New Parliament building: Modi’s move towards Hindu Rashtra?

It is well known that Hindutva forces never accepted the kind of republic India was made into. They never accepted federalism, plurality, or secularism as the core of the Indian constitution. Had Modi consulted the opposition on the nature of this event, they would have certainly rejected this date for the ceremony. It is clear that by choosing this date, the RSS and the BJP have shown their stubbornness and indicated their desire to move towards a Hindu Rashtra. Unable to directly attack the Constitution, they are waging a veiled war on it

The controversy over the inauguration of the new Parliament building by the Prime Minister is not without substance. Also, a closer view reveals that the boycott of the event by major political parties in the country is in tune with larger concerns for the democratic health of the country. The nature of the event only reinforces the apprehension that the ruling BJP is waging a war on the Constitution of India. It is doing things that are in direct conflict with the spirit of the constitution and point to the ominous turn the country’s politics has taken during the Modi regime. However, a simplistic view will prevent us from having a deeper understanding of the situation. It would really be naive to think that this is only a case of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attempt to keep himself at the center of all the events. It is true that the Prime Minister likes to be at the center of every act of government and hates sharing a photo frame with anyone else. However, the issue is not so simple. We must understand that this is irrelevant, whether he is at the center of the event or not. In an otherwise democratic environment, his self-obsession would have hardly made any difference. The real issue is that he has been at war with the democratic traditions of the country and bent upon weakening every single institution, including Parliament. Is he doing it on his own? No! He is a product as well as a champion of the authoritarian ideology of Hindutva.

The inaugural event of the new Parliament building has been organized in manner that it will have a long-lasting impact on the parliamentary history of India. It will contribute to the demeaning of the Constitution of India, a constitution that embodies all that could be identified as the best in the world in terms of democracy and social welfare. Based on the idea of India developed amidst the anti-colonial struggle, the Indian constitution has imbibed the spirit of the collective endeavour for a better world. The ideologies of the RSS and the BJP are in direct conflict with the idea of India and, thus, are opposed to the Constitution. There should be no doubt that the arrangements conceived for the inauguration of the new building of Parliament reflect this opposition. The event directly attacks the constitutional arrangement of the republic. The Constitution of India is unambiguous in declaring that the President is an essential part of Parliament. The President, the Rajya Sabha, and the Lok Sabha together constitute Parliament, and the President is the head of Parliament.

The decision to not give President Draupadi Murmu the opportunity to inaugurate the parliament building and keep her away from the event is completely arbitrary. The decision of 19 political parties to boycott the ceremony becomes all the more important when we take the political situation in the country into consideration. Their raising the issue becomes all the more important in the wake of what we have been witnessing in the recent past.

The opposition parties have rightly pointed out that "undemocratic acts are not new to the Prime Minister, who has relentlessly hollowed out the Parliament. Opposition Members of Parliament have been disqualified, suspended, and muted when they raised the issues of the people of India."

"MPs from the Treasury benches have disrupted Parliament. Many controversial legislations, including the three farm laws, have been passed with almost no debate, and parliamentary committees have been practically made defunct. The new Parliament building has been built at great expense during a once-in-a-century pandemic with no consultation with the people of India or MPs, for whom it is apparently being built."

"When the soul of democracy has been sucked out from the Parliament, we find no value in a new building. We announce our collective decision to boycott the inauguration of the new Parliament building," The statement of 19 political parties contextualizes the decision to boycott the event.

However, the opposition parties have also missed some important points related to the event. Maybe they are shying away from raising these points. One of them, is the date of the event. Though the Modi government is silent as to why May 28 has been selected for the inauguration, this is the birthday of Hindutva icon and chief of the Hindu Mahasabha, VD Savarkar. Apart from sending mercy petitions, he has been one of the most divisive figures in pre-independence India. He was acquitted in the Gandhi murder case on the ground that the allegations could not be substantiated by an independent witness.

It is well known that Hindutva forces never accepted the kind of republic India was made into. They never accepted federalism, plurality, or secularism as the core of the Indian constitution. Had Modi consulted the opposition on the nature of this event, they would have certainly rejected this date for the ceremony. It is clear that by choosing this date, the RSS and the BJP have shown their stubbornness and indicated their desire to move towards a Hindu Rashtra. Unable to directly attack the Constitution, they are waging a veiled war on it.

The attack is manifested in another item of the program, in which Sengol, the golden sceptre of the Chola Kingdom, is being installed in the new parliament building. Handing over Sengol to the new king symbolised a transfer of power during Chola rule. The priest of the kingdom used to hand over the sceptre, authorizing him to rule righteously. The Sengol was presented to the first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, on August 14, 1947, to symbolize the transfer of power. It was, at best, done to give the transfer of power an Indian bent. Now, the RSS wishes to use the event to communalize the republic. Is this not a step towards making India a Hindu Rashtra?

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)