(Brinda Karat is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the Rajya Sabha.)The Parliamentary Affairs Minister Venkaiah Naidu has informed the country that the minister who made a hate speech will continue to campaign in the Delhi elections.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone. Hate speech is a badge of honour for many who adorn the benches of Parliament. This is the BJP style.
But Mr Naidu's declaration, coming as it does when Parliament continues to be adjourned on the demand for the resignation of the minister, could be a self-goal for the BJP. It validates the point that the statement of the Prime Minister was for convenience, not through conviction, and could not be taken at face value. Action against the minister is therefore necessary.
But the incident has also brought out other facets of the style of governance of the Modi Government.
It took Mr. Modi three days and repeated protests by a united opposition to make a statement in the two Houses of Parliament on the hate speech by his minister. This delay puzzled people, because Mr Modi likes to speak. The BJP and its friends claim this is good fortune in a country that had for ten years a Prime Minister unkindly described by BJP leaders as "Mauni baba" (silent sage). But many would say it is equally a problem when you have a Prime Minister who likes to speak, but remains silent when he should speak, or when you have a Prime Minister who likes to speak, but does not like to listen.
Mr. Modi is the leader of the House of the People. Yet, on the Niranjan Jyoti issue, he first gave his statement in the Rajya Sabha, not the Lok Sabha. In the Lok Sabha, his party has a strong majority. In the Lok Sabha, even if the entire opposition unites, as it has done in the present case, the government can bulldoze through its agenda. Even after repeated requests, he refused to speak in the Lok Sabha till this morning. Naturally, members of the opposition in the Lok Sabha consider this an insult to them and also a show of contempt.
In the Rajya Sabha, a united opposition has an advantage. It is because of that that Mr. Modi was forced to give a statement.
The difference in the attitude of the Prime Minister in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha raises another question too. Is a large majority, as the BJP has in the Lok Sabha, in the context of a party committed to a particular brand of divisive politics, healthy for democracy?
The Speaker unfortunately instead of upholding the demand of the opposition in the Lok Sabha berated them for being non cooperative. She claimed that the statement made by the Parliamentary Affairs Minister was sufficient. This is deja vu as it was precisely this argument that was used by the UPA 2 Government when the Prime Minister remained silent while other ministers replied on his behalf.
During the Coal-gate scam debate in 2013 when Parliament was repeatedly adjourned, Sushma Swaraj, then opposition leader, had said, "Not allowing Parliament to function is also a form of democracy like any other form." Her counterpart in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, defending the protests said "By disrupting Parliament, we have given out a message to the country. When we disrupted Parliament three years back on 2G scam, the telecom sector was cleaned. Now, the country is faced by the issue (of) how to clean up the entire process of allocation of resources."
These arguments are as valid today. At that time, it was on the issue of corruption that the attitude of the government forced the opposition to adopt tactics which stalled Parliament. Today it is on an equally important issue, that of hate speech leading to communal polarization. At that time, the BJP had blamed the adamant attitude of the government. This time, it is their government and Prime Minister who are playing the same game.
After the Prime Minister's statement and when the opposition continued its protests, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha said it was "utterly disgraceful" that opposition members should disrupt the House. At some point in 2013 when the House was stalled, he had asked whether the opposition wanted the Rajya Sabha to become a "federation of anarchists." As the Chairman, it is his responsibility to make sure the House runs. However the onus does lie on the government. It did then, it does now.
The Prime Minister's statement in the Rajya Sabha raises further issues. According to the Rajya Sabha website, while he stated that he strongly disapproved of such statements and that they should be avoided, he added, that "even during the heat of the election, "we should try" (the exact words he used were "koshish karna chaiye") to avoid it."
With the Prime Minister himself making a distinction between non-election and election time, there is every reason to be concerned. Delhi elections are round the corner. Niranjan Jyoti's communal abuse was part of the election campaign. When the Prime Minister does not give a guarantee that his Ministers will not make hate speeches, the demand for Niranjan Jyoti's resignation has a validity, because quite simply Mr. Prime Minister "koshish" is not enough.
There is a constitution to be upheld, there are laws against hate speech to be implemented; hate speech is a weapon that ridicules, abuses, terrorises, polarizes. Those who use that weapon should find no place in a Ministry.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. NDTV is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.