Blockading Modi

 

The mocking of Modi on his abstaining from the thanksgiving statement on the President’s speech betrays serious frustration in his detractors. That he chickened out rather than face a group of women MPs since he was afraid of being bitten by them undermines the dignity of the very same women. It implies that the only weapon that women have is their teeth, not their intellect or the power to debate smartly.

The Parliament is a place for debate, not jostling in the well, wild gesticulation, or forced embrace (remember Rahul’s jhappi), not even sly winking (remember Rahul again). Each seat in the Lok Sabha (or the Rajya Sabha) has a dedicated microphone into which a member is supposed to speak. All statements and replies are to be addressed to the Chair, not to the other side, not even to any other member. And, the Speaker is not to be addressed as “yaar” (remember Rahul, again). There are rules for the working of the House that is made by the members themselves. A single member can’t demand that he be given immunity because he is the Leader of the Opposition. Even the Prime Minister cannot speak out of turn and, when he does, he can do so only on the subject at hand. Sarcasm, even tongue-in-cheek derision, of the government is okay, not personal abuse or threats.

That a large group of women members decided to encircle the PM’s designated seat from all sides indicates, without doubt, that Mr. Modi was to be physically prevented from occupying his seat let alone speak freely. That is how a blockade is defined. The coordinated way in which so may women members from different parties came together in a moment of time, just when the PM was to take his seat, clearly indicates a well-orchestrated plan by the opposition parties to sabotage civilised debate in the Lok Sabha. Their collective frustration on losing every single election in the democratic setup is finding expression in physical and verbal elbowing - tear up papers and throw them at the Speaker, bully him in his chamber, shout out every statement and speech from a minister, even the PM himself, laugh mockingly, and walk-out when a civilised rejoinder is given.

Why hide behind a group of women? There hasn’t been a similar gender-heavy movement inside the House ever earlier. The purpose was transparently clear - provoke a reaction. What if the ruling party members, as a reaction, had gathered around the same space that the women MPs from the opposition had occupied? What if, in that moment and the charged atmosphere, a male BJP member has so much as brushed against, ever so lightly, a blockading woman member? What if House Marshals were called-in by the Speaker and a woman MP accused them of outraging her modesty? Remember some of them were from the Dalit community, carefully cobbled together. Far more serious charges that prescribe non-bailable clauses of the law, were waiting to be hurled at the PM himself. Fisticuffs, hurling of microphones, flinging of furniture haven’t been uncommon in legislatures across the country. The opposition was probably hoping that such a scuffle broke out and the shield would be provided by women.

The situation was unprecedented and the Speaker acted wisely and with alacrity. He correctly advised the PM not to come to the House. Serious social and legal repercussions, out of polical motives of the opposition, were avoided. If such an eventuality had indeed visited the House, the popularly elected Lok Sabha of the largest democracy in the world, would have invited scorn and ridicule within the nation and abroad. Was that the purpose? I guess it was.

All praise to the wisdom and foresight of Mr. Om Birla, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the understanding of Mr. Modi, the Prime Minister. I also wish better luck and wisdom to the opposition next time. There is a reason the term “unparliamentary language” was invented.

                                    —-ooo—-