By Arun Srivastava
Any decent individual would feel extremely hurt at the Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu breaking down and narrating his battered emotion that he could not sleep because of the sacrilege in the “temple of democracy” by some opposition MPs who had climbed on the table in the House.
Naidu has been a senior national player in the BJP politics. Perceptibly he ought to be aware when the rot into the system crept in; from when the opposition started desecration of the sanctum sanctorum of the house. It was his leader L K Advani who had encouraged his colleagues in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to disrupt the proceedings and show disrespect to the houses. This was promptly supported by the then BJP leader in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley.
Our great leaders, who firmly believed in secularism, were described as pseudo-secularists by Advani. But they had maintained the dignity of not violating the sanctity of the house and endangering the democratic functioning. They knew that if they resorted to this kind of behaviour the next generation would further endanger the institutions.
No one can deny, more precisely a person like Naidu, that the current situation has been the creation of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. These two leaders do not have any respect for democracy and also do not respect parliamentary ethics. They behave like dons and believe that they are above the law and Constitution. For them their words are the law. If Modi had agreed to have a debate on Pegasus, this situation would not have been created. It is really a matter of shame that the house could not function for nearly 15 days.
Incidentally the Supreme Court only a couple of days back had made some curt observation on the government response to Pegasus issue. Naidu should have done some introspection and by virtue of being senior leader who at this stage of age has nothing to lose, should have asked one straight question to the government – why it was reluctant to order a probe into the Pegasus snooping. Who was the Modi government trying to protect? It is widely known that Naidu commands immense respect from the opposition members. In this backdrop any such move from his side would have strengthened their trust in him and probably responding to his directive they would have refrained from disrupting the house.
Naidu also ought to realise that in electoral democracy it is not necessary that BJP would continue to be in power for ever. Even if Modi at the advice of RSS transforms India into a Hindu Rashtra, elections to the Lok Sabha would have to be held. Some other party would eventually come to power. Can Naidu give a guarantee that the new government would not be more ruthless and would not provide any space to the BJP which would be on the opposition bench? Being a senior parliamentarian he is fully aware that the element of dirty competition was never there in the past. It is once again the gift of the BJP. Once the BJP resorted to the politics of disruption, the idea was borrowed by other parties and in the process it came to acquire the character of parliamentary practice.
Naidu blames the opposition for tarnishing the image and sanctity of the house, but the fact is he owes some explanations to the people of the country – Why did he allow the three laws which farmers describe as black laws to be passed by Rajya Sabha that too only in nine minutes; second, why did he not allow the members to vote on these bills: thirdly, is it due to the fact that on that particular day the Government did not have adequate vote to pass the bills?”
No tears rolled down Naidu’s eyes at the humiliation and insult inflicted on the farmers by the BJP cadres and leaders. He did not even speak against the goons threatening the farmers. He did not lament the manner in which the parliamentary procedure and practice were trampled inside the Rajya Sabha for adopting the bills.
Question also arises that at a time when the farmers are on Satyagraha for the last eight months and have been seeking withdrawal of the controversial farm reform legislations, why did he allow the Modi government to play with their sentiments by permitting a discussion on agricultural problems? Why was he unmoved by the plight of farmers? Why did he not prevail upon the Modi government to come clean on Pegasus? It is the right of the government to place the subject it wants to discuss before the house. But as Pegasus has acquired the dubious character of snooping on the citizens and is related to the security of the country, he could have used his discretion to direct the government to clarify the situation. This is the usual norm. Even if the subject is not mentioned in the list of Business, the Chairman can use his discretion and direct the government to make a statement.
The fact cannot be ignored that after the debate once the issue was put up for approval of the House, the opposition would have lost and the BJP enjoying an upper hand would have pushed through the Bill. This would have got the parliamentary sanctity. This was enough to bulldoze the farmers’ agitation. This would have virtually sealed the fate of the farmers and their movement would have turned futile.
Since eleven rounds of talks with the farmers have failed to find a solution the Government tried to use the floor of the house to finish the movement. The prime issue was not of members going on record with their positions on all issues relating to the plight of the famers. The issue was the reluctance of the Government to concede to their demand to scrap the black laws. The opposition was wary that the Centre would pass this off as a debate on the 8 months-long farmers’ agitation.
On Tuesday, when the Chair announced a discussion on farmers’ issues, Congress chief whip Jairam Ramesh cited a ruling by the Chair in 2015 and said his notice for calling attention motion was converted into a short duration discussion without taking the sense of the House. This, he said, was a unilateral decision.
The Centre tried to spring on the Rajya Sabha what the Opposition described as a “mischievous” discussion on agriculture. The Opposition, which wanted the Bill to be sent to a select committee, felt that the provocation was intended at dividing them ahead of the insurance bill.
The Opposition had smelt “mischief” on Monday night itself. Late on Monday night, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh had tweeted: “Tomorrow, in a clever-by-half move; the Modi government has scheduled a discussion on ‘The agricultural problems and solutions’ and added my name to it. The discussion has NOTHING to do with my notice given on July 23rd on the ongoing farmers’ agitation.”
Naidu should have taken a firm stand and not allowed the Modi government to play mischief. This would have averted transgression of the sanctity of the house. (IPA Service)