Congress scores another own goal

DEMOCRACY is inconceivable without dissent and protests. These are not merely democracy’s byproducts; they undergird the working of the system and maintain equilibrium between unchecked bedlam and authoritarian order. The challenges manifest in the form of debates or a forced entry into the Well of the House, the use of more robust instruments against the government such as a no-confidence vote, and demonstrations — perfunctory or spirited — in the public space.

Parliament and state Assemblies are crowded with these manifestations that often test the mettle of a government. The uproarious scenes that inevitably erupted each time the Women’s Reservation Bill was tabled are the stuff of parliamentary history and lore. The Bill was finally passed as the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act or the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam in September 2023, but the prelude to its passage was often marked by violence.

In the December 1998 session of Parliament, when the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government made bold to bring in the Bill, Samajwadi Party (SP) MP Daroga Prasad Saroj tried to reach the Speaker’s podium in the Lok Sabha and grab the papers, but Mamata Banerjee, the Trinamool Congress chief, caught him by the scruff of the neck.

In March 2010, when the Rajya Sabha passed the Bill (the Lok Sabha did not vote on it), every imaginable stalling tactic was deployed by leaders of the pro-Mandal parties: shattering glass tumblers, squatting and napping in the Well, pummelling and kicking the guards and even punching one in the stomach until the protesters were outnumbered by security reinforcements.

March 25, 1989, would be etched in Tamil Nadu’s legislative history as the day when the roughnecks of the DMK government assaulted J Jayalalithaa, then the Opposition leader, and pulled the end of her sari. A tearful Jayalalithaa left the Assembly, vowing that if she returned it would be as the chief minister. Two years down the line, she unseated M Karunanidhi and claimed the throne.

In the civic arena, perhaps the best remembered protest was staged by the “Mothers of Manorama” in Imphal in July 2004. These women assembled outside the Assam Rifles’ headquarters to dare the personnel to come out and assault them. They protested against the torture, rape and killing of a young woman, Thangjam Manorama Devi, an alleged insurgent.

The legitimacy — or lack of legitimacy — of these demonstrations can be interminably argued. However, the spectacle mounted by Indian Youth Congress (IYC) activists on February 20 at Delhi’s Bharat Mandapam, the venue of the government’s prestigious national and international events, signified a new low in the history of protests, although the last word has not yet been said on its justness by the political class. The India AI Impact summit, which drew world leaders and corporate giants, was in progress. From the Modi government’s viewpoint, it was as high-powered as the 2023 G20 show, if not more, because the idea was to exhibit India’s leadership at the helm of cutting-edge technology and innovation.

Politically, its importance lay in the government’s effort to deflect attention and discussions from a stormy start to the Budget session that was overshadowed by the tricky India-US interim trade agreement. Other factors were also at play. The Epstein files allegedly enmeshed a senior Cabinet minister. The summit began on a series of false notes, thanks to poor logistics and later a Chinese robotic dog that a private university close to the present regime tried to pass off as its own and was caught out. There was no way the PM could allow the event to be dragged to the rock bottom of history.

The “banian” protest came at the most opportune moment for the government. A handful of IYC men in vests waved white tees with uncomplimentary slogans about Modi printed on them and alleged that the trade deal was compromised. This was enough of a spur for his supporters to launch a pro-PM campaign and an anti-Congress tirade.

Senior academics, including some IIT directors, said the demonstration reflected a serious lack of judgment at a time when global investors were assessing India’s credibility as a long-term AI and advanced technologies’ partner. Former judges seconded their views. A parliamentary standing committee, chaired by the Congress’s bugbear and BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, alleged that the act harmed India’s global image.

The Congress’ allies, including the SP, distanced themselves from the controversy. However, after criticising the protest, Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Kumar Jha apparently had an afterthought. In a newspaper article, he conceded, “Writing more than 48 hours later, I am persuaded that the familiar anxiety about India’s ‘international image’ being damaged is overstated.” The compulsion of coalition politics?

As the Congress made the protest a solo endeavour, party leader Rahul Gandhi could not escape accountability. Indeed, after the Delhi Police arrested IYC chief Uday Bhanu Chib and other protesters, Rahul expressed solidarity and described them as his “Babbar Sher” (lions). He commended them for “fearlessly raising their voice in the nation’s interest against the COMPROMISED PM”.

Bravado and bluster? Rahul’s “crusades” against PM Modi and his government have yielded little or nothing for the Congress and largely resulted in losses. His remarks claiming that a Supreme Court order on the Rafale deal was an indictment of the PM birthed the slogan “chowkidar chor hai”. He had to unconditionally apologise to the court. The slogan unleashed a wave of sympathy for Modi in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

The first half of the ongoing Budget session was overwhelmed by Rahul’s “revelations” from former Army Chief Gen MM Naravane’s yet-to-be-published book, which reportedly contains accounts of the 2020 Galwan valley clash between Indian and Chinese troops and internal military reforms impinging on the Agnipath scheme. The publisher and the government stated that the book did not “exist”, to which the Leader of the Opposition had no credible answer.

Rahul either oversteps the unstated limits of a convincing counter-campaign against the BJP or falters on facts due to a lack of thorough homework or gets the theme, timing and mode of protests wrong. In the IYC fiasco, the last factor proved to be his undoing. An editorial in a Kohima paper, Nagaland Post, thought it appropriate to comment on the incident. It said, “Ultimately, Gandhi’s gamble reflects a pattern of unconventional tactics that generate headlines but fail to translate into political gains or policy victories.”