Return Of The Opposition: What Do Debates In 18th Lok Sabha Tell About Future Of Indian Democracy?

In the last ten years, the Indian parliament rarely experienced a consolidated Opposition that has had the potential to hold the ruling party accountable. However, the 18th Lok Sabha witnessed a change. With 232 MPs in the Opposition bench and a legitimate Leader of the Opposition (LoP) for the first time in a decade, the INDIA bloc members bring in fresh energy on the floor of the House that was certainly missing in the last two occasions. The speeches of Rahul Gandhi, Mohua Moitra, Mallikarjun Kharge, Manoj Jha, and John Brittas – to name a few – give testimony to this resurgence.

While the issues that opposition leaders evoke range from NEET controversy and paper leak, to Manipur, unemployment and inflation, the emphasis on everyday violence, lynching and Hindutva could not be missed. Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi on June 1 while participating in the debate on the Motion of Thanks, condemned the violence against minorities and pointing toward the treasury bench said, “Those who call themselves Hindus… are engaged in violence and hate.” As his comments invited a rare intervention of PM Modi and other BJP leaders, Gandhi said, “BJP doesn’t represent all of the Hindus in the country.”

His comments on violence come at a crucial time when at least six cases of mob lynching have been reported since the new government took the oath consecutively for the third time. The question of lynching also featured in the speech of IUML MP Haris Beeran who in Rajya Sabha said, “It portrays a sorry state of affairs. There have been a lot of instances of hate speech When the Prime Minister speaks, the whole world listens to the PM. If he speaks in such a manner that one community gets offended, then it emboldens the fringe elements. And this emboldening has led to various attacks on the minorities.”

Not only Beeran, MPs like Brittas, Chandrasekhar Azad and Sagarika Ghose also highlighted the issue of violence during their address. Referring to the Prime Minister’s speech in Bansara during election campaign, CPI (M) MP John Brittas asked, “Why did he say in Bansara that Muslims are infiltrators? I would request the BJP members to change the symbol from lotus to bulldozer.” There have been at least a dozen cases of bulldozers being used to deliver ‘justice’ across the country since the declaration of Lok Sabha election results.

Remembering those who are still languishing in jail, RJD MP Manoj Jha said, “How did Stan Swamy die? Why are youth like Umar Khalid, Meeran Haider, and Khalid Saifi in jail? When we criticised the government, it was turned into criticism of the country.”

Journalist-turned-MP, Sagarika Ghose citing the data of India hate lab that states that 75% of the hate speech comes from the BJP-ruled states, said, “When hate speech against a religious community is normalised and acceptable and those who are responsible for this hate speeches get state protection.... when the lynch mob doesn’t get exemplary punishment... there is a democracy deficit.”

These statements of the opposition leaders in both houses has found to be synchronised, the BJP tried to invoke the days of emergency to corner Congress. While it is true that leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav and the late Mulayam Singh Yadav – current allies of Congress in INDIA bloc – were at the forefront in their fight against Indira Gandhi, none of them took turns to condemn Congress. Rather, Rajya Sabha MP Jha, in reference to the Emergency, said, “I think Indira Gandhi’s adviser was not smart enough! Had they been trained in today’s politics; they would have known that Article 352 is not even needed to impose it!”

When the discussions over the Emergency were at their peak in parliament, Lalu Prasad Yadav, with Nalini Verma, in a column in a national daily wrote, “The then Prime Minister had resorted to constitutional provisions to declare Emergency. Indira Gandhi put many of us behind bars, but she never abused us. Neither she nor her ministers called us ‘anti-national’ or ‘unpatriotic’. She never enabled vandals to defile the memory of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar—the architect of our Constitution. She also did not associate with those who endorse lynch mobs to kill and maim minorities and Dalits in the name of religion and caste. Cattle traders were not persecuted and killed on suspicion of possessing beef.”

All of these instances indicate a strong floor coordination between the opposition parties, think political analysts. Referring to the robustness of the newly formed opposition, political scientist Aditya Nigam says, “This is a far more robust opposition that has built a certain level of understanding among constituents in the course of a bitter struggle - that can be seen in the great floor coordination and the ability to act as a bloc in parliament. Even if they take much longer to sort out differences at the state level, this is a very important first step.”

Another major change in the attitude of the Opposition could be spotted in their attribution to minorities. In the last ten years, most of the opposition parties avoided uttering the word ‘Muslim’ in the fear of losing Hindu votes, points out Mujibur Rehman in his latest book Shikwa-e-Hind. However, this trend seems to have given way to fresh radical politics. In the words of Nigam, “Rahul showed Guru Nanak's image, referred to the Quran and the posture of asking for 'dua' by Muslims. Mohua Moitra was also very scathing when referring to Modi's anti-Muslim campaign speeches and Manoj Jha even mentioned Umar Khalid, Meeran Hyder and Khalid Saifi by name in his speech. All this is quite unprecedented. I think a decisive shift on this score is clearly visible this time.”

Though both the chairs of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha have expunged several parts of the speeches of the opposition leaders – including that of Gandhi and Kharge – the collective slogans of the opposition – ‘We Want Justice’ – during PM Modi’s Lok Sabha speech points to a fresh turn in Indian politics where the government will be held accountable, as envisaged by Vajpayee, by their ‘rivals’ not the ‘enemies’.