STALEMATE ENDS, BUT RAHUL SHOWS BAD FAITH

It was totally unacceptable that Rahul Gandhi should seek to score brownie points over a mutual understanding reached between the ruling party and the Opposition to break the prolonged stalemate in Parliament. Virtually taunting the prime minister for making that understanding possible so that the two Houses could function in an orderly manner, the newlyminted Congress chief said that he never means what he says. That was a cheap jibe, unbecoming of a man who heads the 133year-old party. Parliamentary practice demands that informal understandings between parties are not used for point-scoring. After Rahul Gandhi’s remark, the Government would be wary of trusting the Opposition in informal meetings which require a good deal of give and take to settle mutual differences. The fact is the stalemate was broken after the Congress leadership too dissociated itself from questionable remarks against Modi and other BJP ministers by the Congress leaders. In other words, using strong and often hurtful words is not the exclusive preserve of the BJP alone. The Congress leaders in their arrogance have often hit below-the-belt. Days before the polling in Gujarat, Mani Shankar Aiyar had called Modi neech and ‘uncivil’. However, in the heat of the Gujarat election campaign, Modi seemed to have misread a dinner meeting at the Congress maverick Mani Shankar Aiyar’s house simply because a former Pakistani, former foreign minister and the High Commissioner in Delhi mingled freely with a host of top retired Indian diplomats. But then, given Aiyar’s widely known soft spot for Pakistan and his insistence on ‘continuous and continued dialogue’ with the inherently intransigent neighbor, he does lend himself to be an easy target for misunderstanding and misinterpretation. The presence of former prime minister Manmohan Singh and former vice-president Hamid Ansari allowed Aiyar’s critics to flesh out the charge of an anti-India conspiracy. It may not have been par for the electoral course even, but, truth be told, even his accusers, led by Modi, would not lend credence to the charge that what went on at the Aiyar dinner was anything serious other than the imbibing of good food and excellent wines, the foreign service types being particularly good at nursing their taste buds since wining and dining is an integral part of diplomacy. So, when the dust settled on Gujarat poll and the BJP retained power for the sixth straight term and also snatched Himachal Pradesh from the Congress, the Congress stalled Parliament, demanding an apology from the prime minister for his alleged questioning of Singh’s patriotic credentials. Neither House could conduct any business during the standoff. But finally, good sense prevailed on Wednesday when the Leader of the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, and the Opposition leader Ghulam Nabi Azad reached a settlement ahead of the start of the day’s proceedings. As earlier agreed, in the Upper House, Jaitley made a suo motu statement, clarifying that Modi in his speeches on the stump in Gujarat did not “question, nor did he mean to question, the commitment to this nation” of either Singh or Ansari. In response, Azad distanced himself from the cheap remarks of Aiyar and others against Modi. This was the least that the two sides could have done to salvage whatever little remains of this session.

Of course, in a parliamentary democracy, the business of the Opposition is to oppose and of the ruling party to rule. But, when this healthy competition and antagonism descend into bitter confrontation, making orderly conduct of business in the House and outside that much harder, it is the people who pay the price for the resulting delays and confusion. It is notable that soon after the stalemate ended, Parliament reverted to normal, taking up the official legislative agenda, including the triple talaq bill. Admittedly, at one level, the increasing display of bitter confrontation in the polity is a reflection of the change of guard in the ruling and main opposition party. Both Modi and Rahul Gandhi are relatively new in their current roles, both are keen to prove themselves and both seem to be headstrong. Modi has reason to be a little more generous towards the Opposition since he is by far the most successful politician around, trouncing the Opposition in a series of State elections. He should be more accommodative towards the Opposition. On its part, the Opposition should respect the fact that as the leader of the party which commands a huge majority in Parliament, calling Modi names is wholly unacceptable. Cooperation and confrontation are built into the parliamentary system – opposition should cooperate when the government is on the right course, and confront when it sincerely believes that it is misdirected and wrong. However, in both situations, recourse to abuse and uncivil behavior should be a firm no-no.