Opinion: NDA Thunder, I.N.D.I.A. Whimper Mark No-Trust Motion

The Monsoon Session, perhaps the last sitting to be held at the old parliament building, has witnessed the transformation of India's apex legislature from being a forum of discussion, debate and decisions to a poll campaign arena. The debate on the no-confidence motion, which was defeated by voice vote as the Opposition chose to troop out in the midst of the Prime Minister's reply, saw the ruling NDA present its thundery defence in Hindi while the Opposition, united under the I.N.D.I.A banner, whimpered in English, which perhaps portrayed what Narendra Modi described as "poverty of imagination".

The motion had been brought to censure the government on Manipur. The Opposition focussed partly on Manipur and as it was entitled, also bring to relief other issues which it felt showed the government in a poor light. The treasury benches used the debate to highlight government's performance and to question the viability of the I.N.D.I.A grouping. The high stakes of the 2024 electoral slugfest eclipsed the Manipur issue.

The two MPs from Manipur, both belonging to the NDA, were not fielded (this was questioned by Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh in a tweet, not raised by I.N.D.I.A members in the house). Home Minister Amit Shah on Day 2 and the Prime Minister while concluding the debate, referred to Manipur at the fag end of their discourse, appealing for peace and hoping normalcy will return to the state affected by humongous ethnic strife, which was triggered by the order of a single judge of the high court.

After the Home Minister had given a chronology of the events and appealed for peace, on his suggestion, Speaker Om Birla asked the house to send out a message of unity and appeal for tranquillity to return in the strife-torn state. Such was the level of acrimony that this gentle gesture was not heeded by the Opposition. Political acrimony, not peace in Manipur, seemed to be the paradigm of the discourse.

A day before the Monsoon Session began on July 20, the clip of a horrendous incident of ethnic atrocity on women, which had happened on May 5, surfaced on social media. The Opposition was justified in questioning why this incident, which took place in the presence of the Manipur Police, had not been taken note of by the government. Failure of intelligence, especially of the local intelligence units in a sensitive border state, was brought to sharp relief. Referring to this, the Home Minister asked why the clip had been not shared with security agencies prior to being circulated on social media. He said that as soon as the clip went viral, using artificial intelligence tools of face recognition, all the nine culprits were identified and arrested.

This has not been the first time when an entire session of parliament has been jeopardised by disturbing media disclosures, especially on social media. A pattern seems to have emerged over the years. And each time normal functioning of parliament has been affected. Earlier, only the Opposition benches used to disrupt. Now, Treasury benches retaliate with equal vigour and the presiding officer's task of maintaining order in the house is imperiled. Sometimes, the provocation for disruption comes from ruling party MPs, which triggers protests from the Opposition. The net is that the parliament of India becomes a forum for passage of legislation, including money bills and Union Budget, sans debate and scrutiny. Voice votes, in which the ruling party's crescendo prevails, carry the day. The Opposition loses its opportunity to voice its dissent and reservations.

At the end of each session, based on the number of bills passed by voice vote, "productivity" of parliament is touted. Productive discussions, which marked India's parliamentary democracy in its initial years, have become the saga of a bygone era. The government has its way; the Opposition (often due to its disruptions) is denied its say.

All NDA speakers, including those from the South, used chaste Hindi to bolster their bulldozing of opponents. I.N.D.I.A partners made a spirited assault, but the usage of magnificent words in English like "hubris" (Supriya Slue of NCP) and "omerta" (Mohua Moitra of Trinamool Congress), along with references to Shakespearian examples (Congress floor leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury), took their logic somewhat beyond the comprehension of the common man who may have been watching the proceedings on live national television.

The return of Rahul Gandhi as MP marked the beginning of the week. It was expected that with him back a slugfest between him and the Treasury benches, especially Prime Minister Modi, was on the cards. The Supreme Court while granting temporary relief said that by keeping Rahul Gandhi away from Lok Sabha, the electorate of Wayanad was being denied their voice. The voice, however, did not boom in high decibel during the no-confidence motion.

To begin with, there was a flip-flop. Rahul Gandhi was expected to open the artillery of the Opposition benches. On Day 1, he chose to come to the house for a brief while. On Day 2, after delivering a soliloquy on his Bharat Jodo Yatra, he let lose a volley against the government, alleging that "Bharat Mata" had been assaulted. Thereafter, he left the house, travelled to Rajasthan and returned midway during the reply of the Prime Minister. Soon after his arrival in Lok Sabha, while Modi was in the 90th minute of his 134-minute speech, the Opposition walked out.

Usually, Gaurav Gogoi, the mover of the motion, would have been entitled to question the Prime Minister's reply before the motion was put to vote. The Opposition walkout deprived him of that unique parliamentary privilege. Rahul Gandhi's return to Lok Sabha did not see the voice of the people of Wayanad boom. When his membership was restored, a BJP spokesperson had pointed out that as against the average attendance of MPs, which stands at 79 per cent of sittings, since he became a member of the 15th Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi's attendance has fluctuated between 43 and 52 per cent; his record in asking questions or moving Private Member's Bills too have been dismal.

The no-confidence motion ended in a whimper. A sad precedent was set after the government had won. Adhir Ranjan Chaowhury, leader of the largest Opposition group in the Lok Sabha, was suspended because of his acerbic comments on the Prime Minister. His conduct has been referred to the Privileges Committee. A day earlier, on a petition by 21 women MPs of the NDA, a move was initiated against Rahul Gandhi as it was alleged that he blew a "flying kiss" prior to leaving the house after his speech.

Parliament without an Opposition is not good augury. The quality of discourse in the parliament of the world's largest, and perhaps the oldest, democracy needs to rise to a level appropriate for India's Amrit Kaal.

(Shubhabrata Bhattacharya is a retired Editor and a public affairs commentator)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author