There is no mistaking the tone of the media in the coverage of Parliament proceedings — that the Congress-led opposition is cussedly holding up the proceedings of the House by being adamant over the resignation of External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj. Apart from suggesting that the Lalit Modi issue has dragged on for too long, there is another more disturbing undertone — that debate per se in Parliament has become a nuisance, holding up the “conduct of business”.
This is a distinctly anti-democratic tendency. Parliament is a forum for debate, which invariably brings with it some noise and bedlam. It is meant to hold up Bills for often raucous discussion, and not just quietly pass them in the interest of “growth and reforms”, which often translates into keeping some interest groups happy. To the extent that clauses in the land law and the GST (Amendment) Bill are being debated, it points to the effectiveness of Parliament in the face of the generally cynical view that legislators are ‘in the pocket’ of some organised lobby or the other. It is India Inc that cannot seem to wait, and the good news for the aam aadmi is that Parliament is not necessarily willing to oblige.
The debate over Lalit Modi has also persisted because of the government’s unwillingness to discuss the matter. It should offer a compromise if it wants to move on, more so when it is on the defensive. Instead it has chosen to brazen it out. The Modi government is taken in by its tough self-image in contrast to its predecessor. This makes for poor floor management. How the people perceive the stand-off depends on whether media spin — that a government keen on “development” is being held to ransom — works. In an over-mediated world, anything can happen.
Senior Deputy Editor