Tag: parliament building

Who Are Our Young Andolanjeevis?

The December 13 incident showed us a rare glimpse of what many did not see. What seems to be a play gone bad could, if immediate remedial action is not taken, become a violent rapacious spectacle where characters will again invade the stage suddenly, looking for a new author.

Saakhi is a Sunday column from Mrinal Pande, in which she writes of what she sees and also participates in. That has been her burden to bear ever since she embarked on a life as a journalist, writer, editor, author and as chairperson of Prasar Bharti. Her journey of being a witness-participant continues. 

The latest December 13 attack on India’s Parliament stunned the parliamentarians, the people and the media alike. As they reacted to piecemeal information trickling in the social media, immediate reactions were different. The parliamentarians called it a serious breach of security, which it was. The ruling dispensation reacted by treating it as a serious conspiracy, maybe not entirely spontaneous, but orchestrated by unseen ‘enemies of the State’.

Mediapersons swiftly began squabbling over a canister that the attackers had allegedly used to release yellow smoke. Amit Malviya, in-charge of Bharatiya Janata Party’s National Information and Technology Department, dubbed one of the security breaches accused Neelam Verma as a mere ‘Andolanjeevi’, a term popularised by his party.

Mrinal Pande

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

Cut to the visuals. Two young men suddenly jump into the new Parliament while it was in session, yelling and waving canisters that released a noxious yellow gas, leap across seats and tables. The suddenness took everyone by surprise, and most of them chose to rush out, while a few stood on the sidelines with mouths agape before pouncing on the culprits. Outside, Neelam Azad (37), a woman protester, was dragged away while shouting slogans about the youth unemployment that haunted them. The term ‘Andolanjeevi’ thus gained young faces contorted with rage that should now frighten more citizens, anchors, reporters, and certainly the party’s national media handlers.

It seems the ruling dispensation is well-armed to handle such rage. Of late the ambit of old criminal laws the British used to punish revolutionaries is being expanded and used liberally. The fact is, all over the world, a certain kind of rebellion surfaces first among the young and can soon become a wave if times are ripe.

While the market has many flaws, the new social media it has launched has also made democratic functioning transparent. Young people are avid observers of political parties and their leaders, who are carefully and expensively ‘relabelled’ and ‘repackaged,’ and whose narratives are ‘reset’ by professionals.

Elections are no longer joyous occasions celebrating democratic freedoms. They are wars fought in cyberspace. The voters here are data. The faceless vote banks are wooed in rallies and on TV with  ‘presentations’ and panel discussions on prime time TV. The upstart anchors, with carefully styled hair, no longer talk of national priorities, but ‘brand identity’, ‘core values’, state models, double-engines. Even the group ads boast not of viewers but of channels’ ‘market share’. Systems turn away again and again from the elephant in the room: unemployment.

Instead, we are sold old wine in new bottles and mutton parading as lamb, talking about India as a young nation, youthful dreams, and restoring the lost glory of the wonder that was India.

Before the nation hastily bulldozes these angry young voices, it must take a deep breath and face the real-time issues that will remain unresolved, regardless of the margin political parties may win. The basic flaw must not be allowed to get buried under ritual and spectacle. In this instance, it lies in a poor security set up for the new Parliament building. The building was inaugurated not too long ago in a ritualistic ceremony, with a horde of portly Sadhus carrying a gold mace, The Holy Sengol – an ancient symbol of divine authority – and planting it in the sanctum sanctorum of Democracy amid Vedic chants.

All the media buzz was good Vastu, holy Mantras and ancient rituals that protect our culture and democracy. There was not a whiff of the objective conditions many of our youngsters are growing in. Some will view this question as cynical. After all, they ask, such conditions exist in many countries, but a blatant attack within the Parliament building by half a dozen rank amateurs with personal grievances against the system, does not erupt there. Why did it happen here in the heart of the mother of democracy so suddenly?

Also read: What Yellow Smoke Signals Tell Us About the ‘Mother of Democracy’

It was not sudden, according to the latest reports. The educated but jobless individuals had met briefly in Mysuru over a year ago. Since then, they kept in touch on Facebook and recently reunited in Gurugram, the Maximum City of the north, to shape a plan that would draw attention to their plight. Facebook is a bubble created for their kind by a Harvard sophomore to whom ‘connectivity among the young’ was the Holy Grail. Interestingly, the Bhagat Singh Fan Club page, built around the celebrated rebel against British colonialism who had also hurled a dummy bomb at the highest authority, became the catalyst.

Net is where our youngsters live 24×7. And everything shrinks on Facebook; it’s a mini India for the young, with time on their hands that they can roam freely to meet like-minded people. Here is where a Neelam Azad, the jobless daughter of a halwai in a village in Jind who has an M.Ed degree, has passed the NET, HTET, CTET exams and still failed to get a job, could meet another disgruntled 26-year-old Sagar Sharma, son of a carpenter, who had to drop out of school for lack of money and drive an auto rickshaw in Lucknow for a living.

They also met a jobless engineer, Manoranjan (34) from Mysuru, the son of a farmer and Amol Shinde (25), a Dalit from Latur, Maharashtra, who failed to qualify for the army and was deemed too old for becoming an Agniveer.

On Facebook, Vishal Sharma and Lalit Jha promised to provide board and lodging to their out of town online friends. Thus, a Wild West of Facebook became home for the revolutionary fantasies of lost, frustrated, and angry souls. No wonder there is a haphazard and accidental quality to their attack. The younger ones, Amol and Sagar, entered the Parliament, courtesy passes provided by the staff of an unsuspecting MP, and created terror within, while the older ones, Neelam and Manoranjan, raised slogans and waved spray cans outside.

While the bystanders were petrified and revolted, the media vultures entered, fighting over a can of tear gas. Rich Black humour there, but also so much unspoken pain!

By evening, the general reaction had subsided as authorities and the ‘Godi’ media went into overdrive trying to find links with all deemed subversives: Maoists, Naxals, and the Opposition looking to draw blood.

Here is a moment when a nascent movement limited to some half a dozen men and women butted headlong in a structure they felt no longer cared for them. Like children throwing tantrums, they tried to destroy and de sanctify whatever they could to draw attention to their anger: chairs, tables, papers, files, a mic here and a bag there. But these acts were impulsive and short-lived, a poor theatre, if you will.

If the condemnable but puny revolt underscores anything, it is this: sometimes money and spectacles are not enough to sustain the grand illusion; hollow promises are no longer working. There is an Iranian proverb that says: Promises have value only for those that believe in them. The Parliament security breach incident on December 13 showed us a rare glimpse of what many did not see.

What seems to be a play gone bad could, if immediate remedial action is not taken, become a violent rapacious spectacle where characters will again invade the stage suddenly, looking for a new author.

Entering the Temple of Democracy For the Last Time: A Parliament Journalist’s Account

The old parliament building, built in the pre air-conditioning age, was open and full of natural light. By contrast, the new building is a closed space with flat, straight and high insurmountable walls. The symbolism is hard to miss. 

It was 25 years ago that I first entered the press gallery of the Lok Sabha, a bit intimidated and overwhelmed. I remembered the tall circular building, the high-roofed chamber of the lower house, and the feeling that this is where India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru delivered that ‘Tryst with Destiny’ address at the moment of Independence 76 years ago. The spartan grandeur, the portraits hanging from the walls of the circular corridor, and the tall statues all silent sentinels of a day long gone, watched me silently.  

Twenty five years later, I entered the hallowed hall one last time, but this time as a visitor. The space reserved for the fourth pillar of democracy across the hall in the press gallery wore a deserted look with just a handful of colleagues present. But is it just journalism that’s been reduced to the fringes and journalists to spectators, I wondered. 

The special session began with Prime Minister Narendra Modi waxing eloquent about India’s journey of the past 75 years. Modi invoked his bête noire Nehru in statesmanlike fulsome praise, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee and even Manmohan Singh who has been dissed by the present dispensation through the 10 years that his government was in power. The five-day special session will witness the shift to the newly constructed parliament building on Ganesh Chaturthi, a day reserved for auspicious beginnings. 

“We might be shifting to the new building but this building will keep on inspiring the coming generation,” Modi said. Quoting a sentence from the Upanishads that is inscribed on the gate of the new parliament, the PM said, “The sages said to open the doors for the people and see how they attain their rights.” 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the inauguration of the new parliament building on May 28, 2023. Photo: Twitter/@narendramodi

The old parliament building built in the pre air-conditioning age with its iconic circular facade and cylindrical pillars was open and full of natural light. A cool breeze blew through the corridors even in the blazing summer. By contrast, the new building is a closed space with flat, straight and high insurmountable walls. The symbolism is hard to miss. 

“The building is designed to ward off an enemy attack, closed from all sides like a fort. But who is the enemy here?” asked a scribe. “Our homes in the village are built in a somewhat similar fashion. High walls ensconce the house but then the difference is the house has a courtyard at the centre of it which is a hub where family members meet and it promotes a community feeling. This building here is stifling.” he added.

The designs of the two buildings reflect the mindset of the dispensation, “open versus closed,” said another.

Also read: New Parliament Building Is a Solution to Problems That Do Not Exist

The new parliament has huge air-conditioned halls and no courtyard to mingle in or for general bonhomie. It has the look of a corporate office, a scribe said. “The media gallery is designed in a way that you can only see the backs of most MPs unlike the old House where all MPs were clearly visible,” said another.

‘What’s inside’

Congress leader and three time MP Shashi Tharoor says, “More then a beautiful building what is needed is what goes on inside it. What you need is a thriving democracy. I have seen two prime ministers. And Mr Modi, while quite striking when he’s present, has been absent quite a bit. In fact, I had calculated that in the first three years of his regime, he spent more time addressing foreign parliaments then in his own country.”

Security officers say the prime minister’s office will be clearly off bounds and even the offices of MPs will be cordoned off. If true, this will be a far cry from the time when one could walk right into the office of the PM even as the Special Protection Group scowled, or accost a Vajpayee as he stepped out of the building and thrust a mic at him. You could also go room to room, be it of a minister or political party, sniffing for news. The durbar of the late BJP leader Arun Jaitely whether he was in the opposition or the Treasury Benches was an adda for journalists trying to make headway in an increasingly opaque dispensation. 

India’s new parliament building. Photo: PIB

There was a time when the parliament played host to the camaraderie between journalists and MPs. You cheekily breezed in late to parliament and parked your car in the common parking space. My favourite spot was the same as the Late Amar Singh’s and I often beat him to it.

You could also watch history in the making from the front row seats in the Rajya Sabha media gallery, as many did when the Women’s Reservation Bill or the nuclear deal passed in the Lok Sabha. Some of the fiercest orators in the house were Vajpayee and the late Sushma Swaraj. You dropped everything when they stood up to speak. Challenges were many, too. You often covered House proceedings till 2 am on a foggy December night and were back to the temple of democracy by 10 am the next morning. 

Six time MP and part time airline pilot Rajiv Pratap Rudy says he first became an MP in 1996 and one of the chores he was tasked with by the Speaker was to take care of the parliament’s gardens. “I have been closely associated with designing the gardens or reconstruction of public utilities in the building. My memories are reminiscent of a lot of good things, of excitement and loss, of creativity and hope. I am privileged to be a part of the change and Prime Minister while speaking like a statesman reminisced about parliament’s history,” he says.

The bullet marks on the solid stone exteriors are somber reminders of the attack on the parliament on December 13, 2001. I for one was in my office, at a stone’s throw from the parliament. I got to know of the attack not from television but because a bullet hit the metal frame of my window, one foot away. Many colleagues have similar stories.

Opposition MPs fear the tradition of throttling the opposition and say that voices of dissent will continue to be heard in the new building as well. As TMC leader Derek O’Brien tweeted, “Give me back an India where the head is held high and the mind is without fear.”

The Sengol Has Been Installed But Saheb’s Narrative Must Now Be Pushed Far and Wide

From the Vishwaguru Archives: A draft of the discussion on how the Sengol ball is to be taken forward.

This is a work of fiction. Although it may appear closer to reality than fiction.

The day after history was rewritten and a new age began with the inauguration of a new building for our parliament, the core of the ruling group (minus ‘the Boss’) met to consider how the Sengol ball was to be taken forward.

A draft of the discussion is now available as guidance.

1. It was unanimously agreed to compliment the Saheb for most ingeniously having introduced the Sengol to our national political vocabulary. Till a few weeks ago, no one had heard of the word and no one had any idea there was something like it tucked away somewhere in our imagination. Now, this country and its media have a controversy that they would keep kicking around for a while. We should ask a writer like Chetan Bhagat to do a piece on “Modi as the Master of the Universal Imagination,” which could then be repurposed as a series on Netflix.

2. It was remarked, half-seriously, that sadly there is no Oscar for political scriptwriting. Otherwise, our Saheb would have walked away with the honour this year (and indeed all years since 2014). The Sengol script would have been a runaway winner. Saheb is indeed the greatest event manager the world has seen since that clown from Munich.

3. Equally, half-seriously, it was pointed out that Saheb was a perfect disciple of Guruji who had years ago stressed the importance of manufacturing a vivaad (controversy) as a tactic to steer public attention to our advantage. Being a diligent student of Guruji’s teachings, who in turn was much influenced by the strategies and tactics used by the new European strongmen after World War I, our Supreme Leader knows how to invent history and myths. This Sengol business has reinforced his reputation as Guruji’s greatest pupil.

4. It was decided that the BJP president, Shri J.P. Nadda should be advised to ask all party MPs, MLAs and Union and state ministers to display hon’ble Prime Minister’s photoshoot with the Sengol on all their social media handles like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. This display would be a most fitting reply to all those who accuse us of monarchical tendencies. A beloved leader rules over the hearts of millions of his followers, and his followers in turn feel blessed if they get a chance to demonstrate their love and affection for the Leader.

5. It was agreed that the speaker of the Lok Sabha should be requested to arrange for the public display of the Sengol in all state assemblies, where citizens would be encouraged to see for themselves the potent symbol that Modiji has resurrected from our attics. It was pointed out that in popular discourse the Sengol is already being referred to as ‘Modi’s Power.’ A feeble, dissenting voice pointed out that we could be accused of imitating the Kashmiri Muslims’ ritual of the annual display of the “Holy Relic.” The objection was overruled. After all, we are a party that advertises itself as a party that is “sab ke saath”. And in any case, there is no harm in borrowing good practices from any source, even an Islamic one, as long as it serves the project of our Supreme Leader. Any suggestion of divine blessing for our Leader is a powerful sentiment. The “mother of democracy” surely has the right to assimilate other lesser traditions in her bosom if they are useful. 

6. The Ministry of External Affairs is to be advised that it should commission the production of a coffee table book about the new parliament building. It should be a world-class production, classy yet opulent. It was emphasized that special care should be taken to highlight prominently the photos of the Hon’ble Prime Minister with the revered sadhus and saints. Let the whole world know that India has changed and that we are no longer apologetic about being called a Hindu Raj. In fact, all our ambassadors and high commissioners can be asked to send the coffee table book to prominent leaders, citizens, and businessmen in their respective countries of accreditation. Any IFS babu displaying any kind of squeamishness should be sent for re-education in the Bharatiya mode of thought. It was noted that the external affairs minister is most positive and enthusiastic about this project. 

7. The Press Information Bureau and the IT Cell should be asked to join hands to nudge and needle the media, of all kinds, to ensure that the Sengol story does not fade away. The Cell can use AI to draft new stories about “democracy” in ancient Indian traditions and how the Hon’ble Prime Minister is the first and foremost spiritual heir to that glorious history. Just for the sake of a bit of fun, let us even add a citation or two from Romilla Thapar in support of our narrative. It would rile those liberals to no end. The good part of the story is that the media, now totally deprived of any hard and authentic news, is fully trained to dish out whatever gets served to them from our side. The NDTV documentary series on the achievements of our government is a case in point.

8. The University Grants Commission and other educational regulators should be advised to see to it that a Sengol chapter gets introduced in all social sciences/history textbooks at all levels. And, while adding the Sengol story to our syllabus, we should excise all references to Jawaharlal Nehru other than those necessary to push the historicity of the Sengol. Going further, courses in Sengol Studies could be designed for the BA and MA level, to complement the teaching of Narendra Modi Thought.

9. Finally. Our most democratic and popular ally – social media – must be used creatively to tell the “truth” about how Nehru masqueraded as a person with “scientific temper” while doing all that puja on August 14, 1947. On the other hand, our own Hon’ble Prime Minister performs Hindu rituals openly and sincerely and makes no pretence to being anything other than a Hindu ruler. There is no place for hypocrisy in New India. 

Atmanirbhar is the pen-name of an aspiring satirist, who irregularly contributes a column, From the Vishwavguru Archives, and believes that ridicule and humour are central to freedom to speech and expression.

 

New Parliament Building Consecrated With Falsehood Associated with Sengol 

The inauguration of the Parliament building by Modi was dominated by rituals and the recitation of mantras deeply associated with Hindu religious practices.

The inauguration of the new Parliament building by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 28, 2023 by placing a Sengol, or sceptre, near the chair of the Lok Sabha Speaker, is anchored in utterly false claim and narratives. The inauguration was marked by a boycott by 21 opposition parties, exclusion of the President of India and Vice President of India who is  ex-officio chairman, Rajya Sabha, and wilful suppression of the truth that the Sengol was never presented to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru by Lord Mountbatten, symbolising the transfer power from the UK to India, on August 14, 1947.

False narrative from Amit Shah

Union home minister Amit Shah spun the story that Mountbatten asked Nehru about a ritual or practice followed in India for transferring power. Shah forcefully asserted that to ascertain the practice, Nehru looked up to Rajagopalachari (Rajaji), who apparently referred to the practice of Chola rulers transferring power to another king after the priest of the royal court handed over a Sengol to the successor king. Shah affirmed that Rajajaji organised a Sengol from a Shaivaite monastery and that was handed over to Nehru by Mountbatten. Shah’s narrative was repeated by Modi in his speech while inaugurating the new Parliament building.

Also read: The Sengol: A Spectacle Of Sovereignty For ‘New India’

An ad on the Sengol

In the morning of May 30, in several WhatsApp groups, the first page of The Hindu newspaper from August 29, 1947 was being circulated and it had on the top two large-sized photographs. The photograph at the top has the picture of the chief priest of the Saivaite mutt and on its side there is picture of a Sengol. Below it is written that the chief priest presented the Sengol to the first premier of free India, Jawaharlal Nehru, on the eve of independence at 10 pm and showered his blessings on him at his York Road residence.

Just below that photograph, there is another one showing priests of that mutt standing at Central Station, presumably in Madras (now Chennai). The WhatsApp message with those two photographs had the text : “The Hindu which rigorously fact checked other evidences and articles on Sengol using Zoo Bear creatures, failed to fact check their own newspaper headline published on August 29, 1947 Madras edition.”

The photographs and the aforementioned text appeared highly credible and convincing. I also circulated it in several other WhatsApp groups with a caveat that it has to be scrutinised and analysed to ascertain its veracity. Therefore, I booked a micro film reader in the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML) and requested The Hindu newspaper of August 29, 1947. I told the officials of NMML that I need to check the first page of The Hindu of that date to see if those two photographs were really published or not. On reaching NMML, I was immediately taken to the micro film reader and to my horror, I did not find those photographs on the first page of The Hindu dated August 29, 1947. The first page contained only advertisements. So I thought that possibly, the first page being shared with those two photographs is manipulated.

I was proven right as I moved from the first to the 10th page, the last page, where I found those two photographs. That page also had only advertisements, and I thought that the two photographs might have been published as advertisements as well. Scanning the photographs closely, I found that on the right side, at the bottom, four small letters – “Advt”, an acronym for advertisement – were published. To my utter dismay, I realised that those two photographs published as ads on August 29, 1947 were used and placed in the first page of that newspaper which I received on WhatsApp.

Later, I saw a tweet from Malini Parthasarathy which is wroth quoting:

Also read: Fact-Check: The Sengol Was Never Labelled ‘Walking Stick’, Nor Kept in Anand Bhawan

Sengol associated with royalty and divine right to power

The point is that the advertisement is taken as gospel truth, and based on it the prime minister of the country, while inaugurating the new Parliament building, confidently transmitted the false message that the Sengol has been salvaged and given an honoured place in the new Parliament building.

The Sengol is associated with royalty and represents the divine right to power, in contrast to people as a source of sovereignty and authority in our constitutional scheme of governance. By no stretch of the imagination is it of any significance for our Parliament, which represents the supreme will of our people and in the words of former President of India K.R. Narayanan, “The head and front of our body polity.” To defend the indefensible, the Modi regime has manufactured a narrative based on an advertisement issued in The Hindu.

Annadurai’s warning on the Sengol

The inauguration of the new Parliament building with the Sengol placed inside it by scripting a false narrative that it represented transfer power amounts to its consecration by falsehood. While the President of India and Vice-President have been excluded from its inauguration, now it is conclusively proved that even truth has been banished in the context of the Sengol, the presentation of which to Nehru was objected to by the founder of the DMK, Annadurai. In a August 24, 1947 article in Tamil, he had cautioned the new government of independent India, and especially Nehru, about the motives behind, and the socio-political implications of, the ‘gift’ of the Sengol, which he characterised as a self-serving appeal for protection by the exploiters of the people.

Placement of Sengol in parliament part of majoritarian agenda

The inauguration of the Parliament building by Modi was dominated by rituals and the recitation of mantras deeply associated with Hindu religious practices. Modi marching with monks of several Saivaite monasteries from Tamil Nadu to place the Sengol near the Speaker’s seat. All such activities unmistakably demonstrated the predominance of majoritarianism and the attendant politics flowing from it, even as a all-faith prayer meeting was conducted on the occasion.

It reminded me of the lamentations of Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who had said almost a hundred years back in 1928 that “Politics in India is nothing but theology in action.” The prime minister prostrating at the feet of those monks and marching on the floor of the newly constructed Lok Sabha in the company of the monks reciting mantras clearly proved Ambedkar right. His prescription was that the progressive secularisation of society and politics is being negated with clear intent to further the process of majoritarianism and polarisation. The inauguration of Parliament on V.D. Savarkar’s birth anniversary and with unrestrained celebration of religious rituals associated with the Hindu faith is demonstrative of an accentuation of stirrings in favour of majoritarianism.

Alvin Toffler in his book Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century observed: “…religious stirrings are part of the gathering attack on the secular assumptions that underpinned democracy in the industrial era and kept a healthy distance between church and state.”

Shockingly, India in now confronting a crisis caused by the religious stirrings at the behest of the leaders ruling India.

Gandhi’s vision of Parliament House

As early as November 3, 1917, M.K. Gandhi while speaking at the Gujarat Political Conference presciently talked about the future Parliament building of India and remarked, “The freedom to err and the power to correct errors is one definition of swaraj. Having a parliament means such swaraj.”

If the Modi regime exercised its freedom to err while inaugurating the new Parliament building, it has the power to rectify it. Its errors are obvious. These have to be rectified to restore the sanctity of the new Parliament building and consecrate it with secular and democratic values.

S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.

19 Opposition Parties Slam Modi’s Decision to Sideline President at Parliament Inauguration

Nineteen opposition parties have said they will boycott the inauguration of the new parliament building on May 28.

New Delhi: Nineteen opposition parties have come together to say they will not be attending the inauguration of the new parliament building on May 28.

The parties have specifically criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to inaugurate the new building himself, instead of inviting President Droupadi Murmu to do it.

“Prime Minister Modi’s decision to inaugurate the new parliament building by himself, completely sidelining President Murmu, is not only a grave insult but a direct assault on our democracy… This undignified act insults the high office of the President and violates the letter and spirit of the constitution. It undermines the spirit of inclusion which saw the nation celebrate its first woman Adivasi President,” the statement reads.

The full statement released by the opposition parties.

“The President is not only the Head of State in India, but also an integral part of the Parliament. She summons, prorogues, and addresses the Parliament. She must assent for an Act of Parliament to take effect… Yet, the Prime Minister has decided to inaugurate the new Parliament building without her. This undignified act insults the high office of the President, and violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It undermines the spirit of inclusion which saw the nation celebrate its first woman Adivasi President,” the opposition parties have said.

Also read: Why the President of India Should Inaugurate the New Parliament Building

“Undemocratic acts are not new to the Prime Minister, who has relentlessly hollowed out the Parliament. Opposition Members of Parliament have been disqualified, suspended and muted when they raised the issues of the people of India… When the soul of democracy has been sucked out from the parliament, we find no value in a new building,” the statement continues.

The parties who have signed the statement are the Congress, DMK, AAP, Shiv Sena UBT, Samajwadi Party, CPI, JMM, Kerala Congress (Mani), RJD, TMC, JD(U), NCP, CPI (M), RLD, Indian Muslim League, National Conference, Revolutionary Socialist Party, and the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.

Rattled by the joint statement of 19 parties, the BJP-led NDA has issued a statement saying, “Opposition’s flagrant disrespect to Parliament betrays intellectual bankruptcy, disturbing contempt for [the] essence of democracy.”

“The audacity of these opposition parties to preach about parliamentary decency and constitutional values is, in the light of their actions, nothing short of laughable.”

“Their hypocrisy knows no bounds – they boycotted the special GST session presided over by the then President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee; skipped the ceremony when he was awarded the Bharat Ratna, and even extended a late courtesy call to Shri Ramnath Kovind Ji upon his election as President. Further, the disrespect shown towards our current President, Smt. Droupadi Murmu, is a new low in political discourse,” the NDA said.

However, the statement is silent on why the president of India has not been asked to inaugurate the new building, and why the prime minister, the head of the executive, is going to take centre stage that day.

Why the President of India Should Inaugurate the New Parliament Building

The egregious blunder committed in 2019 by excluding the president from the National War Memorial inauguration should not be repeated while inaugurating the new parliament building.

In response to a statement issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat on May 18 that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will inaugurate the new parliament building symbolising the spirit of a self-reliant India (Atmanirbhar Bharat) on May 28, several leaders of opposition parties including Rahul Gandhi have demanded that instead of the prime minister, President of India Droupadi Murmu should do the honour of inaugurating it. May 28 is the birth anniversary of V.D. Savarkar, who submitted multiple mercy petitions to British authorities for his release from the Cellular Jail in the Andamans, and the Congress has sharply attacked the Modi government for choosing this date for the inauguration and described it as a “complete insult” to freedom fighters and their legacy.

Opposition leaders’ remarks

While RJD leader Manoj Jha asked in his tweet, “Shouldn’t the honorable Rashtrapati be inaugurating the new ‘Sansad Bhavan’?”, CPI’s D. Raja in his tweet sharply observed, “Obsession with self-image and cameras trumps decency and norms when it comes to Modi Ji.” Stating that, “PM leads the executive organ of the State and Parliament is the legislative organ” he opined that, “It would have been appropriate for Smt. Droupadi Murmu as Head of the State to inaugurate the new Parliament.”

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi had objected to Modi inaugurating the Parliament building by saying, “We have separation of powers and Hon’ble Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chair could have inaugurated (it).” He also sarcastically observed, “It’s made with public money, why is PM behaving like his ‘friends’ have sponsored it from their private funds.”

Congress head Mallikarjun Kharge said the president “alone represents government, opposition, and every citizen alike” and “The Modi Govt has repeatedly disrespected propriety.”

President along with Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha constitute the parliament

The views of opposition party leaders that the president and not prime minister should inaugurate the new parliament building makes eminent sense as that is consistent with Article 79 of the Constitution, defining the constitution of parliament: “There shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People.”

So when the Constitution itself provides that the parliament consists of the president of India and the two Houses of the apex legislature, the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, how is it that the prime minister, who does not form part of the constitutionally ordained definition of what constitutes parliament, can inaugurate the new parliament building?

There are other provisions prescribed in the Constitution that the president may address either House or both Houses assembled together (Article 86) and at the commencement of the first session after each general election to the House of the People and at the commencement of the first session of each year the president shall address both Houses assembled together and inform parliament of the causes of its summons (Article 87). Besides, it is required by the Constitution that no Bill passed by both the Houses of Parliament can become an Act without the assent of the president (Article 111).

Also read: A Few Questions from an MP to the Prime Minister About the New Parliament Building

In the legislative domain, the president and parliament are, thus, closely woven together by elaborate provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, these factors constitute the categorical imperative for the president to inaugurate the new parliament building.

The president, as the head of the State and Republic, occupies an exalted position far surpassing the position of the prime minister who is only the head of the executive, which is only limited in scope vis-a-vis the State. The president takes oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and be above all partisan considerations, unlike the office prime minister, and is always looked up to by all political parties, be it of the ruling or opposition camp, to defend republican and constitutional values.

Lessons from the laying of foundation of Parliament House Building Annexe and its inauguration

Another cogent reason why President Murmu and not Prime Minister Modi should inaugurate the new parliament building can be traced to a past precedent associated with the laying of the foundation of the Parliament House Annexe building and its inauguration during 1970 and 1975.

According to the Lok Sabha Secretariat publication, “Parliament House Estate” brought out in 2019, while the foundation of the annexe building was laid on August 3, 1970 by V.V. Giri, then president, it was inaugurated on October 24, 1975 by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

This example offers a vital lesson – that neither the president nor prime minister appropriated both the foundation laying and inaugural ceremonies. As Modi laid the foundation stone of the new parliament building and participated in the Bhoomi Pujan ceremony on December 10, 2020, his involvement in its inauguration would mean that he wants to monopolise the honour of doing both programmes. It is contrary to the norms of propriety and proportionality. Therefore, in all fairness Murmu should inaugurate the new parliament.

President K.R. Narayanan inaugurated parliament library building

Just 20 one years ago in 2002, when the newly constructed Sansadiya Gyanpeeth, the Parliament Library Building, was ready for inauguration, President of India K.R. Narayanan was invited to inaugurate it and he did so on May 7 that year. If President Narayanan was requested to inaugurate the new parliament library, then the new parliament building should be inaugurated by none other than President Murmu. By following that example set by Narayanan, the Lok Sabha Secretariat, through the speaker of the Lok Sabha, should extend an invitation to President Murmu for this purpose.

If in disregard of such sound and convincing reasons, Modi goes ahead with the inauguration programme, that would certainly constitute an unparliamentary act offending the president.

President Kovind was excluded from inauguration of war memorial by Modi

In the past, President Ramnath Kovind, with his status defined by Article 53 of the Constitution as the Supreme Commander of the defence forces, was not involved in Modi’s programme when he inaugurated the National War Memorial in New Delhi on February 25, 2019. It is well known that it is the president and not the prime minister who confers medals and battle honours on defence personnel, at investiture ceremonies conducted in Rashtrapati Bhavan.

During the march past along Raj Path on Republic Day every year, the president receives the salute from those who participate in the parade and confers battle honours like the Param Vir Chakra and the Ashok Chakra to defence personnel for their excellence in defending our nation. Yet tragically, the president was excluded from the inauguration of the National War Memorial, instituted to celebrate the glorious tradition of service and sacrifice of the defence forces. That event required mature handling and the disrespect shown to the president could have been avoided by asking Kovind to inaugurate the memorial.

The egregious blunder committed in 2019 by excluding the president should not be repeated while inaugurating the new parliament building. It is President Murmu who should lead the country in inaugurating it.

S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K R Narayanan.

PM Modi to Inaugurate New Parliament Building on May 28

The new parliament building can seat 888 members in the Lok Sabha chamber and 300 in the Rajya Sabha chamber.

New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi will inaugurate the newly constructed parliament building on May 28, the Lok Sabha Secretariat said in a statement.

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla met Modi on Thursday, May 18, to extend an invitation to inaugurate the new building, PTI reported the Secretariat as saying.

According to the Indian Express, the Lok Sabha statement said, “Construction of the New Parliament Building is complete now and the new building symbolises the spirit of self-reliant India (Atmanirbhar Bharat).”

“In both the Houses, there was also a lack of convenient arrangements for the sitting of the MPs which was affecting efficiency of work of the members. Considering the above, both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha passed resolutions urging the government to construct a new building for the parliament,” the statement said.

The new parliament building can seat 888 members in the Lok Sabha chamber and 300 in the Rajya Sabha chamber, it said.

In case of a joint sitting of both the Houses, a total of 1,280 members can be accommodated in the Lok Sabha chamber.

The prime minister had laid the foundation stone of the new parliament building on December 10, 2020.

The present building of the parliament was completed in 1927, and is now 96 years old.

A Few Questions from an MP to the Prime Minister About the New Parliament Building

Rajya Sabha MP Jawhar Sircar says parliamentarians are totally in the dark even a few days before the grand historic inauguration of the edifice.

Respected Prime Minister,

Like many other ordinary Members of Parliament, we wait with bated breath for the day that we shall all be herded in silence into the august presence of the interior of the new Parliament building. We shall gaze with yokelish amazement at the latest wonder that you are bestowing upon India. We, who are to be its daily users, are however totally in the dark even a few days before this grand historic inauguration. Some are actually audacious enough to ask whether we really needed to spend Rs 1,200 crore on a new building as the old heritage edifice looks fine. After all, lakhs come every year to view its unique architecture and stately demeanour. But then we were informed, quite pompously, by your housing and urban development minister, that the existing parliament building is a colonial structure. He said it may be unsafe as it is a hundred years old.

By the way, sir, are all colonial buildings also on the way to the slaughterhouse? There is much too much ‘colonial’ public architecture in Delhi that was built with revenues extracted from Indians and almost all blend in distinctive Indian elements with foreign. Despite your specific aversion to Mr Lutyens, you may like to admit that he was the first to ensure that our local (made-in-India) architectural features like the jharokha, chhattri and chhaja rubbed shoulders with better-known elements from Greece and Rome. It may also gladden you to learn that his structures had practically no features of Islamic or Saracenic architecture. The regal Rashtrapati Bhavan, the finest specimen of ‘colonial architecture’, intertwined indigenous and European features, but its crown is a replica of our very own Buddhist stupa.

We are wondering whether you also plan to demolish the many colonial bungalows that your ministers squabble to grab, when they hit a century soon. We, taxpayers, would then need to shell out thousands of crores of rupees more, and to tell you the truth, many of us feel that this mammoth expenditure could improve the lives of the 30 crore Indians who live in absolute penury. And, isn’t it contradictory that you also commanded that the utterly colonial North and South Blocks on the commanding heights of Raisina Hill be preserved and strengthened? We believe that in September 2019, your CPWD declared them to have “outlived their utility” and that “they are not earthquake safe”. Why then did your government decide that these two Blocks would soon house the National Museum? We hope your minions possess the extraordinary skills required to move each of the 2 lakh treasures of India (many priceless) without either damaging them or ensuring that some are not ‘switched in transit’ with copies. How they squeeze in some of the larger artefacts into those little rooms constructed to house perennially worried bureaucrats will be something to watch.

North Block, Raisina Hill, where the home and finance ministries are housed. Photo: Wikimedia

It’s a great pity that impressive buildings like the National Museum, the National Archives, our sentimental Vigyan Bhavan (with its imposing Buddhist Chaitya gate), the recently-inaugurated, swank multi-crore rupee Jawahar Bhavan of the Ministry of External Affairs would all be levelled to dust. In their place would arise stodgy stone blocks of the Central Vista, to house mandarins – who never asked for them. We are told that this tasteless architecture was proposed by your trustworthy but otherwise unknown architect from Gujarat (he’s charging us a whopping Rs 250 crore) at your bidding. It is a pity that no one else of consequence was consulted and parliamentarians were never even asked about their new workplace. Critics say this is so overbearingly Tughlaqi. A nation of 140 crore people surely deserved that some very distinguished urban planners and architects (not just agreeable sarkari ones) be brought into the design and planning process – before thrusting those lumpy Central Vista blocks-for-babus down on us.

The new Parliament, which is part of this Vista, may not look like those eyesore sandstone barracks coming up on Rajpath (oops, Kartavya Path), but it does not appear to be a beauty either. We are unable to judge it in its entirety, as it is blocked from view on all sides and only bits of dolled-up visuals are revealed. After all, prajas need to know only thus. By the way, the frontal view of this triangular edifice looks quite like the grille of a Mercedes car. It’s all so far removed from the awe-inspiring old parliament building or the other magnificent creations we accost in Delhi. Somehow, it does not exude the magnificence of Raisina Hill or the Red Fort. Instead, we get the unmistakable stamp of yet one more CPWD building (yawn!) in Dilli shehar – just a hugely bigger one – built in a tearing hurry before that annoying year, 2024. We can see frenzied activity and very geometric (Islamic) stone jalis being cut and affixed, but we scratch our heads wondering which school of Indian architecture it all represents. With so many beautiful awe-inspiring indigenous styles available – which one inspired this? Perhaps, you could enlighten us, Pradhan Mantriji?

The interiors look plush and commodious – though we see disturbing pillars blocking our paths in many a lobby. The ceilings appear glitzy, rather showy, and some look too gaudy and garishly nouveau riche. At least this part of the aesthetics could have been more sober and stately – if better tastes were allowed to prevail. We are informed that the Lok Sabha chamber is so very large that it can accommodate all the members of the Rajya Sabha as well. We do not, therefore, require the present Central Hall of the existing parliament, where members of both houses sit during ceremonial speeches. But this Central Hall also serves as a great informal meeting ground where members from both Houses meet all the time – to discuss and sort out, across political lines, vexing issues and differences. We were first informed that the new building does not need or have this common Central Hall, but the minister later wrote to say we shall now have two Central Halls. A vital component of parliamentary life, the Central Hall, is thus being cut into two, by the adroit use of divide and rule.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla at the new Parliament building for the unveiling ceremony of the national emblem in July, 2022. Photo: PIB

Some feel quite strongly that your megalophobia-stimulating large spaces in the new chambers are far in excess of the number needed to accommodate all elected parliamentarians, now or in the foreseeable future. The superfluous blank spaces in both Houses may be panned by television cameras to prove that parliamentarians hardly attend, despite fat allowances. What is missed out is that the number who are actually seen inside either House (usually half or even less) appears low because many are engaged in tasks that are as important as sitting in the House. Several are lobbying with various political proposals or negotiating among themselves or planning strategies and political responses in the Central Hall. Several are busy attending parliamentary committee meetings. In this context, some suspect that sparsely filled Houses would strengthen an inspired narrative that parliament is a largely redundant institution.

This is an extension of the concerted campaign that even the right to dissent and occasional disturbances (when debate is stifled) are just too awful and lower the ‘productivity’ of Parliament. A section of the media joins the chorus to foist a one-leader-no-criticism model. You, sir, became the first PM to kiss, rather dramatically and before television and cameras, the steps of the Lok Sabha. But you were also the first to reduce the actual number of working days to the minimum. After a decade as CM of Gujarat, you could reduce the number of days of the state assembly to the lowest ever – less than 30 days a year. Is this your target where parliament is concerned, as well?

There are several other issues, but we hope you will respond to these few at least.

Ever so respectfully,

Jawhar Sircar
Member of Parliament

Sanghameva Jayate: Modiji’s New India Finally Has the Emblem It Deserves

From the Vishwaguru Archives: A 10-point programme for managing and steering the narrative on the new look national emblem.

This article is a work of fiction,

though it may seem as if it is not.

As per established routine, an advisory drafted on Raisina Hill went out Tuesday via a famous IT Cell to various media outfits on how to shape the flavour of the news in the day. The thrust of the latest memo was to counter the childish criticism – from the Opposition and, alarmingly, a wider public of fence-sitters – about the new official emblem of India that was unveiled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi atop the new Parliament House building.

Note to all editors

1. Anchors need to emphasise that the new roaring lion represents the New India. The Naya Bharat. For far too long we have been content to live peacefully and placidly at home and abroad. The New Emblem is emblematic of New India. Never mind the tautology.

2. It would be helpful to get a few nationalist historians and archaeologists to explain how the old, peaceful lion is un-Indian and un-Hindu. Perhaps some committed ex- bureaucrats can be pressed into service to argue that the old emblem of benign-looking lions was selected by Jawaharlal Nehru precisely because it was a misrepresentation of the virat ancient Hindu civilisation. We have noticed that some former ambassadors are particularly good at making this kind of historical argument. Channels should also suggest that his Discovery of India was an insult to the glorious Hindu legacy. A good prime-time debate topic may be how the British actually encouraged Nehru to write this book by sending him to jail for such a long time.

3. To drive home the point that the Opposition is opposed to upholding India’s Hindu identity, we suggest channels use the hashtag #EmblemJihad

4. The outsized, bared fangs in the new emblem are symbolic of the New India – unafraid, unyielding, unbowed, unmoved by appeasement and votebank politics. The new emblem serves notice on one and all – at home and abroad – that whosoever dares tangle with Modi and his India would bite the dust. [Note: Debate guests who raise China’s occupation of fresh Indian territory in Ladakh should have their microphones muted]

5. Reporters and talking heads should be discouraged from raising questions about the so-called poor aesthetic presentation of the new emblem. In fact, it should be aggressively suggested that all talk of aesthetics is a Western and Abrahamic notion. The Indic tradition favours imagery that the Khan Market Gang is incapable of appreciating.

6. All concerned should keep at the back of their mind that the choice of design – indeed the very need for a new emblem — was inspired by Our Leader himself. Therefore, there is no need for criticism or scrutiny. Anyone having any issue with the new emblem is out of line. Are they part of the tukde-tukde gang? This question could easily be posed.

7. Television channels, in particular, should refrain from showing the Lok Sabha Speaker in the frame while the Prime Minister is doing pooja. PM should always be alone in the frame. There is no need for anyone else to intrude on his space.

8. Media should question Asaduddin Owaisi – who raised a constitutional objection to the PM officiating – about why he is not objecting to the high birthrate of Muslims.

9 .Congress spokespersons, in particular, should be ticked off for quibbling with the new lions. They should be told that their real problem is the fact that “Shri Modi is India’s most valuable National Symbol.”

10. Freedom of the media in New India is paramount. So anchors are expected to use their imagination and initiative to answer any other ‘criticism’ of the angry lions from any other quarter.

The Spirit of Parliament Is in Its Healthy Functioning, Not in Brick and Mortar

We are today governed by rulers who have little use or patience with the conventions, practices and procedures of our parliamentary system developed over the decades.

The prime minister laid the foundation stone of a new parliament building on December 10, 2020, with live national coverage of the event on all TV channels, like always with his events.

If the spirit of parliament resides in brick and mortar this was indeed a great occasion. But if it resides in the healthy functioning of parliament, in the true spirit of parliamentary democracy, then it was a cruel joke. The Indian parliament building was completed in 1927. The British parliament building, the Palace of Westminster was completed in 1860 and, with the exception of repair to the damage caused by bombing during the Second World War, has existed in its old style ever since.

There have been alterations and other adjustments inside but the building has largely remained the same. There is no proposal, to the best of my knowledge, to shift the ‘mother of all parliaments’ to a new building. But the British are not great builders like our present prime minister who will soon take his place as the greatest builder in our history after Shah Jahan; just wait for the Central Vista project to be completed.

But returning to the theme of the spirit of parliament, it is difficult to believe that this spirit resides in brick and mortar. There is no doubt that the soul of parliament rests in its healthy functioning; not in brick and mortar. And what has been the fate of our parliament over the last six years?

The winter session of parliament this year has been postponed in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nothing else has been held up on these grounds, including the laying of the foundation of a new parliament building. So, COVID-19 is being used selectively to postpone events to suit the government. The session would have offered an opportunity to the opposition to hold the government accountable on a number of issues of vital national importance including the farmers’ agitation.

Also read: How Modi’s Parliament ‘Bhoomi Pujan’ Breached the Constitution’s Basic Structure

But even if the session had been held, I am not sure if the opposition would have been able to corner the government. Has the opposition been able to hold the government to account effectively over the last six years on any issue? And I am not merely referring to the business conducted by the two houses of parliament during their sessions; I am referring to the functioning of parliament in its totality in which the parliamentary committees play an important role – both in examining legislation and discussing other important issues.

I was shocked to learn from news reports that during the first five years of this government only 25% of the bills introduced in the two houses were referred to the standing committees compared to 71% during the UPA years. In the last 18 months, this number is zero; and the list includes the three highly controversial farm laws. We have not forgotten the unruly scenes in Rajya Sabha where the just demand of the opposition to refer the bill to a select committee was overruled by a government determined to ride roughshod over the demand with the help of a pliant presiding officer.

Ruckus erupts in Rajya Sabha as opposition rushes to Well of the House over farm Bills, during the ongoing monsoon session, at Parliament House, New Delhi. Photo: RSTV/PTI

It is not difficult to conclude that the denigration of the parliamentary standing committees is a denigration of parliament itself and seriously reduces the effectiveness of its functioning. There is little doubt that if the three farm bills had been referred to the concerned standing committee, it would have invited the farmers’ representatives, heard them, included their suggestions in its recommendations and better bills would have been passed avoiding all the complications which have now arisen. I have no doubt in my mind that the bypassing of parliamentary procedures is directly responsible for the current mess. And the government must bear the blame for it.

Over the years the state assemblies have been seriously circumvented in their functioning. Their sessions have become shorter and shorter. Bills are passed in a hurry and without detailed examination including money bills and even the budgets. Members are happy serving in committees and collecting their allowances, legal from the assembly and illegal from the officials. So, the government is happy, the members are happy and the public has ceased to care. So, those who largely have the experience of the working of state assemblies but are at the helm today at the centre, want the parliament also to function like the state assemblies. All this must change if parliamentary democracy has to survive in this country. And it can be done with just a little political will and changes in the Rules of Procedure of the two houses of parliament and similarly of the state assemblies.

Also read: The Way Farm Bills Passed in Rajya Sabha Shows Decline in Culture of Legislative Scrutiny

First of all, the rules must lay down that parliament will meet for at least 120 days in a year, sixty days during the budget session with a break and for thirty days for the monsoon and winter sessions. The date or day of the month on which the session will be called should also be laid down. Second, the number of working days should also be prescribed keeping in mind the various holidays. Third, the rules should also lay down that all bills will be sent to the standing committees except those on which there is an all-party consensus to the contrary.

Fourth, the power to summon the sessions should vest in the chief executive officers of the two houses. After all, it will be a very routine procedure after the rules are changed. Fifth, there should also be a rule which prescribes how many calling attention motions and short duration discussions will be taken up in a session which will be decided on the basis of consensus amongst the political parties in the business advisory committees of the two houses. Recent experience would show that a partisan presiding officer can play havoc with the rules and effectively destroy what little space exists for the opposition. Therefore, we cannot leave things to the goodwill of the rulers anymore. They must be bound, hand and foot, by rules and procedures which must be followed strictly.

When I was finance minister, the government decided to repeal the draconian and outdated Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and replace it with two new legislations—the Foreign Exchange Management Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. When I went took the Bills to Rajya Sabha, where the government did not have a majority, senior leaders of the house like Pranab Mukherji and Mulayam Singh Yadav told me during the debate on the Bill that I should not imagine that the provisions of the Act would be implemented in the same spirit in which we had framed them.

Also read: COVID-19, Cancelled Sessions, Absent Debates Mark the Functioning of Parliament in 2020

They warned me that in future we might have governments which would use it as a tool of political vendetta. How correct were they? Therefore, they insisted that the Bill be referred to a select committee of the house. I readily agreed. It is another matter that despite all the built-in safeguards the Act is today being thoroughly misused to fix political opponents.

We are today governed by rulers who have little use or patience with the conventions, practices and procedures of our parliamentary system developed over the decades. It could get worse in the future. We must respond to this reality before it is too late. Hence these suggestions. The government may not have any use for them, but will the opposition take note?

Yashwant Sinha is a former finance minister and former external affairs minister of India.