India has the reputation of being the world’s largest democracy, but some recent developments seem to be overshadowing this reputation.
This development is related to the parliamentary deadlock, which does not seem to be going away any time soon.
The ruling party and the opposition are adamant on their respective stand and the growing political bitterness over time is making the situation even more complicated.
Since the beginning of the budget session, where the opposition parties under the leadership of the Congress have been pressing for the formation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) in the Adani case, the ruling party has demanded has demanded an apology from Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his statement in London.
Since the Supreme Court had constituted an expert committee in the Adani case, the demand for a JPC has little merit.
Similarly, a middle way could have been found regarding Rahul’s statement. Being in power, the government has more responsibility to run the parliament smoothly, so if it softens its attitude a bit, then it could have become a matter.
Meanwhile, with the termination of Rahul Gandhi’s Parliament membership in the defamation case, all possibilities of making things worse have worsened.
In the context of parliamentary democracy, this recent development is only a symptom and the roots of this disease are very old.
The problem of parliamentary deadlock has become very common. Uproar in the House has become very common. The pictures of the ruckus inside the house are embarrassing.
This process started with the attitude of the opposition parties during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government, which was further carried forward by the BJP, which was in the opposition during the UPA government, which has now reached in a ”water-over-the-head” situation.
Arun Jaitley, who was the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha during the UPA government, had even said that ‘deadlock in Parliament is also a part of parliamentary democracy’.
With the passage of time, the chasm of this impasse has widened because now polarization has increased at every level of national life.
Due to increased tension due to polarisation, the parliamentary decorum is being torn apart again and again.
While in an ideal democracy, it is expected that the scope of dialogue should always exist in it, which is now continuously shrinking.
A major reason for this seems to be the absence of such leaders in both the ruling party and the opposition camp, who can resolve the deadlock through dialogue in the opposition camp as well.
Like Pranab Mukherjee used to play this role during the UPA government and Arun Jaitley in the first term of the Modi government.
Now such voices which become a bridge between the ruling party and the opposition are not heard.
The main reason for this is also that the condition of internal democracy in political parties is becoming weak, in which there is no special weight left for anyone else after the supreme leader.
It is not that the situation of wrangling has arisen in the Parliament for the first time. Even in the past, the parliamentary scene was dominated by tension and sharp words, but it had two unspoken, but accepted conventions.
Firstly, the doors of dialogue were never completely closed and the leaders did not show much bitterness after coming out of the house.
Secondly, the leaders used to attack each other in the House, but within a limit.
The bitterness that has dissolved now has its strings connected to the past as well. Since the Congress has left no stone unturned to target Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, it is possible that the Modi-Shah duo may not make any concessions to the rival party.
Political observers may call it vendetta politics, but this practice is already going on that the one who has the sources of power in his hands, leaves no stone unturned to prepare an equation favorable to him.
What is happening on the parliamentary-political stage at present has both positive and negative implications.
Where the cancellation of Rahul Gandhi’s parliament membership may send a message that the leader will now speak carefully.
At the same time, the action of the central agencies can also be seen as the decisive war of the government against corruption.
Nevertheless, the negative implications of the parliamentary deadlock are greater. Due to this, the dispute between the parties will increase further. There is a high possibility of not only affecting parliamentary proceedings, but also a decline in the quality of debate.
The Parliament, where high-level discussions should have taken place to decide the direction of the country, has become an arena of uproar due to political reasons.
Due to this, parliamentary democracy is being devalued. While there was a time in Parliament when Atal Bihari Vajpayee praised the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi at the time of creation of Bangladesh, the opposition united with the government in the event of nuclear tests and the international sanctions that resulted from Vajpayee’s prime ministership.
Now the situation is such that evidence is sought by the opposition even on issues related to national security like surgical and air strikes on Pakistan.
Only the present opposition cannot be blamed for such a situation on policy issues. When BJP was in opposition, it also opposed nuclear deal and GST to Aadhaar, but after coming to power, its tone changed.
After all, how to solve this type of parliamentary-political impasse? Will the political fraternity itself have to take initiative for this? Or else the public will decide it.
Along with this, the role of public pressure groups will also be important. Overall, such behavior of leaders in the golden age of independence cannot be called exemplary.
They should put forward their common understanding and vision about India at this time, but they are entangled among themselves.
India has the reputation of being the world’s largest democracy, but some recent developments seem to be overshadowing this reputation. This development is related to the parliamentary deadlock, which does not seem to be going away any time soon. The ruling party and the opposition are adamant on their respective stand and the growing political bitterness over time is making the situation even more complicated. Since the beginning of the budget session, where the opposition parties under the leadership of the Congress have been pressing for the formation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) in the Adani case, the ruling Congress leader Rahul Gandhi
has demanded an apology for his statement in London. India has the reputation of being the world’s largest democracy, but some recent developments seem to be Oo ľhfdfthis 8kkreputation. This development is related to the ľhfdf parliamentary deadlock, which does not seem to be going away any time soon. The ruling party and the opposition are adamant on their respective stand and the growing political bitterness over time is making the situation even more complicated. Since the beginning of the budget session, where the opposition parties under the leadership of the Congress have been pressing for the formation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) in the Adani case, the ruling Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has demanded an apology for his statement in London. Was doing.
Since the Supreme Court had constituted an expert committee in the Adani case, the demand for a JPC had little merit. Similarly, a middle way could have been found regarding Rahul’s statement. Being in power, the government has more responsibility to run the parliament smoothly, so if it softens its attitude a bit, then it could have become a matter. Meanwhile, with the termination of Rahul Gandhi’s Parliament membership in the defamation case, all possibilities of making things worse have worsened. In the context of parliamentary democracy, this recent development is only a symptom and the roots of this disease are very old.
The problem of parliamentary deadlock has become very common of late. Uproar in the House has become very common. The pictures of the ruckus inside the house are embarrassing. This process started with the attitude of the opposition parties during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government, which was further carried forward by the BJP, which was in the opposition during the UPA government, which has now reached a water-over-the-head situation. Arun Jaitley, who was the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha during the UPA government, had even said that ‘deadlock in Parliament is also a part of parliamentary democracy’.
With the passage of time, the chasm of this impasse has widened because now polarization has increased at every level of national life. Due to increased tension due to polarisation, the parliamentary decorum is being torn apart again and again. While in an ideal democracy, it is expected that the scope of dialogue should always exist in it, which is now continuously shrinking. A major reason for this seems to be the absence of such leaders in both the ruling party and the opposition camp, who can resolve the deadlock through dialogue in the opposition camp as well. Like Pranab Mukherjee used to play this role during the UPA government and Arun Jaitley in the first term of the Modi government. Now such voices which become a bridge between the ruling party and the opposition are not heard. The main reason for this is also that the condition of internal democracy in political parties is becoming weak, in which there is no special weight left for anyone else after the supreme leader.
It is not that the situation of wrangling has arisen in the Parliament for the first time. Even in the past, the parliamentary scene was dominated by tension and sharp words, but it had two unspoken, but accepted conventions. Firstly, the doors of dialogue were never completely closed and the leaders did not show much bitterness after coming out of the house. Secondly, the leaders used to attack each other in the House, but within a limit. The bitterness that has dissolved now has its strings connected to the past as well. Since the Congress has left no stone unturned to target Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, it is possible that the Modi-Shah duo may not make any concessions to the rival party. Political observers may call it vendetta politics, but this practice is already going on that the one who has the sources of power in his hands, leaves no stone unturned to prepare an equation favorable to him.
What is happening on the parliamentary-political stage at present has both positive and negative implications. Where the cancellation of Rahul Gandhi’s parliament membership may send a message that the leader will now speak carefully. At the same time, the action of the central agencies can also be seen as the decisive war of the government against corruption. Nevertheless, the negative implications of the parliamentary deadlock are greater. Due to this, the dispute between the parties will increase further. There is a high possibility of not only affecting parliamentary proceedings, but also a decline in the quality of debate.
The Parliament, where high-level discussions should have taken place to decide the direction of the country, has become an arena of uproar due to political reasons. Due to this, parliamentary democracy is being devalued. While there was a time in Parliament when Atal Bihari Vajpayee praised the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi at the time of creation of Bangladesh, the opposition united with the government in the event of nuclear tests and the international sanctions that resulted from Vajpayee’s prime ministership. Was. Now the situation is such that evidence is sought by the opposition even on issues related to national security like surgical and air strikes on Pakistan. Only the present opposition cannot be blamed for such a situation on policy issues. When BJP was in opposition, it also opposed nuclear deal and GST to Aadhaar, but after coming to power, its tone changed.
After all, how to solve this type of parliamentary-political impasse? Will the political fraternity itself have to take initiative for this? Or else the public will decide it. Along with this, the role of public pressure groups will also be important. Overall, such behavior of leaders in the golden age of independence cannot be called exemplary. They should put forward their common understanding and vision about India at this time, but they are entangled among themselves.
