Arshad Shaikh studies the controversy surrounding the recently inaugurated New Parliament Building in India’s capital. The opposition parties boycotted the inauguration ceremony. The proceedings of the ceremony were marked by religious symbolism and appeared to resemble the coronation ceremony of ancient Hindu kings. Critics saw this as an affront to democracy, while others considered it the dawn of a new age in our country. However, the health of our democracy was completely ignored in the polarising debate over the building. There were claims that “This is not just a building. It is a reflection of the aspirations and dreams of 140 crore Indians.” Many disagree and with good reason.
On 28 May 2023, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the New Parliament Building in New Delhi. It is a large, triangular structure designed by architect Bimal Patel and constructed by a consortium of companies led by Larsen and Toubro. The project was funded by the Indian government, and it cost an estimated ₹971 crore (US$125 million). The New Parliament House (Sansad Bhavan) is part of the $2.8 billion Central Vista Redevelopment Project to revamp India’s central administrative area known as “Lutyens Delhi”. The area was originally designed by Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker during British colonial rule and was retained by the Government of India after Independence.
The new building has a total floor area of 20,866 square meters and can seat up to 888 members in the Lok Sabha and 384 members in the Rajya Sabha. The building is also equipped with state-of-the-art technology, including a digital voting system. So why did the opposition boycott the inauguration ceremony? How did the function unfold and why did it invite so much debate and criticism? Of course, the most critical aspect of the story was to assess the health of our democracy. Unfortunately, that did not find traction in the media.
THE BOYCOTT BY THE OPPOSITION
The Opposition parties had been against the Central Vista project since the beginning. They accused the government of forging ahead with the project without consulting them and ignoring its impact on the local environment. The Opposition also did not approve of such massive expenditure for the new Parliament House and felt that it could have been utilised for better purposes.
They boycotted the inauguration of the New Parliament Building and demanded that the President of India, Droupadi Murmu inaugurate the building and not Prime Minister Narendra Modi. They argued that the President should have been the one to mark the opening of the new Parliament building since she is the head of state while the Prime Minister is merely the head of the government.
AIMIM Chief, Asaduddin Owaisi felt that it would have been better if the Speaker of the House inaugurated the new Parliament building.
NCP leader, Supriya Sule said, “One thing I would like to bring on record is that all the pooja and the welcoming that is going on, we see Om Birla ji, as he is the head of the Lok Sabha. But why are we not seeing the Vice President? He is the head of the Rajya Sabha. So even the Vice President of India has been neglected, which is so unfortunate because it is an insult to the Rajya Sabha. To have such a large and open new Parliament building without an Opposition means there is no democracy in the country. It is an incomplete event.”
According to Indian National Congress leader, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhary – “Not inviting the President to two of its key ceremonies, in the laying of the foundation stone and its inaugural, the government has reinforced the absolute primacy of the PM despite curbs laid down in the Constitution.”
LIKE A CORONATION
An important part of the inauguration ceremony was the handing over of a “Sengol” (royal sceptre) to the Prime Minister by a delegation of sadhus (Hindu holymen) from Tamil Nadu. Inaugurating the building, the Prime Minister said, “On this historic occasion, the Holy Sengol has also been established in this new building of Parliament.In the Great Chola Empire, Sengol was considered a symbol of the path of duty, the path of service, and the path of the nation. Under the guidance of Rajaji and the sages of Adheenams, this Sengol became the symbol of the transfer of power.”
Many saw the unprecedented importance given to the “Sengol” as a systematic tilt towards projecting the PM as a ruler or monarch who rules by “dharma” and derives his power from “divine will” rather than the power conferred to him by the people of India.
Writing for the Wire, columnist SN Sahu says, “The Sengol is associated with royalty and represents the divine right to power, in contrast to people as a source of sovereignty and authority in our constitutional scheme of governance. By no stretch of the imagination is it of any significance for our Parliament, which represents the supreme will of our people.
“The inauguration of the Parliament building by Modi was dominated by rituals and the recitation of mantras deeply associated with Hindu religious practices. Modi marching with monks of several Saivaite monasteries from Tamil Nadu to place the Sengol near the Speaker’s seat. All such activities unmistakably demonstrated the predominance of majoritarianism and the attendant politics flowing from it, even as an all-faith prayer meeting was conducted on the occasion.”
THE HEALTH OF OUR DEMOCRACY
Some of the important factors through which one can assess the health of a democracy include the rule of law, free and fair elections, civil liberties and human rights, separation of powers, transparency and accountability, civic participation and civil society, media freedom, socioeconomic factors, political culture and adherence to international standards and covenants. If one does an unbiased assessment of our performance according to these factors then one is most likely to conclude that the health of our democracy is not exactly robust.
One just needs to scan the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data and read the newspapers to get an idea of the rule of law in our country. The controversy surrounding electoral bonds, the appointment and functioning of the Election Commissioner and the blatant use of religious and communal cards during elections can provide sufficient evidence about our “free and fair” elections.
The crackdown on civil society with bodies like Amnesty International and Oxfam International facing raids by investigating agencies shows the contempt with which civil society is held by those in the highest echelons of power.
It is well known that the mainstream media has virtually capitulated before the government in India. It is known as “godi” media or lapdog media and is notorious for acting as a spokesperson for the ruling party and hounding the Opposition instead of questioning those in authority.
To understand the political culture in our country, one just has to find out how many MPs and MLAs from the ruling party belong to the largest religious minority (the Muslim) community. Today, the BJP does not have a single Muslim MP in Parliament. As pointed out, the ruling party and its leadership have succeeded in making the nearly 200 million Bharatiya Muslims politically invisible.
Calling out this grotesque political discrimination in his new book, Parakala Prabhakar says, “In Gujarat, the BJP has not fielded a Muslim candidate for the Assembly elections since 1998. In UP, the party did not give a ticket to a single Muslim in the 2017 and 2022 Assembly elections. This is an unequivocal message of tiraskar from India’s ruling party. That there is hardly any outrage about this in our civil society comes as no surprise. The nation is numbed to this shift; this has become normal in New India.”
Helen Russel said, “Outer beauty turns the head, but inner beauty turns the heart.” Maybe one day the new Parliament building will breed genuine democracy devoid of pretence and majoritarianism.