A fundamental question that one may ask in the context of the recent no-confidence motion in parliament is, why our Constitution makers chose a parliamentary form of democracy for India. The simple answer is that it was an attempt to make the executive accountable to the people through parliament, which reflects the sovereign will of the people. It is why the opposition succeeded in forcing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to speak on Manipur, where a civil war-like situation has prevailed for more than three months. The Prime Minister, known for speaking on sundry issues, has been quiet on Manipur.
In this session of parliament, the opposition demanded that Manipur be discussed and that the Prime Minister make a statement. The government was ready to discuss Manipur under Rule 176 for a short duration discussion but the opposition insisted Manipur was too big, that all business should be suspended for a discussion under Rule 267, and that the Prime Minister should speak on behalf of the government.
Because of the conflict between the opposition and the government, several days of parliament were washed out. When the opposition realised the government would not agree to their demand, it chose the path of a no-confidence motion in which the Prime Minister, mandatorily, has to speak in the end. Indeed, that is what happened. The Prime Minister had to reply and he did talk about Manipur. In this context, the opposition could claim victory.
But what the opposition actually gained from the entire exercise is a matter of debate. The Prime Minister seized the opportunity to turn the tables on the opposition, called it names, tried to depict the parties as good-for-nothing and boasted that his third consecutive term is assured.
It is important, however, to realise that it is no mean feat for the opposition to force the Prime Minister, who was silent on Manipur, to speak and make him accountable to the people of India. Let us not forget that this happened at a time when serious questions are being raised by critics and well-wishers who claim India’s democracy is no longer as robust as it used to be, and that it has turned into an ‘electoral autocracy’.
It could well be argued that the opposition did not do its homework and failed to put the government on the mat. Due to the lack of coordination between the different constituents of the INDIA alliance, the opposition’s charge was disorganised and could not effectively expose the mishandling of both the centre and the state government.
What has, however, been ignored is that if the opposition was so feeble and uninspiring – as projected by a section of the TV media – then why did the Prime Minister have to spend more than 70% of his speech ridiculing the opposition?
I don’t remember a more uninspiring speech by any Prime Minister on the floor of the house. PM Modi looked tired and his speech was laboured, until the opposition walked out in protest. After the opposition’s walkout, the Prime Minister suddenly regained his mojo, but by then it was too late. The only explanation for spending so much time on the Congress and the opposition would be that he is no longer confident about the 2024 general elections, and the sudden grouping of 26 political parties has taken him by surprise.
He was not required to mention the Bengaluru meet of the opposition where the name INDIA was chosen for the alliance. He said the last rites of the UPA were performed to hoodwink the people of India. In his opinion, it is an effort to hide their sins and deceive people to capture power. He warned that people should not forget that these are the people who had looted the country in the past. He boasted that his government would again win a majority and that he is destined to make India the third largest economy in the world – like, in 9 years, he made India not only the fastest growing economy but also fifth largest.
This is how PM Modi has set the tone for the 2024 national election. He used parliament to build a narrative for the election. It had three major components.
One, the Prime Minister is aware that the Congress, with 12 crore votes and a 19% vote share across the country, is the only party with an all-India footprint and the potential to emerge as an alternative to the BJP at the Centre. Ten years is a long enough for anti-incumbency to build against any government. So, to counter that, it is important for him to discredit the Congress and kill any possibility of it posing a serious challenge, especially in the north and western India where the BJP and the Congress are direct rivals.
Two, historically, whenever a fragmented opposition has come together, it has created problems for the ruling party. In the past, the Congress suffered, and the BJP knows that with 37% votes, it is vulnerable too. Therefore, the Prime Minister spent a considerable time mocking INDIA and reminding people that the name INDIA, despite sounding pious, is an opportunist alliance of corrupt parties and leaders who have come together to fulfil their vested interest. Their slogan – “to save democracy, save the Constitution and save the Idea of India” – was merely a smokescreen to grab power, he said.
Three, if the Prime Minister invested a significant amount of time on painting a negative image of the opposition, then he also projected himself as someone who is development-oriented and the only one to Make India Great Again. He talked about how, during his tenure, India’s stature had skyrocketed globally. India, he said, is no longer a pushover.
The debate in parliament has also ensured that the opposition, unlike in 2019, is determined and the fight for 2024 will not be easy for the BJP.
Rahul Gandhi’s fierce criticism is a warning. His attack on nationalism is an attempt to convey to the people that the government’s claims of being the epitome of nationalism are hollow, a vote-grabbing tactic, and that their commitment to “Bharat Mata” is devoid of any spiritual awakening. It is just an excuse to use innocent citizens for electoral gains. It will be interesting to watch what shape this war takes in the coming months. What is certain is that this time, the election will have all the trappings of a blockbuster movie. What we saw in parliament was only the teaser.
(Ashutosh is author of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ and Editor, satyahindi.com.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.
Featured Video Of The Day
“Grew Up Reading Nehru’s 1947 Speech”: US Lawmaker To NDTV
