Legislators’ grief

In a nation starved for modern-day icons, the unabashed display of emotion in expressing grief, respect, affection, and even awe following the death of universally loved former President APJ Abdul Kalam was only to be expected. The swell of sentiments, however, also left those who needed to observe political correctness confused over the need to announce a holiday to mark the loss. The acclaimed scientist was known to have said he would want people to work an extra day rather than observe a holiday following his death. Whether in honour of this sentiment or as a matter of protocol, the Central government announced a week of mourning but no holiday, as did most state governments.

A notable exception in paying tribute to Kalam with work was our Parliament, which adjourned for two days as his body would lie in state. This was not an impromptu decision, but a considered view of both Houses that found ready acceptance across the parties. A 1993 decision of the General Purposes Committee of the Rajya Sabha of not adjourning the House after the death of former heads of state, or sitting or former MPs, for more than a day, was overruled. Why would the elected representatives' mood be at such variance with their electorate? It could not be that they wanted a holiday like recalcitrant workers.

Parliament has already seen the washout of an entire week over intractable stands of both the Treasury and Opposition Benches over Lalitgate, Vyapam and the land acquisition Bill. Both feel compelled to work up a fury on the floor that they know is not going to break the impasse. There are also reports that the government may be preparing to pull back on the land Bill. It would thus be tempting to assume that both sides saw an opportunity to work out changes in their respective stands. However, it should be sacrilegious to even consider our legislators could stoop that low to suit immediate political convenience. Parliament has been India's greatest source of pride. Let us keep it that way.