Editor,
With reference to the editorial, ‘BJP using underhanded tactics to silence strong opposition voices’ (Arunachal Times, 11 December, 2023), Mahua Moitra’s expulsion from Parliament for a charge of a cash-for-query is another blow to dissent and democracy. The lady is one of the few star parliamentarians who never fail to air people’s concerns in the House. Not only did she speak against crony capitalism but also against communalism, rising intolerance, inflation and unemployment. She as an opposition MP always asked the government necessary questions without which a parliamentary democracy could not function.
The charges against her had been filed in two affidavits. She alleged that those two testimonies contradicted each other. She pointed out that, while one affidavit, which was filed by a BJP MP and an advocate, accused her of taking money from a businessman to ask questions in Parliament for the benefit of that very businessman, and the other affidavit by that businessman said that she pressurised him into uploading questions for her own benefit.
She complained in her speech after her expulsion that the Ethics Committee ignored this contradiction. If there were any such glaring mismatches between the two testimonies on the basis of which she had been charged, then it must have been looked into. Such mismatches nullify each other.
In December 2005, Parliament voted to expel 11 MPs, which included 6 of the BJP, 3 of the BSP, 1 of the RJD and 1 of the Congress. They were expelled after a sting operation by an online news site which aired on a TV channel, showing 11 MPs accepting cash for raising questions in Parliament. In spite of the existence of solid proof against those MPs, the BJP staged a walkout from the House at that time. One BJP leader said that expulsion was more severe a punishment than the offence.
Mahua Moitra has repeatedly been saying that there is no proof whatsoever of her taking any money. Her expulsion from Parliament would be a travesty of justice had there been no solid proof against her. She said that the recommendation of expulsion was based solely on the grounds of her sharing log-in details for the Lok Sabha. She alleged that there is no rules regarding sharing of log-in. Be that as it may, a member of Parliament is supposed to get questions from citizens and to voice the same in Parliament as they are our representatives.
This double standard one for 2005 and another for 2023, has also been adopted in treating a BJP MP who a few months ago used most vulgar and communal expletives against another MP of the opposition bench on the floor of Parliament. But no action has since been taken against him despite the existence of solid audio visual proof.
A similar thing happened to Rahul Gandhi. In spite of constant efforts to belittle him, he stood tall whenever he got an opportunity to speak in Parliament. He reminded the government on relevant issues revolving the interest of the people. He repeatedly pointed his finger towards cronies and criticised the policy of writing off of huge amounts of bank loans for some rich businesspersons. But he was dragged to the court of law for a comment that he made during an election rally in Karnataka a long time ago on 13 April, 2019. Then he was ousted from the House and in no time from his own house, where he had lived as an MP.
Thereafter, he legally fought his way to get back to Parliament.
Apart from Rahul Gandhi and Mahua Moitra, there are other dots to join. Noble laureate Amartya Sen, who never failed to raise his dissenting voice on important issues despite his old age, had been dragged into a dispute over a small piece of land of his ancestral home in Santiniketan.
Arundhuti Roy, the renowned writer who always spoke against hate speeches, crony capitalism, lynching and violence in college campuses, had recently been charged under the anti-terrorism law for her speech which was delivered 13 years ago in 2010 in a seminar in New Delhi. The picture that appears after joining all these dots is hostile to dissent which is regarded as the lifeblood of democracy.
Sujit De,
Kolkata