An Affront to India, a Secular Democratic Republic

 

An Affront to India, a Secular Democratic Republic

There were sharp differences whether a new Parliament building was needed for India in the first place. Some argued that the imposing extraordinary architectural versatility of the old Parliament, designed by Edward Lutyens and Herbert Baker and inaugurated in 1927, should be renovated and strengthened and expanded with modern technology, as has been done in other countries.  For it had become an iconic landmark, steeped in history, from Pandit Nehru’s epoch making ‘tryst with destiny’ speech on the midnight of August 14-15 1947, the enlightening debates in the Constituent Assembly by brilliant men and women that represented all sections of India, and the making and adoption of the Constitution on 26 January 1950, when India was constituted into a Sovereign Secular Democratic Republic.

 

Many reasons were given for the need for new Parliament building-increase in seating capacity, enhanced offices and workspace, seismic safety etc. Similar demands were made in many countries, including advanced democracies. The UK’s Westminster was built in the 1860s and has undergone successive renovations and safeguards to keep up with the changing technologies; the US Capital building’s neoclassical architecture has similarly remained unchanged in over two centuries; yet internally the building has undergone alterations to make it 21^st century compatible. The French haven’t dismantled the 18^th century building of their Parliament Palais Bourbon.  Even the German Parliament, the Reichstag, a building built in 1809, was completely remodeled to make a fully automated functioning new Parliament. After all, it is a question of preserving the heritage.

 

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar questioned the need for new building: “It was just an attempt to change history by those who had no contribution in India’s freedom struggle …The existing Sansad Bhavan is connected to our history. When the country got freedom, every thing began from that place. The same historical building should have been expanded” (TOI 28/5).

 

The Modi government had decided to construct a new parliament building, leaving the memory of the glorious past of the old historical Parliament House behind.  Narendra Modi laid the foundation of the new building on 10 December, 2020, when the country was under the grip of a pandemic and facing the disastrous consequences of an unparalleled severe nationwide lockdown.    

 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated India’s new Parliament House on 28 May 2023, choosing the birth anniversary of V.D. Savarkar. The best day for the inauguration should have been 26 November- the Sansad Diwas.   And President of India Droupadi Murmu, and not the Prime Minister, should have inaugurated the new Parliament building.  It is strange both the President and the Vice President of the Indian Republic were not invited to such an historical event. Some 22 opposition parties, led by the Congress, have boycotted the inaugural ceremony protesting against Modi’s decision to preside himself over the ceremony, instead of the President-the head of the state- in gross violation of protocol and constitutional propriety, undermining the office of the President.

 

The opposition parties, in a statement, issued on 24 May, spelled out the reasons for boycotting the inaugural ceremony of the new Parliament building.  “Despite our belief that the government is threatening democracy, and our disapproval of the autocratic manner in which the new Parliament was built, we were open to sinking our differences and marking this occasion. However, Prime Minister Modi’s decision to inaugurate the new Parliament building himself, completely side-lining President Murmu, is not only a grave insult but a direct assault on our democracy…” And as per the Article 79 of the Constitution,” There shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses. The President is thus not only the Head of the state in India, but also an integral part of Parliament. She summons, prorogues and addresses Parliament. She must assent an Act of Parliament to take effect. In short, Parliament cannot function without the President. Yet, the Prime Minister has decided to inaugurate the new Parliament building without her. This undignified act insults the high office of the President, and violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. When the soul of democracy has been sucked out from Parliament, we find no value in a new building. We announce our collective decision to boycott the inauguration of the new Parliament building. We will continue to fight- in letter, in spirit, and in substance- against this authoritarian Prime Minister and his government…”.

 

As per the ‘order of precedence of India’, President, Vice Precedent and Prime Minister occupy the first, second and third positions. To leave out both the President and the Vice President, who is also the ex-officio Chairman of the Upper House-Rajya Sabha- from such a momentous occasion is inexplicable. If wanted, Modi could have invited the President to inaugurate the ceremony and made the event a truly national, with the opposition parties attending the event. But he wanted to take the credit for himself alone. He couldn’t invite the President and the Vice President, because as per the order of precedence, he cannot inaugurate the event if they are present. That explains why the top two constitutional authorities were excluded. As the opposition accused, ‘one man’s ego has denied the President her constitutional privilege’, the PM usurping the role of the Head of the State, with utter disregard for protocol and constitutional propriety.

 

Another impropriety that Modi had committed by choosing the birth anniversary of Savarkar-the Hindutva ideologue- for the inaugural ceremony. While paying homage to him in the new Parliament building, Modi said Savarkar was a freedom fighter, a ‘fearless and self-respecting, did not tolerate the mentally of slavery...his sacrifice, courage and determination continue to inspire us.“ This is contrary to the fact that Savarkar wrote several mercy petitions to the British to get released from the jail in Andaman. According to a senior journalist Niranjan Takle, Savarkar's repeated petitions showed that he 'didn't appeal for mercy, he begged for it', expressing willingness to accept whatever conditions the British might impose. And by opposing the Quit India Movement, he collaborated with the British.

 

The inaugural ceremony marked the personal glory of Modi. The ceremony got underway with invocation of Lord Shiva and Lord Genesha amid chanting of holy mantras by Shaivite priests from Tamil Nadu, Modi performing Ganapati homam. After prostrating before the Sengol, he sought blessings from the high priests of various adheenams with the sceptre in hand. He then carried the Sengol in a procession to the central hall of new Parliament building, with the members of the ruling party giving him standing ovation chanting ‘Modi, Modi’, and installed it in a special enclosure on the right side of the Speaker’s chair. It looked like rajyabhishek-- coronation of a king. To the Congress leader Jairam Ramesh it was a self-glorification of an authoritarian Prime Minister. The event, declared as the advent of ‘new India’ by Modi, marked the absence of the President, Vice President and Opposition parties. The words ‘new India ‘figured more than 40 times in his speech.  It was departure from Nehru’s scientific vision of modern India.

 

The Modi government has invented a new narrative that the Sengol was presented to the first Prime Minister Pandit Nehru on 14 August 1947, as symbol of transfer of power. There is no such mention in recorded history of Independent India from any source.  Sengol was not limited to the Chola dynasty, or even to South India. In the North it is called rajdanda and is an essential element of power that is passed on to the newly appointed king. It finds mention in Kalidas’s epic poem Raghuvamsa (The Hindu 28/5).  Historian Professor Madhavan Palat, Editor, Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, in an interview with Karan Thapar on The Wire on May 29 has dismissed the claim about the Sengol as ridiculous. He said it symbolizes Modi’s monarchical pretensions. The manner in which the inaugural ceremony was conducted with religious rituals, installing the Sengol in the Parliament, and excluding the first citizen of India from the historical event -all this is an affront to India, a Secular Democratic Republic. It is a celebration of the idea of Hindu Rashtra that the Hindutva ideologues wanted.