The special two-day Lok Sabha debate on the Constitution, necessitated by the Opposition’s campaign that the Constitution is under threat—their key campaign theme during the Lok Sabha elections—saw government benches highlighting the lapses of past Congress regimes. Leaders of the ruling coalition also used the opportunity to underscore the achievements of the Narendra Modi government. There were enough hints about the need to have a Uniform Civil Code. Prime Minister Narendra Modi referred to it as the ‘Secular Civil Code’ during his reply to the debate. Legislation that does not distinguish between citizens in civil laws may be the next major reform under Modi’s leadership.
Spotlight On Priyanka
Priyanka Gandhi Vadra made her mark in a grand style on Friday, December 13, as the first speaker for the Opposition in the two-day debate. Never before has a first-term MP anywhere in the democratic world been entrusted with opening a debate on behalf of the Opposition. Of course, her ‘entitled’ status as a member of the Congress First Family played a role in securing her this opportunity, which she used judiciously.
There was no frivolity in her address. She provoked just enough without triggering chaos, criticising the ruling party and defending her own party’s track record. She questioned why the Prime Minister was not present in the House when the debate to take stock of the Constitution on its 75th anniversary was initiated.
Priyanka’s measured tone and delivery would be the envy of any seasoned parliamentarian. While ultra-critical of the government, her speech did not provoke filibustering or chaos from the treasury benches, a refreshing departure from the usual interruptions and disruptions over the past decade.
The tone set by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh when initiating the debate for the government and Priyanka’s reply endured throughout the two-day discourse. Both echoed their respective standpoints. There were many flashpoints when both sides called a spade a spade, yet the proceedings remained orderly without any walkouts or suspension.
Priyanka did not stray from the party line. Her speech featured a fair sprinkling of Adani-Ambani diatribe, and a leftward orientation of Congress’s view on the economy was evident.
She did, however, make some faux pas. Perhaps Congress lacks the in-house infrastructure to brief its MPs, unlike the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) well-supported back-room teams. In her tribute to the founders, she mentioned Maulana Azad, C. Rajagopalachari, and Jawaharlal Nehru. There was no mention of Dr Rajendra Prasad, the President of the Constituent Assembly, and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
As the author of the slogan ‘Ladki hoon, lad sakti hoon‘ (I’m a woman and I can fight), one would have expected Priyanka to invoke the names of the women of the Constituent Assembly who played a significant role in drafting the Constitution. She failed on this score. Trinamool’s Mohua Moitra, on the other hand, not only acknowledged these women but also paid tribute to Vijayalakshmi Pandit, Jawaharlal Nehru’s sister.
Priyanka also stated that public sector undertakings like HAL, SAIL, BHEL, GAIL, ONGC, and the Railways were Nehru’s legacies. While Indian Railways and HAL predate India’s Independence, PSUs like SAIL, GAIL, BHEL and ONGC came into being during the Nehru and Indira Gandhi eras.
Learning From Grandfather
If Priyanka wishes to carve out a lasting niche as a parliamentarian, she should seek to emulate the research and etiquette of her grandfather, Feroze Gandhi, and avoid being overshadowed by the abrasive influence of Rahul Gandhi.
While Priyanka was speaking, her speech suddenly disappeared from national TV screens. No, it was not an act by the BJP. The Congress regime in Telangana, led by Revanth Reddy, had decided to arrest film star Allu Arjun in a case that may qualify as a civil rights violation. TV channels found Allu Arjun’s arrest to be of greater news value.
While this was happening in Hyderabad in the South, the media in Himachal Pradesh was abuzz with video footage of a dinner attended by Chief Minister Sukhvinder Sukhu, where ‘junglee murga‘ (wild fowl), a protected species, had been served. Not the best of conducts from the heads of two Congress-led governments while the Lok Sabha was discussing the Constitution.
Priyanka’s criticism of Himachal’s policy on apple procurement also indicated that her advisors had perhaps forgotten that Shimla has a Congress government. Was she being critical of her own party’s regime?
Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi’s unorthodox behaviour persists. While he displayed his palm in the ‘Abhay Mudra’ during the inaugural session in July, during the Constitution debate, he repeatedly showed a reversed palm, with the thumb suppressed, giving the impression that it had been amputated—like Mahabharata’s Eklavya, whom he invoked.
Rahul assumed that Eklavya was a member of the disadvantaged group. But, a Nishad, he was the son of the commander-in-chief of the powerful ruler Parasnath’s army and himself an army commander, thus not by any measure a ‘Dalit’. This was pointed out by BJP members. Apart from his usual tirade against Adani and Modi, he also attacked Veer Savarkar. Shiv Sena member Srikant Shinde chided him over his stance on Savarkar, reading out a tribute signed by Indira Gandhi during the Savarkar centenary and pointing out that a postage stamp was dedicated to him by the Indira government during the celebration.
Anurag Thakur’s Rebuttal
A strong rebuttal to Rahul’s stance on the Constitution came from the BJP’s Anurag Thakur, who stood up with a copy of the red-coloured pocket-sized Constitution of India—an edition that Congress leaders, inspired by Rahul, often wave and display. The sale of this version of the Constitution, published by a Lucknow-based publisher, has skyrocketed since Rahul started carrying it in his pocket and displaying it at public meetings. Congress members kept copies of the ‘Red Book’ while taking the oath as MPs.
Thakur cited texts from the preface of the Lucknow publication which says that the Constitution was drafted by the finest minds of the time, who were “thankfully not directed by the confused Nehruvian social policy that guided successive regimes”. The preface also states, “Were it not for the strength of this document, Indira Gandhi would not have been compelled to end the darkest episode in the saga of India by ending the Emergency”.
Priyanka listened to the criticism attentively. However, Speaker Om Birla had to chide the LoP, who had walked in nearly half an hour after the Prime Minister had begun his reply, not to keep looking at his mobile phone and chatting with his colleagues while the Leader of the House was speaking.
The Congress found itself isolated in its attacks on the government. Its allies did not share Rahul’s agenda. Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) MP Amul Kolhe, speaking alongside Supriya Sule, emphasised the need to raise “basic issues” instead of “sloganeering”.
The Congress party necessitated the debate, but the BJP carried the day. It gave the BJP an opportunity to criticise past Congress regimes for their lapses, which the Congress could neither defend nor explain.
(Shubhabrata Bhattacharya is a retired editor and a public affairs commentator)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
