Opposition forces Modi reveal his insensitivity

Another takeaway from the speech of the Prime Minister is his hatred for the Gandhi family. A major part of his speech was devoted to vilifying the family. He accused the family of promoting corruption, durbar culture, and anti-India activities

The question of whether the no-confidence motion in Lok Sabha against the Modi government achieved its purpose will always haunt politicians and analysts alike. A careful examination only reveals that it not only exposed Prime Minister Modi but also brought to light the decline in parliamentary democracy during the nine and a half years of Modi’s rule. The moral pressure on the Prime Minister to speak on Manipur violence did not yield any results. He remained defiant till the last moment of the proceedings of the House and talked about Manipur in his passing comments during the all-out attack on the Congress and the Gandhi family. Most importantly, his reference to Manipur lacked empathy or commitment. He did not try to answer questions related to the tragedy. He only tried to shift the blame onto the judiciary.

Thanks to the BJP, a serious exercise such as no confidence turned out to be a smearing match. Prime Minister Modi continued violating parliamentary norms and only reluctantly came to the House and participated in it.

The motion failed to evoke any confidence in the functioning of parliamentary democracy, and it didn’t contribute to halting its decline. At the behest of the ruling BJP, Indian media changed the motion on the no-confidence motion to some sort of trial of strength. Ironically, they themselves displayed a history of no-confidence motions in the Indian parliament that showed how most of the motions were rejected. These motions were brought to force the government to discuss issues the government of the time was trying to evade. Most of the time, these motions successfully served the purpose of putting the government in the dock. The distortion made by the media of the nature of the motion is nothing but a part of the attack on parliamentary democracy by the RSS and the BJP.

However, if the debate on the motion revealed the challenge our democracy is facing, it has also drawn the fault lines for the electoral battle of 2024. The debate made it clear that Prime Minister Modi would stick to his plank of aggressive Hindutva and hyper-nationalism. This hyper-nationalism has now even started accusing the Congress of being a party that destroyed the nation and has been conspiring against it throughout its history. He used all the distortions made by the RSS in the history of the freedom struggle, such as the adoption of the tricolour as its flag and deleting a paragraph of Bande Mataram while recognizing it as the national song. During the debate, one BJP MP even sang the theme song, ‘Namaste Sada Vatsale’.

If serious look at the ideological construct, Prime Minister Modi and his team are trying to put forward the traditional version of Hindutva. It has Akhand Bharat as its main theme. The Hindutva forces have been accusing the Congress of vivisecting India. The Prime Minister used the occasion to reiterate the allegation.

Another takeaway from the speech of the Prime Minister is his hatred for the Gandhi family. A major part of his speech was devoted to vilifying the family. He accused the family of promoting corruption, durbar culture, and anti-India activities. His distaste for the family remained at its height while he was describing the political activities of Rahul Gandhi.

Both Modi and his closet teammate Amit Shah even went to the extent of belittling Rahul as a politician who failed to take off.

The debate, however, on the no-confidence motion also revealed that Rahul Gandhi is all set to combat the ideological onslaught of Hindutva and hyper-nationalism. He effectively punctured the BJP’s hyper-nationalism by accusing it of murdering Bharatamta (Mother India). He used the metaphor of Ravana to attack the persona of Prime Minister Modi and asserted that it was not Hanumaan who destroyed Lanka, but the vanity of Ravana.

The visible decline in the conduct of parliamentarians was revealed in the way Cabinet Minister Smriti Irani accused Rahul Gandhi of sending a flying kiss to women MPs of the Treasury Bench. She also submitted to the speaker a joint letter of women BJP MPs that accused Rahul of misconduct. The allegation that had any substance was immediately picked up in the media, with the apparent motive of tarnishing his image.

Though, the opposition parties remained successful in forcing the Prime Minister to participate in the debate on Manipur violence, they could not force him to reveal any details of his strategy and plan to quell the unrest and establish peace in the state. Instead of answering Gaurav Gogoi's questions on Manipur, he tried to unearth the past failings of the Indian state in handling issues of autonomy in the north-east. He accused the Congress of bombing the Mizo people in 1966. The controversial statement of the Prime Minister is bound to affect sensitive politics in the Northeast. The Indian state has been denying the bombing. However, details reveal that it was inspired by the capture of army installations by the insurgents. Whatever the case, the Prime Minister should not have revealed it. It was against his oath.

He also tried to put the blame for the fire in Manipur on the judiciary and said that a court verdict triggered the violence. In accusing the court of triggering the violence, he negatively commented on the conduct of the judiciary.

Why the prime minister is evasive about Manipur is beyond comprehension. Does he not want to act against violence or support Hindutva forces? His and Amit Shah’s statements make it clear that the center is not going to act. It is clear that Chief Minister Biren Singh will be there and preside over the violence against Kukis and other tribes.

The opposition certainly forced Prime Minister Modi to come out in the open. He also could not hide his indifference. He spoke on the issue only briefly, and that too after the opposition members had left the House.

(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)