Suspension of lawmakers reinforces Modi’s aversion to opposition

The expulsion of the lawmakers has only substantiated the allegation that Modi's BJP wants a parliament without any opposition. Was it not essential to involve opposition parties in passing important criminal and civil laws?

The winter session of Parliament will certainly find a place in the parliamentary history of India for suspending a record number of lawmakers in a single session. When the historians dig into the reasons, they will be baffled by the sight that the government did it on weak ground. The number of MPs who were prohibited from entering the House for the remaining part of the session was 146. It is the highest in the history of the Indian Parliament. The opposition had only demanded a statement from the home minister on the breach in the security of Parliament. The Modi government ignored the demand. However, the Home Minister discussed the issue outside Parliament. Was it wrong on the part of Congress and other opposition parties to ask for a statement on an important issue such as this? Was it right to expel them from the House for the session?

These questions do not give any clue to the state of Indian democracy. Arguments are there to support the ruling party’s behavior. They cite instances of suspending lawmakers in good numbers. They ask what qualitative difference it makes if the number is higher. However, a close look exposes the fallacy of these arguments. The problem with these arguments lies in the fact that they ignore the context. They try to hide the political atmosphere in the country and the deterioration the Indian democracy has undergone during Modi’s rule. Expelling members on their way into the House, shouting slogans, or displaying placards is not new. But this kind of punishment has never been imposed on the lawmakers. The chairs have always tried to look non-partisan and impartial. Here, the case has been different. We have seen how the Treasury benches acted earlier when they demanded an apology from Rahul Gandhi for a statement that was made on foreign soil. The statement was distorted to suit the narrative of the RSS that Rahul Gandhi is anti-national. The proceedings of the House were stalled by the members of the Treasury Bench. It was unprecedented and a serious violation of parliamentary norms. It was the responsibility of the ruling party to ensure the smooth running of the House. The ruling side took recourse to similar tactics when the opposition members demanded a statement from the Prime Minister on the issue of Manipur and a discussion in the House. The opposition was left with no choice but to bring a no-confidence motion. Though the Prime Minister was forced to make a reply, he did his utmost to sideline the issue.

This time too, the government remained evasive and showed its usual contempt towards the opposition parties. In a meeting of floor leaders of the House, instead of being apologetic for not making any statement, the Prime Minister cited a security breach in the Karnataka assembly and an alleged selective uproar by the opposition parties. The incident, in fact, is hardly comparable to the security breach in Parliament House. A 72-year-old person had come to meet a government official, entered the chambers of the Karnataka Assembly Hall, and sat there during the presentation of the budget by Chief Minister Siddharamaiah. Was the Prime Minister not trying to impress that the incident of a security breach in Parliament was common?

However, the actions taken against the youth who were involved in the incident are contradictory to what the Prime Minister is trying to say. The police have filed UAPA charges against the young people. What these young people have done is revealing. Two people jumped over the visitor’s gallery, released coloured, harmless smoke from canisters, and shouted the slogans Inquilab Zindabad and Bhagat Singh Amar Rahen’. The youth were from two different locations. Sagar Sharma (26) was from Lucknow, and Manoranjan D (35) was from Bengaluru. The latter is an engineering graduate.

Right at the moment, Amol Shinde (25) and Neelam Devi (42) were spreading colourless, harmless gas outside the Parliament and shouting slogans like “Tanashahi Nahin Chalegi’. They were raising issues of unemployment, atrocities against women in Manipur, and shouting Jai Bhim. The police have also arrested two other young people—Vishal Sharma (40) and Lalit Jha (38)—for planning the incident with the people who have been charged with breaching Parliament security. All six people are active on the social media page of the Bhagat Singh Fans Club.

The actions of these young guys can best be termed misguided. Their attempt to recreate what was done by Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt could not be endorsed. They have only shown an improper understanding of the ideology and actions of the great martyrs. However, can their actions be seen as terrorist activity? They have been charged with terrorist offences under sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, UAPA.

Had the youth any intention of striking terror or threatening the unity and integrity of India? Had they used ‘noxious gases of a hazardous nature? Have their activities caused any loss of life, threat to life, or economic disruption?

The People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) has rightly condemned the use of the UAPA against these youth. “The use of a draconian law such as the UAPA against the arrested youth is nothing but an abuse of the legal process,” says the rights organization. It says that the young people have tried to highlight “the nation-wide problems of unemployment, inequality, atrocities against women, Manipur violence, authoritarianism, and other issues of common social and political concern” in a sensational manner.

The actions against the youth are part of the government’s insensitivity towards people’s issues. It is also an extension of what it has done to the lawmakers. The expulsion of the lawmakers has only substantiated the allegation that Modi's BJP wants a parliament without any opposition. Was it not essential to involve opposition parties in passing important criminal and civil laws?

(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)