“There is only one way to avoid criticism;
To do nothing, to say nothing and to be nothing…” (Aristotle)
Given that most of the opposition parties in the country are seen as increasingly thin on vital issues and suffering from a formidable deficit in prioritizing their attention on issues that concern peace, the country’s internal security and stability, as well as urgent economic, political and social reforms, they probably cannot decide what to do except raise issues that suit their narrow electoral agenda. However, as the electorate of this country as a whole becomes more aware of these maneuvers day by day, such an electoral program is narrowing and limiting itself to certain pockets of the country which will have no impact at all. long term. . In other words, a mass revival has begun to dawn on the country’s political horizon.
A strong opposition, on the other hand, is absolutely necessary for the healthy and harmonious functioning of the parliamentary democratic system. Criticisms against some of the government’s decisions must be based on convincing and relevant reasons and must generally be accompanied by suggestions as well. What we see unfortunately is that any decision taken by the current government or any reform introduced as well as any innovative procedure adopted must all necessarily be criticized and even tempted to be viciously criticized. How else can a list of unparliamentary words and phrases published by the Lok Sabha secretariat be called “gaging the opposition” by the government when the list is absolutely advisory in nature and not necessarily an order to follow. It simply means – “it should have been preferably like….. and not necessarily like that.” Those Honb’le MPs who strongly objected to the spread of the notice can please try to know that everything is based on the rulings of Speakers of Parliamentary Debates and Assembly in the country and even in Commonwealth countries from time to time.
In other words, these words and phrases in both English and other Indian languages number in the hundreds that cannot and should not be spoken at the highest seat of our democratic system. We often say, “this is unparliamentary language” denoting an analogy of Parliament with all decency and the highest levels of polite behavior or etiquette, therefore not fit to be spoken although exactly for those words spoken by someone does not hold him responsible for committing any criminal offense even in terms of unwarranted comments made unfortunately even towards Smt. Murmu, recently elected President of the Republic of India. Should one, therefore, object to the advice regarding unparliamentary language/words since anything brought by the amended government, however highly required and exactly appropriate as the circumstances require, must be criticized, attacked and projected as dictatorial and weakening democracy, while being unhappy does not bode well for the country. Surprisingly, if not also, there is a stoic silence from the opposition on many emerging issues and developments in the country where they must resolutely speak out.
The system of checks and balances also works in the debates of Parliament, because everything that a Member Parliament says is subject to certain rules and to discipline, to the discretion of the Members and to the conduct and control of these debates by the president – the president. Thus, it is not only improbable but also totally unexpected for a Member to use indecent, degrading, provocative or defamatory remarks inside the Chamber. If spoken, the Speaker is empowered to have these words struck from the proceedings of the House. There is one more thing attached to it in the sense that the whole country watches the debates live from Parliament and if unparliamentary or indecent remarks are made, it is likely to lead to a drop in the esteem of MPs in the eyes of the public. Otherwise, too, the general public is weary of the disruption and heckling that is so often seen in Parliament instead of vigorous, even energetic, discussion and debate.
Why, therefore, should taxpayers’ money be wasted on such frivolous questions about perhaps the “right” to say anything under heaven, including perhaps derogatory words. Why should it not be sincerely seen that such an exercise has been done intermittently since the 1950s and is not being done now for the first time and that too by the Modi government. It should be noted that the Presiding Officers have issued numerous rulings in context that new words and expressions warranting avoidance continue to be added to the relevant list from time to time. It is unclear, however, if the new phrase coined by the “young” Congress leader as “Gabbar Singh Tax” for the GST is added to the list. Perhaps not, as was recently seen written on placards carried in the House and attempted to be captured by the cameras as the very brief nature of the Lok Sabha debates were broadcast live as Congress ruled some opposition parties that were currently agitating inside Parliament.
Apart from some opposition leaders who have ‘pledged’ to oppose Modi and any policies of his government, another well-known Indian figure – actor-turned-politician MNM leader Kamal Haassan – has eerily condemned the new list non-parliamentary mandates issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat. and addressed the Prime Minister as “Mr. Hitler – this is not Germany. He called said order a ‘stifle’ of democracy and that the Prime Minister and his ministers, in his view , are not open to criticism and opinions, however, that does not mean we should go back to monarchy Haasan also did not like that the PM “quotes extensively from Thiruvalluvar” which states that “if a king does not has no one to point out flaws, it will be ruined, even if there is no one to destroy it.” Perhaps Haasan, who seems too angry with the prime minister for reasons better known only to himself, not know that Modi is not a king but a democratically and constitutionally elected leader of 135 crore Indians and if the Lok Sabha secretariat is just issuing a notice to Honb’le MPs to try to abstain and not necessarily d ‘stop using words like “Shit”, “Budmash”, “bad”, “Bluffing”, “Blackmail”, “Dacoits”, “Shit”, “M enteurs”, “Nuisance”, “Andhi goongi sarkar”, “Ali Baba 40 Chor” etc etc, how democracy was going to be “stifled” and how the Prime Minister could be Mr. Hitler. Is our democracy so fragile and breathing on such non-entities and nothingness as to discipline speech, if possible, not necessarily, Hassan can enlighten.
Either way, discussions should reflect the liveliness of the issues, participation should be intense, and debates should be aimed at pointing out flaws and shortcomings in government policies and suggesting corrective measures instead of trying to show off. each other or diminish the quality of the debate. Rarely do we see live, interesting, productive and informative debates from both sides that lend credence to the quality and purpose of the debates. It is sad that it has now become a phrase that “democracy is murdered (loktantra ki hatya)”, constitutional and democratic institutions have been “finished” or molded, “the voice of opposition is suppressed” “Bolney nahin diya jaata hai” while we see when there should be live and effective “Bolnas” in the august House, the protests under the statue of Gandhi Ji outside the Parliament with placards are rather preferred.
The recent decision/circular to ban religious demonstrations and ceremonies in Parliament and Honb’le MPs not to use the precincts of Parliament for these purposes, again, has sparked controversy as much as Sitaram Yechury calls it “muzzle the ‘Atma’ of India which will not succeed.” However, whether the communists believe in the Atma and in what sense it remains to be known, but it is a riddle to be solved, how the invincible and This country’s indestructible power can never be removed. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh also criticized the circular, saying: “Vishguru’s last salvo – Dharna mana hai. He perhaps conveniently forgets that his own UPA-led government by Congress had issued a similar circular in 2013. Thus, priorities need to be sorted as there are many that should attract the attention of opposition leaders instead of raising objections on non-issues such as the national emblem lions whether they look angry or gentle or why is there the caste column in the Agniveers application form.