Are you tired of witnessing constant flip-flops in Parliament? Does the functioning of Parliament today leave you with a frightening sense of regret as a voter, someone who, through the so-called democratic process, sent one of its members there? Do you feel ashamed for having done what was expected of you: voting for the betterment and preservation of India’s democratic values?
I feel all of this. I am tired, scared, and even ashamed of being a voter, of having made the decision to vote, hoping my voice would be heard in Parliament. Like me, there must be many others who feel the same way, ultimately deciding to stay away from this democratic process called elections.
The moment you watch parliamentary proceedings and witness the chaos that strips the institution of its dignity, a troubling question strikes hard: Why has an institution meant for discussion and decision-making turned into a platform for spiteful altercations?
Parliamentary democracy holds space for discussion, disagreement, and even, to some extent, dissent. But what if inarticulate moves from the opposition in Parliament leave you with little hope for democratic progress? There are many such moves that frequently force even the most ordinary citizen to disapprove. Deeply unrefined, critically polarizing, and confusing are the ways in which responsible members conduct parliamentary business. The level of gimmickry displayed in Parliament leaves many in utter shame.
The scarier aspect of this disruptive mentality stems from what many see as a degrading mindset in a new form of politics that emerged after India witnessed a colossal shift in its political landscape in 2014. Until then, the commonly accepted norm of dynastic politics, well ornamented with eulogizing phraseology, continued to enjoy widespread support. For decades, except for a brief interval, this ecosystem ruled India with complete dominance and, critics argue, with a largely self-serving focus.
This ecosystem, led by the Congress and its principal family, is often accused of demagoguery. It has suffered major setbacks in Parliament and across states since 2014 and has put its entire machinery to work targeting one man- the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Attempts to vilify him, supporters claim, stem from deep desperation after this once-powerful political dynasty was removed from power. According to this view, such frustration encourages disruption rather than discussion. It invents reasons for chaos and designs strategies that undermine the civic conscience expected of Members of Parliament. It continues to question every forward step taken by the Prime Minister and rarely shows willingness to acknowledge him positively, irrespective of the numerous decisions his supporters describe as beneficial for India and its people. Why this intolerance? One answer, critics suggest, is the dynasty’s growing insignificance.
The present tussle is not merely a battle between two political parties, nor even between two coalitions. Some view it as an ideological clash rooted in mutual distrust. One side, with strong civilizational affirmation, claims to envision India as a great nation united by cultural nationalism. The other, critics allege, appears influenced by international narratives that frame India as a collection of states bound together tenuously. When one side accelerates its political momentum with cultural nationalism, the other sees space for decentralization and suggestively a scope for balkanization. According to the ruling BJP, the opposition’s strategy of disruption aims to cultivate an image of mass mobilization while allegedly aligning with external narratives that destabilize India.
Much of the opposition’s aggression is directed at the Prime Minister, whom they often seem to overlook was elected by the people of India for a third consecutive term, winning a full majority twice and falling slightly short the third time. Under the UPA coalition, Congress never achieved the kind of mandate that Modi secured at his peak.
Undoubtedly, there is a sense of entitlement that Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition (LoP), appears to believe comes naturally to him as the scion of a political dynasty. There are often intense attempts by loyalists within his party to portray his erratic interventions in Parliament as great maneuvers of political maturity.
To cite one example: on 20 July 2018 during the discussion on the no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi unexpectedly walked up to the Prime Minister and gave him a bear hug. Whether intended as symbolic or conciliatory, the move was widely debated and to many critics, it appeared impulsive and theatrically confrontational. And beyond Parliament, it is true that he campaigns internationally while projecting India and its Prime Minister negatively.
Today, what defines the position of the Leader of the Opposition, according to critics, is unpredictability. Leaders of his generation within the Congress have gradually and systematically been forced out of the party, as the Nehru family is perceived to view them as threats to his emergence. This appears, to observers, to be a structural compulsion within the Congress framework.
Why is Rahul Gandhi unable to shed his controversial image? Some argue the answer lies in his formative years within a political family that wielded immense power. From his great-grandfather to his grandmother and father, he witnessed both the authority and privileges that accompany power. During the tenure of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it was widely perceived by critics that he and his mother operated as a shadow power center, diminishing the authority of the elected Prime Minister.
The Manmohan Singh era also witnessed another controversial moment involving Rahul Gandhi. He publicly tore up an ordinance intended to overturn a Supreme Court judgment that had already been approved by the Union Cabinet. India saw what many perceived as an overambitious dynast provocatively and publicly undermining the authority of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.
To a significant segment of India’s population, Rahul Gandhi appears uncharismatic as a national leader and has led his party into repeated electoral defeats. Even in states where the party has won, critics argue that those victories were largely the result of favorable local conditions rather than his leadership. Why, they ask, is he unable to influence Indian voters to the extent that his political opponent, Narendra Modi, can?
The answer, they contend, is straightforward: political acumen and public acceptance do not come with dynastic credentials. A leader must endure the harsh trials of politics, understand the pulse of the nation, and connect deeply with its electorate. Modi, they argue, has consistently navigated the turbulence of Indian politics and carved out a distinct political identity that resonates with his supporters. His opponents, meanwhile, still appear unable to decode what they see as his political strategy and appeal.