Schools in Dehradun regularly hold mock sessions of Parliament and the UN. Even they know that, if this is done, both sides of the argument have to be presented, for even young students have the right to make up their own minds. However, the farcical parliamentary session held at Congress President Kharge’s residence on 31 October did not, even for show, have anyone speaking against the proposal to ‘impeach’ India’s Chief Election Commissioner. Not even the ‘balanced’ Shashi Tharoor.
So, are Indians to infer that this is the ‘ideal’ concept the Rahul Gandhi led Congress has of democratic functioning? That even token opportunity would not be given to an accused to present a defence? And, in this case, the target is one of India’s most protected institutions for obvious reasons – so that it cannot be pressured by frustrated and consistently unsuccessful politicians and vested interests. Considering the fact that most of those participating in the drama were Members of Parliament, why did they not initiate this impeachment where it technically should be undertaken?
Those who participate in parliamentary democracy should understand that it is not necessary to win every motion that has been introduced. The objective is to present arguments that make an impact on not just those present in the Lok or Rajya Sabhas, but also the general public. It may be recalled that one of the great speakers in Parliament was Atal Behari Vajpayee, whose speeches are remembered even today. Most of the time he spoke from the Opposition Benches. In the long run, they were most impactful in shaping public opinion. And, of course, he was not the only one.
If the Congress was truly Gandhian as it claims to be, its members should resign from Parliament if they believe the previous general election was rigged. Unfortunately, they are too used to enjoying the perks and protections being an MP provides. And, in the present political atmosphere that is being generated, there is no guarantee they will manage to get re-elected. It is pointless to blame the umpires, the pitch, other playing conditions and the organisers if one cannot play good cricket.
The people know who they have voted for. Even those who vote for the opposition know that they do not represent the majority even as they exercise their franchise. They can see the process function at the grassroots and recognise that the changes that have been introduced now better reflect the mandate – be it the EVM, or SIR. All the playacting by the losers will not convince them otherwise.
