The leader of Opposition recently made several statements in parliament. The Prime Minister had to correct several of these statements.
The citizens of Bharat in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections voted for a more diverse parliament. Here, they chose the INC as the natural alternative to the BJP, a narrative that has been flipped on its head in recent times. While the BJP is traditionally seen as the alternative to the zeitgeist of the INC, we see the narrative reverse in the case of the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.
While the INC is better at setting a national narrative, being the default of the country and the party that claims the founding of Bharat’s constitution, they are being voted as an alternative for the first time. Meanwhile, the BJP, which was traditionally seen as the “opposition” party by default, is coming into its own and setting a narrative.
Hence, we saw the parliament commence with the first session on the 24th of June, 2024.
Table of Contents
The Parliament
The parliament sessions started in a rather juvenile manner. Each party professed its own political ideology and sloganeered. We heard “Jai Bhim”, “Jai Samvidhan”, “Jai Palestine”, “Allah hu Akbar”, “Atal Bihari Zindabad” and whatnot; the list is endless and bereft of any ideology; every single voted member has indulged in this immature behavior!
Coupled with the outfits and constitutions of various sizes and colors carried by all parliamentarians, the Lok Sabha looks less like a parliament and more like an Ethnic Met Gala in Bharat.
This comes at the backdrop of floods across the country, deaths of multiple people, the NEET exam scam, bridges in Bihar collapsing, increasing Jihadi violence in West Bengal, and a myriad of other issues.
Yet, the discussion in Parliament, with the leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, seems to revolve around the “battle of ideology”
The parliament so far has discussed who shook hands with whom, the Modi-Meloni strategic partnership between Bharat and Italy (commonly known as Melodi), and ideology.
Rahul Gandhi, while taking time to address the NEET scam and send a message to students, decided to make this battle an ideological battle. The speaker requested him to stick to the topic of the NEET exam, yet the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi decided to say “there are two forces”, repeating what he was specifically told not to do: create an “us vs them” narrative.
Watch the full video, posted by an INC supporter ironically, here:
Rahul Gandhi, and the INC party at large, is still not able to bring any true perspective or policy to the fore. The parliament has become a place for them to discuss their ideologies. Must Rahul Gandhi be reminded that the parliament is not a thinktank, but a place to discuss policy matters, whose theme is set by the party in power, which has won under the mandate of the people?
Rahul Gandhi in Parliament:
Rahul Gandhi admits that it was Jesus and not Gandhi who originally came up with the idea of turning the other cheek. Watch the full video here:
Rahul Gandhi also brought pictures of Guru Nanak and Shiv ji to the parliament to make statements.
These statements are highly inconsequential, as they do not contribute to efficient policymaking. These discussions must be left to the think tanks and other platforms. In the parliament, one should be discussing real issues.
The INC and Rahul Gandhi seem to forget that we already live in a Nehruvian country within a Nehruvian reality. That reality does not need to be driven further through culture, as that already has been the case for the last 70 or so years. The people, based on this culture, came to a certain conclusion, and are reacting against that.
Every country has two parties; one is progressive while the other is conservative. The conservative party claims the founding of a nation “was based on our independence movement, it was out establishing culture, it was our founding fathers”, etc.
Rahul Gandhi does not need to “establish” a secular culture in the country; it already exists. What needs to be established within this reality is a Hindu consciousness, to bring up new changes and perspectives to the civilization of Bharat.
What happens outside the Parliament
Outside the parliament, there is a more serious policy demand emerging. For example, Jairam Ramesh has stated in an interview that he would like the BJP to change the constitution. However, he wants it changed to increase reservation. Watch this here:
It would be better to bring this argument to the parliament instead. It should be better to bring all sides on board to change the constitution. Interestingly, a party that ran with the campaign against changing the constitution wants to change it now.
However, bringing this to parliament can be more fruitful for democracy. The Dalit polity feels that there is a backlog of reservation jobs. However, this can be given in other means.
For example, if the reservation system is entirely removed from the constitution, then we could make new policies and laws where companies and government organizations that have diverse representation get bonuses and extra benefits from the government.
Such fruitful discussions being inside the parliament, and rhetoric being kept outside of the parliament, would be much more refreshing. The parliament is made for debating and discussing policies, not for creating reels.
The INC needs to shed its ideology and modernize it through the path of Hindutva. It has to approach the BJP’s vision with an open mind and heart, and allow them the space to bring new perspectives into the parliament with questions on “how?” instead of “why?”.
Conclusion
The terrible start of the parliament session giving feedback to all politicians and parties involved may ring alarm bells for the involved parliamentarians. Discussion in parliament has to be productive and respect the mandate of all the people who have voted, not the small silos of the political class. Hopefully, parliamentarians keep going above and beyond to tear each other down. The only way to win this game is by giving all sides what they want; not through appeasing certain political classes over the other.
