Parliament Face-off Again
By Poonam I Kaushish
“Jo uchit samjho woh karo. I was handed a ‘hot potato’.” Two sentences which have brought Parliament’s Lok Sabha to a grinding halt, yet again. All over retd Army Chief Gen Narvane’s unpublished autobiography ‘Four Stars of Destiny’ which has triggered a maelstrom.
It has its genesis during the Motion of Thanks debate on President Murmu’s address Tuesday when Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi referred to parts of Naravane’s unpublished memoir on the 2020 India-China Ladakh border tension. Predictably, he set the cat among pigeons leading to chaos as Congress MPs climbed tables, tore papers and hurled them at the Speaker amidst sharp political confrontation between Government and Congress-led Opposition MPs resulting in 8 MPs suspended and loss of hours of productive work in the House.
Since then the issue has become a political flashpoint with Opposition demanding transparency and Government insisting on procedural norms and security protocols as releasing or discussing what may be sensitive defence content and classified operational details which could harm national security.
Pertinently, at that time, there was a standing order that Indian forces should not open fire unless they got explicit political clearance, even if Chinese forces crossed into areas India considers its territory. Gen Naravane repeatedly sought clear directions but did not receive a specific operational order.
The General’s book has not been officially released as it is still undergoing security clearance process by Defence Ministry. Under rules, retired senior military officers who write about defence and operational matters must get Government approval before publication if the manuscript contains anything that could touch on national security. Hence, it cannot confirm or deny contents as quoted by Gandhi.
Government sources aver “Rajnath Singh conveyed he’d spoken to the top leadership (including Prime Minister) and averred “Jo uchit samjho woh karo.” The reason for not giving a clear, specific order when Naravane asked him during the 2020 India-China Ladakh border tension was because the political leadership did not want to issue direct battlefield commands and instead effectively delegated authority back to Army Chief rather than providing a direct command, not necessarily an outright refusal to decide.
Adding, “Political leaders typically articulate strategic intent and set boundaries but do not issue detailed battlefield orders which is normally the military commander on the ground role.”
Opposition counters: This is failure of leadership, underscoring it left the Army Chief uncertain and “alone.” It’s a calculated attempt at plausible deniability, designed to leave the military commander exposed and doomed if manoeuvre fails, while keeping the door open to claim credit if events break the right way. That is not leadership. It is opportunism and cowardice masquerading as a “free hand”.
Arguing “it’s unpublished” sounds like a technical shield rather than a substantive response. A near-war was decided without clear civilian direction. In a democracy, decisions about war cannot be left to generals on their own. What happened to the 56-inch chest when China was before us and advancing?
Clearly, politically, the optics are different: Opposition MPs quote passages in Parliament, author himself doesn’t deny content and Government remains mum. Whereby, lack of “reply” isn’t really a direct refusal to answer the substance of Naravane’s claims.
Whether one finds Government’s stance reasonable depends on which principle one prioritizes more in this situation. If one talk’s of democratic transparency then it stands to reason when policy decisions are being questioned, explain them. From the Government’s perspective it reflected trust in professional military judgment rather than abdication.
This apart, the Lok Sabha’s face-off does not bode well for Parliament. Barely into the Budget session one has lost 19 hours, 13 minutes in the first week. To prevent the Leader of Opposition from speaking by citing the rule book or invoking “national security” goes against the democratic letter and spirit. The Government gives the impression that it’s thin-skinned even as excerpts from the book are public and are neither damning nor revelatory.
Also, the drama does not cast a flattering light on Gandhi and Congress. Certainly, Gandhi must ask questions and demand answers from Government be it India-China stand-off or India-US deal etc. But by reducing serious questioning to insinuation about “Pradhan Mantri ka character” as he sought to do is not correct.
Alas, session after session, India’s temple of democracy Parliament is increasingly becoming a mockery, tamasha and circus wherein crores of tax payers’ money is being swept away by the verbal torrent of tu-tu-mein-mein leading to muscling-muzzling, walk-outs and pandemonium without even the slightest tinge of remorse. With ruthless politics taking over, all spewing sheer contempt!
More disgusting and perturbing is our polity largely continues to drift along smugly without any shame or desire to turn a new page and prevent Parliament’s crumble. Why then is hard-earned tax payers money being wasted on their salaries and maintaining their VIP life-style? Thus, in this deteriorating political culture and ethos, Parliamentary proceedings have little material bearing on the course of politics.
Regrettably, this phenomenon is yet another symbol of sharply polarized politics that has unfortunately erased any middle ground or space for Parliamentary manoeuvre. Recovering that tradition will take more than semantics. Bluntly, our jan sevaks need to show willingness and sincerity to lawmaking, priortise discussion over acrimony, debate over disruption. This will need accommodation and sagacity from both sides alongside commitment to showcase the best of our hallowed tradition of Parliamentary procedures, speeches and rebuttals.
Today it faces two challenges: One, growing chasm between Treasury Benches-Opposition. The last few sessions of Parliament were disrupted by both sides retreating into their respective ideological positions. BJP feels its democratic mandate is being disrespected, Opposition is upset by Government using its numerical superiority to ram through legislation and short-circuiting Parliamentary process.
Two, there is need to bolster Parliamentary process as its primary function of scrutinizing bills drafted by Government is suffering. Lawmakers will need to look at measures that carve out dedicated time for both sides to raise issues and have sufficient scope to scrutinise key legislation. This will need accommodation, sagacity and commitment to showcase best of our hallowed tradition of Parliamentary procedures, speeches and rebuttals from both sides.
Besides, given Parliament’s legatee of rich legacy our leaders should stand on tiptoe and look to the future, be more judicious in their decision making mindful of its long term positions be it the din of hoots and heckles, raised fists, chairs and mikes, stalling Parliament indefinitely, walking out of the Houses repeatedly.
The value of this session will be gauged by its success in moving the national conversation forward. Modi needs to remember a good statesman always learns from his opposition than from supporters. Alongside, MPs need to create a compact on Parliament’s structural reforms. They must introspect about what kind of legacy they are going to leave behind. Or will they allow Parliament to sink under the weight of its increasing decadence? India’s democracy deserves transparency and honest intent. — INFA
