Chidambaram has a very high IQ. In addition to a Harvard MBA, he is one of India's best lawyers. Sadly, servitude to the Dynasty has rotted his brain. He writes in the Indian Express
If 15 states are ruled by one party and if that party (and its steadfast allies) are able to elect 362 members of the Lok Sabha and 163 members of the Rajya Sabha, nothing will stop India from becoming another “People’s Republic”. Mercifully, that dreaded prospect is some distance away but it cannot be ruled out altogetherChidu forgets that his party- which is wholly dynastic- already turned India into a 'secular, socialistic' Republic- like Saddam's Iraq or Assad's Syria.
Both Houses of Parliament are forums of debate.
No. They are forums for the framing of Laws where questions re. Government policy and actions can be raised. A forum of debate may have the objective at arriving at a consensus or changing its participants' views. This may happen in a House of Parliament but there is no such general expectation.
Great debates have taken place in the Parliament of India. The China-India war of 1962 in which India suffered a humiliating defeat was debated.
It was discussed. Questions were raised. Views were aired. But no consensus was reached. The definition of 'parliamentary debate' is 'a formal discussion of a particular proposal'. What was the proposal debated in 1962? We don't know. Vajpayee, a member of the Upper House, got Nehru to agree to an open debate on the crisis. Nehru had a two thirds majority. Why did he agree to the 'debate'? The answer is that he was showing his own people that they were shit at debating. He himself was very old and was making disastrous decisions. Still, he was better than anyone else on his front bench.
Readers can add their observations to my short list on how India’s parliamentary democracy has been diminished.
Here is my list:
1. Rule 267 of the Rules of Procedure of the Rajya Sabha (the Lok Sabha has a similar rule) is invoked by members of the Opposition to raise a discussion on a matter of urgent public importance. In the last several months, the rule has been invoked in both Houses numerous times in order to discuss matters of urgent public importance — ranging from the Chinese incursions into India to the report of Hindenburg Research LLC. The Chair has rejected every motion.
Quite rightly. Nehru only agreed to the '62 debate because he wanted to show that his colleagues were shit. Obviously, 'the Chair' in those days had no fucking authority. The current situation is quite different. We can all predict the stupid nonsense these donkeys will spew up. The public interest will not be served. China will get the wrong message- viz. the Indians don't want to fight. Wall Street will get the message that it is open season on Indian Corporations.
By contrast, the Lok Sabha Speaker should permit a motion barring the cretin Rahul from Parliament. That would send a clear message to the world. Rahul said India is not a Nation. It is like the EU. States are welcome to 'Exit'. This is treason. Kick the cunt out of the Lok Sabha before the voters of Wayanad do it for you.
Conclusion: as far as India’s Parliament is concerned, there is no matter of “urgent public importance” that requires to be discussed setting aside the business of the day.
Quite true. Stupid donkeys braying won't improve the military situation. As for the Adanis- it appears they have bounced back while 'woke' Banks in West are crashing. Credit Suisse was busy finding fault with the Adanis but it is they who are on the rocks.
You have to believe that the Indian people are so safe, secure and content that nothing that concerns them merits an urgent discussion in Parliament.
Nothing merits any discussion in which this corrupt cretin features.
2. The Prime Minister, if he is a member of the Lok Sabha, is the Leader of the House. Prime Minister Modi is the leader of the 17th Lok Sabha. He is rarely present in either House. He replies to the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address every year. I cannot recall any other major intervention by him.
Because Parliament is shit. We have all had ample opportunity to see this for ourselves. Modi looks and sounds good when he appears in the Lok Sabha. Rahul looks like an overgrown child.
PM Modi does not answer questions in Parliament; usually a minister speaks on his behalf. (I wish we had the Prime Minister’s Question Hour like in the House of Commons every Wednesday.)
Britain does not have any hereditary politicians since the reform of the Upper House. On the other hand, it must be said, there is great disenchantment with Parliamentary debate. Consider the Brexit issue. Amazing to recall, all parties (save the SNP!) supported the 2015 Referendum Bill. There was hardly any debate. The plain fact is, everybody thought Cameron would win and thus marginalize UKIP and his own rivals in the party. Expectations matter- even if they are misguided. Debate- not so much.
Mr Modi’s approach to Parliament is very different from the approach of, for example, Jawaharlal Nehru,
who was shit
Dr Manmohan Singh
who was utterly shit
or A.B. Vajpayee.
who was senile by the time he got the top job.
The prime minister has become ‘presidential’.
Chidu's 'president' is Kharge- but it is Sonaiji and Rahulji whom he has to suck up to.
If prime ministers remain presidential and act presidential, not for long will India be a parliamentary democracy.
Why? This does not follow at all. Modi adds value for BJP candidates but if they are shit they still won't get elected. This suits Modi fine. He can get rid of the incompetent because his party depends on him. If he were crap, he'd have to accept crap colleagues- as Manmohan had to.
What Chidu isn't saying is that Manmohan, forget about being 'Presidential', wasn't even allowed to be a first among equals. Consider 'retrospective taxation'. Chidu and Sibal and Manmohan were against it. But Pranab went ahead with it anyway. To add insult to injury, Rahul tore up Manmohan's ordinance. This was a 'prone minister' not a Prime Minister. Congress paid the price and was destroyed at the polls. Now Chidu and his son are themselves fearful of ending up behind bars where, no doubt, they can debate with fellow convicts to their heart's content.
3. The House of Commons sits on 135 days a year. In 2021, the Lok Sabha held 59 sittings and the Rajya Sabha 58 sittings. In 2022, there were just 56 sittings each of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Many of the ‘sittings’ were washed out because of disruptions. Arun Jaitley famously said that “Obstructionism is a part of legitimate parliamentary tactics.” The whole Winter Session of 2010 was washed out on the demand for the resignation of a minister and the constitution of a JPC. In that session, the Lok Sabha used 6 per cent of the allotted time and the Rajya Sabha used 2 per cent. Of late, the tactics have been refined. In the current Budget session (second part), the Treasury Benches have led the disruptions every day. Few sittings and more disruptions will render Parliament sessions irrelevant.
Yet Governance has improved. There is a lesson here which, as the Mahatma was wont to say, all who run may read.
Bills could be passed (as they have, on occasion, in the past) without a debate.
Why debate donkeys?
We can begin to contemplate a time when Parliament will ‘sit’ on a few days a year, debate nothing, and pass all Bills amidst the din and the disruption.
Which is better than TV viewers having to watch a raucous bear garden every other day.
Parliament sans Debate
4. Both Houses of Parliament are forums of debate.
No. Their primary purpose is to pass laws. This can be done without any meaningful debate.
Great debates have taken place in the Parliament of India.
No. Shit debates have taken place- unless the PM was strong enough to dispense with the humiliating spectacle.
The China-India war of 1962 in which India suffered a humiliating defeat was debated.
Because Nehru wanted to show his colleagues that they were shit.
Allegations regarding LIC’s investment in the shares of Haridas Mundhra’s companies were debated.
Why? The fact is Nehru had said he wanted to retire. Newspapers had headlines to this effect in April of 1958. Congress was twisting his arm by threatening to bring in his daughter whose husband, Feroze, Nehru loathed. So Feroze led the charge on the Mundhra scam in the Lok Sabha. Nehru brought in his pal Chaghla to obfuscate the issue. But TTK did have to resign.
The allegations surrounding the import of the Bofors guns were debated multiple times.
Because Congress was a house divided. People felt Sonia was eating too much and refusing to share. 'Andar Italian, bahar battalion' as Zail Singh had said. Jaipal Reddy got off the best zinger 'Our country is being ruled by non-resident Indians and resident non-Indians." Chidu watched all this but kept mum and thus the Dynasty rewarded him.
The demolition of the Babri Masjid was debated.
What was the result? Terrorism in plenty till a bigger backlash.
Invariably, debates end without a vote. In a parliamentary democracy, the government need not fear a debate because it will always have, or is presumed to have, a majority of the members on its side.
There is no point having a debate unless it serves the public interest. Currently, India should push back against Biden/Soros type meddling in our internal affairs. By banning Rahul from Parliament after a heated debate in which the boy is reduced to shitting his pants, India sends the right message to the world.
Yet, the current government refuses to allow debates.
For the same reason it refuses to do stupid shit. Still, chucking Rahul out is a worthwhile cause
There is an old truism: ‘the Opposition will have its say, the Government will have its way’.
Chidu does not represent opposition. He represents slavish devotion to a dynasty dying nasty.
I am certain the government does not fear that it will lose its ‘way’. What the government fears is that the Opposition will bring to light uncomfortable truths during its ‘say’.
But anybody can do that on Social Media!
Has India moved into an era of a Parliament sans debate? I fear so, and if my fear proves true we have to conclude that the ceremony to bid farewell to parliamentary democracy will begin soon.
Nonsense! You still have parliamentary government even if it is not worth bothering with having any debates. The plain fact is, countries whose parliaments had turned into bear gardens soon got rid of parliaments altogether. India only recently started broadcasting debates. The novelty has worn off.
5. Imagine that a session of Parliament is called. Imagine that all the members gather at the Great Hall. Imagine that all the members vote to elect a leader as the President of the Republic. There are no votes opposing the candidate. There are no abstentions. In fact, there is no other candidate. The country celebrates the result as a victory of ‘people’s democracy’. Can this happen in India?
No. In every country where such a thing happened you already had an Army which was personally loyal to the Fuhrer.
It can, because we are steadily on a course to one-party rule.
No. But Congress does have one-family rule. Shame on Chidu for his own role in promoting this wholly undemocratic outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment