For watchers—and participants—of Indian democracy, the last few days have been momentous. Parliament held its final session in the old building, and the next day moved to the imposing, spacious and ultra-modern new Sansad, next to it. I must confess that when the decision to build the new Parliament was announced, I had opposed it because I felt that to abandon a building which has been identified since 1947 as the most recognisable icon of Indian democracy globally, was in some way also an obliteration of our past. There was too much nostalgia associated with the old building, too many memories, and so much of history, that I felt that imaginative renovation—even extension—was a better idea than to discard it. I also felt that it was a waste of money during Covid times, which could have been spent more usefully on other urgent priorities.
Of course, as a Member of Parliament myself earlier, I was fully aware that the existing Parliament was visibly cramped and not sufficiently technologically updated. It was also clear that should the number of MPs were to increase, as was likely after the new delimitation exercise, there would be a very genuine problem of space. But there were associations that invariably grew with the old, including the ambience of the ever-lively Central Hall, and even the mustiness of antiquity, which became endearing. At that time, I was against the building of the new Parliament.
However, as the new building came up in record time, and I saw its design, spaciousness, modernity, technological upgrading, and the sincere attempt to embellish it with the best of representative art and historic emblems from all parts of India, I reluctantly but definitely gave up my opposition. The transfer from the old to the new took place on 19th September, on the auspicious day of Ganesh Chaturthi.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in the final session in the old Parliament House, gave a statesman-like speech, for once free of acrimony. He recalled the contribution of every PM, every political party, and the historic decisions that were taken within its precincts. To the surprise of many, he also—perhaps for the first time—showered praise on the contribution of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first PM of India, and other Congress PMs. It was a non-partisan speech, a conciliatory statement of collective appreciation, that was listened to with pin-drop silence by all members.
The next day, in the first session in the new Parliament building, he gave a call—which was endorsed by both the Speaker and the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha—to make a new beginning with a less disruptive, more cooperative, and far more productive Parliament. It was timely advice, since I have long advocated that disruption of Parliament, and ceaseless—in fact sometimes daily adjournments—are truly a stain on our credentials as a democracy. The gross acts of indiscipline, unruly behaviour, open disrespect to the Chair, and the horrific scenes of brawls, paper throwing, placards, sloganeering, and the incessant entering into the Well of the House, have become the unedifying scenes that the people of India are compelled to witness almost daily.
I believe that such behaviour, whether perpetrated by the BJP earlier during UPA rule (and even justified as valid ‘democratic protest’), or the Congress and other Opposition parties now, is inimical to all Opposition parties. A reasoned and well-prepared debate, in which those across the Treasury Benches make their point substantively, is far more impactful, and can now be watched by the entire nation through live telecasts. During my tenure in Parliament, I did not once enter the aisle in protest, let alone enter the Well. Indeed, as the oldest living parliamentarian today, Dr Karan Singh, said on TV recently, such departure from parliamentary decorum was unheard of in the past. Of course, if we are to resurrect that past, the Treasury Benches, whose responsibility it is to run the House, should be open to the valid priorities and requests of the Opposition. And above all, the presiding officers of both Houses should play an impartial role, in letter and spirit.
I would also like to express my unreserved appreciation for the announcement by the PM, in the very first session in the new Parliament, of bringing in the Women’s Reservation Bill. Finally, the long pending reform, which it is true was proposed several times in the past by both the BJP (during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s term as PM) and the Congress (even earlier, during PM Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure), may see the light of reality. The allegation that this resolve was not implemented for the earlier nine years of the BJP-NDA government, even when it had two successive governments with an absolute majority, and is being brought in only now, on the eve of the next Parliamentary elections, is spot on. It is also worrisome that the new law, when passed, will become a reality only in some indeterminate future, only after the next inexplicably delayed National Census, and then the contentious delimitation exercise. The government should try and implement this new law as quickly as possible, and take on board what many in the Opposition are asking for, which are provisions for social justice for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes. But on the whole, this renewed and long-delayed initiative is something I welcome.
We have to wait and watch what else that is ‘historic’ is in store in this Special Session.
The author is a former diplomat, an author and a politician. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.