traditions that have upheld India’s parliamentary democracy. Opposition leader Adhir Ranjan Choudhury pointed out a few of these in his speech—from listening to the voice of the opposition, without mockery or attempts to steamroll its voice, to tolerating dissent and engaging with it for meaningful resolution. This is where the ruling dispensation has been largely found lacking.
According to PRS Legislative Research, with one more year remaining in the term, and 58 average sitting days a year, the 17th Lok Sabha is unlikely to sit for more than 331 days, making it the shortest full-term Lok Sabha since 1952. In the recent Monsoon session of Parliament, the Lok Sabha worked for 43% of its scheduled time and Rajya Sabha for 55%. Despite this, 23 of the 25 Bills introduced were passed—evidence of how little crucial pieces of legislation were debated and scrutinised by Parliament. In this Lok Sabha, so far, 17% Bills have been referred to parliamentary committees. This is lower compared to the last three Lok Sabhas.
On its part, the opposition hasn’t really covered itself in glory by relentlessly choosing short-termism, in the absence of any compelling narrative. In many ways, Choudhury’s speech on Monday is also symptomatic of its afflictions. While he opened with Nehru’s distaste for the cult of personality in politics and democracy—presumably in juxtaposition with the ruling dispensation’s relentless image-building of a few key leaders—the largest opposition party can’t acquit itself honourably of the same charge. Predictably therefore, in many ways, the Opposition has used Parliament more to burnish its leaders’ credentials than to debate legislation and hold the government accountable. Recall how the Opposition walked out during the debate on the violence in Manipur before the prime minister spoke, after having disrupted Parliament for days demanding that he speak. It seemed that all it ever wanted was to showcase one of its leaders reiterating how heinous the ethnic violence in the state was. As the law makers enter the new Parliament building, they must engender renewed faith in parliamentary democracy. The conciliatory turn the ruling party has taken in speech must translate into action, and the Opposition must behave more responsibly if the people’s voice is to be truly heard.