Chaos in Gujarat assembly, 2 Cong MLAS suspended
AHMEDABAD: Two first-time Congress legislators were suspended for three years and another for a year after a BJP member was allegedly hit by a microphone in violence that broke out in the Gujarat assembly on Wednesday.
The Congress has charged MLAS of the ruling party with provoking its members by using foul language. The BJP, however, denied any such occurrence. “No BJP member said anything that shouldn’t have been said. The CCTV footage will prove everything,” said deputy chief minister Nitin Patel.
Congress MLA Pratap Dudhat, who allegedly hit BJP member Jagdish Panchal with the microphone, and his colleague Amrish Der, who disobeyed speaker Rajendra Trivedi’s orders, have been suspended for three years. Another MLA Baldevji Thakor, who allegedly punched his BJP rivals in the assembly lobby, has been suspended for a year.
A request in this regard was submitted by Nitin Patel.
It all started when Congress member Vikram Madam tried to raise a point of order during the Question Hour. Patel responded by stating that a point of order couldn’t be raised because Congress whip Shailesh Parmar had already raised one, triggering a war of words in the assembly.
Madam, however, insisted on speaking. His party colleague, Amrish Der, asked speaker Rajendra Trivedi to allow Madam to speak. When Trivedi objected to his tone, Madam and Der rushed into the well of the House. The speaker suspended both the MLAS for the day and ordered that they be marshalled out. This enraged Dudhat, who yanked out his desk microphone and allegedly hit Panchal with it. The speaker suspended Dudhat for the rest of the session and adjourned the House, but the scenario remained chaotic.
“This is a very unfortunate incident. But the BJP MLAS should not have used unparliamentarily language in the first place,” said Congress MLA Alpesh Thakor. In diplomacy, statements matter - and so does context. There is definitely a degree of positive signalling on between the two countries. The statements follow foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale’s visit to China last month. A note by the FS to the cabinet secretary, and his subsequent directive, that senior political leaders and government functionaries should stay away from events to commemorate Dalai Lama’s 60th anni- There are two broad schools of thought within the Indian foreign policy establishment, and the wider strategic community, about the reset.
is those who believe this is essential. The argument goes something like this. India and China have had a turbulent time over the past few years. China’s decision to block India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG); its position on black-listing Masood Azhar in UN; India’s opposition to China’s flagship Belt and Road Initiative; and its deepening strategic engagement with Washington and positions on South China Sea have all contributed to trust deficit. The standoff in Doklam was a big blow to ties. And while an accident —in terms of a larger conflict — was averted, it showed the dangers inherent in the relationship.
India cannot afford a conflict; its power gap with China is too large; it is neither militarily equipped nor economically positioned to take on Beijing; the US —under President Trump — is not a reliable partner. And thus, while protecting core interests like in Doklam, there must be an effort to normalise ties and build trust. It does not help to make China insecure.
school of thought does not want confrontation either. But it believes that any effort to reset actually smells of weakness and could well reduce India’s leverage further. They hold that recent tensions are due to Chinese assertiveness - a result of its growing power and a reflection of President Xi Jinping’s personality. China’s deepening political engagement with India’s South Asian periphery; its expansion in Pakistan; its aggression on the land borders and Doklam are all instances of this new Chinese mood, which hurt India.
In this backdrop, any ‘appeasement’ of China will embolden it further. India thus has no choice but to hold strong to any ‘cards’ it may have, including Tibet. It must bet on deepening strategic partnership with US as well as other countries with the ability to take on China. It must qualitatively step up the Quad (an initiative of India, Japan, US, Australia). And it must not worry about Chinese reactions. If anyone, it is India which has reason to be insecure - not China. When India is seen as strong, with options, Chinese behaviour will change. At the moment, the first school is dominant. Over the year, the equations in the India China relationship will be a key foreign policy story to watch.