Buildings do not make a democracy vibrant

 

      The inauguration of the newly constructed parliament building was preceded and followed by much hullabaloo. Almost all opposition parties are collectively demanding from the government that instead of Prime Minister Modi, the new parliament building must be inaugurated by the President as the President is the constitutional head of India. They even filed a PIL in the Supreme Court which was turned down by the apex court. Following which, they decided to boycott the inauguration ceremony.

Being a citizen of this country, I am neither interested in knowing who inaugurated the new parliament building nor in its design and architecture. My interest lies only in the functioning of the parliament. I am more concerned about the values and ideals it stands for. I believe that buildings do not make a democracy vibrant. The essence of a vibrant democracy lies in the values, principles and action of its citizens and institutions rather than the physical structures that house them.

The old parliament building has a historical significance. Those who believe that it symbolizes the colonial past and therefore a new parliament building was needed, I would tell them that it doesn’t symbolize the colonial past. Rather it has witnessed India become an independent democracy. How can they deny this fact that the debates of constituent assembly took place there which finally gave birth to the constitution of free India. Moreover, those who believe that it was built by the British, they must know that it was not funded by Buckingham palace. They built it only with the money they looted from us.

There are two pertinent questions which can be asked of the government with respect to the new parliament building. First, was it an appropriate time to think of a construction project that requires an expenditure of hundreds of crores? To my understanding, the idea to construct a new parliament building amid a global health crisis can only be conceived by a leader who is not only indifferent to his people but also lacks the basic traits of humanity. Almost half a million people have lost their lives due to the gross mismanagement of the government during the pandemic. They were denied a dignified life and then they were further denied a dignified death. In the words of Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha, “We have witnessed an undignified death during the pandemic.” Instead of helping people in the time of crisis, the Central Vista Project was the top priority of the government. Taking pride in buildings while ignoring the people’s sufferings exhibits the nasty character of the government. You may call it a new parliament building but, to me, it is a cemetery of Indian democracy.

Another question with respect to the newly constructed parliament building is related to its date of inauguration: 28 May. Why has Modi picked this date to inaugurate the building? This date is marked as the birth anniversary of Savarkar. I think it is nothing but an attempt to gradually make Gandhi irrelevant by overshadowing him with Savarkar, the flagbearer of ‘Hindutva’ ideology and the mentor of Gandhi’s assassin Godse. In Modi’s India, you can hail Gandhi and Godse at the same time and you wouldn’t be called a personality of dual character. Despite this, one’s nationalist identity will remain intact. It is also a strange reality that the ideology which took away Gandhi’s life and trampled the democratic and secular values of India, unfortunately became a political majority and people associated with this ideology are projecting themselves as true nationalists.

It is important to note that when the government was busy in constructing the new parliament building, people were struggling to claim their democratic rights. As Prime Minister Modi inaugurates the building, hardly two kilometres away from the new parliament building, at Jantar Mantar, women wrestlers who brought laurels to the nation are protesting in the hope of justice. It has been more than a month and not a single leader from the ruling party met them to ensure justice. Not even Smirti Irani, as she holds the portfolio of Minister for Women and Child Development and considers herself the sole voice of women’s rights. It seems to me that the present government believes that the democratic values can only be preserved by constructing a swanky parliament building. It is mistaken as democracy resides in the hearts of democrats and reflects through their actions, and not in the bricks and mortar of a concrete structure.

With the new parliament building the government’s intention is clear and that is to divert the people’s attention from the functioning of the parliament to its colossal architecture. The parliament has primarily three important functions: to make laws, to be a forum for deliberations on important issues of governance and to enforce accountability of the executive to the people. If one evaluates the nine years of the Modi government, one will find that it only believes in the first function of the parliament, i.e., to make laws. The other two functions have been deliberately put aside.

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi, the Indian parliament has reduced itself to a podium of a demagogue who only believes in monologue. Opposition parties are not heard, and their voices are lost in the noise of the treasury bench. It has also been accused by opposition leaders that when they speak, their mic is muted. Contrary to this, in the old parliament, as the first Prime Minister of India, Nehru set examples for his successors. He always recognised the due space of dissent. He respected the feeling and sentiment of the opposition members. Even the Speaker used to exercise autonomy at the time, and he used to press the bell whenever Nehru exceeded the time limit while making his speeches in the parliament. According to P. Sakthivel, “Although Nehru commanded absolute majority in the house, he never believed in steamrolling the opposition, and showed utmost respect to them, listened to their views, and tried to accommodate them as far as possible. This is why some of his strongest critics in parliament happened to be his great admirers.” Enough criticism of Nehru has already been done, now it is high time for the ruling party, particularly Prime Minister Modi, to imbibe some of his attributes.

As we discuss the functioning of parliament, there are primarily two issues which cannot be overlooked as they act as impediments to the proper functioning of parliament. The first issue is the criminalisation of politics. Despite the clear instructions from the Supreme Court to stop it, political parties conveniently give tickets to those candidates who have criminal charges against them. As per the report of ADR, 43% Lok Sabha MPs have criminal cases against them and nearly 29 per cent of the cases are related to rape, murder, attempt to murder or crime against women. Expecting policies pertaining to peace, development, and social security from them is fatuous. It is unfortunate that no political party is serious in controlling the criminalisation of politics.

Another significant issue is the regular absence of MPs from the parliament during parliament sessions. As of now there is no mechanism in practice to ensure maximum attendance of the MPs in parliament. Even a record of who is present and who is not, is not maintained by the parliament officials. MPs conveniently skip the parliament session without a sense of accountability. If MPs do not attend the session, how can the voice and concerns of those whom they represent will reach the parliament? Until and unless these issues continue to exist, the purpose of the parliament will remain defeated.

In a country, where Muslims are experiencing existential threat and Dalits and tribals are struggling to survive on the socioeconomic and political landscape of India, the new parliament building is in no way going to strengthen Indian democracy. It is nothing but a self-serving agenda of Modi as he believes that he will be remembered in history as a leader who gave India a new parliament building. However, perhaps he does not know that India is not a monarchy. It is a democracy and in a democratic society, history does not remember those who construct buildings. Rather, history remembers only those who build institutions and formulate the welfare policies. Moreover, he must know that the biggest achievement of a leader is not that he finds a mention in a plaque; rather, the biggest achievement of a leader is how he manages to carve a niche in the hearts of those who believe in him.

I wish to conclude this essay by quoting my professor, Mukul Kesavan’s apt views pertaining to the new parliament building. He says “The new Parliament building needs a new motto to fit the shape of this unfraternal republic better than ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ does. ‘Community, Disunity, Impunity’ should be blazoned across its main entrance.” I second his opinion.