Two separate no-confidence motions against the NDA government were submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker on Wednesday. One was by the Congress, the other by K. Chandrasekhar Rao’s BRS, proving, as expected, that I.N.D.I.A., of which both parties are supposedly a part of, have a long way to go before it can call itself an alliance. It seems KCR’s need to assert his party’s unique identity got the better of his willingness to be part of an alliance where he thinks he is not being treated as the first among equals.
It goes without saying the Opposition’s no confidence motion will be defeated by the huge numbers that the Government has. So why did the Opposition feel the need to bring a no-confidence motion which is certain to be defeated? If the intention was to force Government to discuss Manipur in Parliament, Home Minister Amit Shah had already said that they were ready to do so. Hence, the Prime Minister would have spoken on the matter even without the Opposition making an issue out of it. This gives rise to the question if the no-confidence motion is mere posturing by the Opposition—an attempt to appear relevant on television screens and scoring a few brownie points internationally by claiming that they had been able to put the Government on the mat. Internationally, because domestically the story of the Opposition coming together to try and overthrow the incumbent NDA government on the floor of the House sounds absurd. There are no takers for such a narrative. Such is the dismal state of affairs in the Opposition ranks that no party qualifies to have even a Leader of the Opposition in Parliament for the lack of numbers. Also, if Opposition is keen to hear what the Prime Minister has to say about Manipur, it is hoped that Opposition MPs will not resort to the reprehensible tactics of barracking the Prime Minister, hollering at him and sloganeering every time he speaks, trying to drown out his voice. A look back at the recent parliamentary sessions would show a trend emerging, where external actors float issues just ahead of a Parliament session and then some parties use these issues to try and disrupt parliamentary proceedings. This “trend” could be a coincidence—or not. The Manipur issue is a serious matter, which must be discussed in Parliament. The government must speak on the measures it is taking to ensure that normality and confidence return, and the guilty are punished. It is a matter of shame that the horrifying video of the abused women emerged after two months of it having been filmed, and not earlier. Any delay in getting justice to the victims is a case of justice delayed being justice denied. Neither side should play politics on such a grave issue.
In fact, no political party should give in to the temptation of playing politics on matters of national importance. The Opposition has a problem in its hands in this regard because of the name it has selected for itself—I.N.D.I.A. It is a case of the acronym I.N.D.I.A. being thought of first and then finding the words to suit the acronym. No wonder the full name, Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance sounds contrived. Sadly, it comes across as a gimmick and an attempt to politicise the nation’s name, which should have been avoided. Just by calling itself I.N.D.I.A., the Opposition cannot claim it represents India, or say that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government/alliance is anti-India. It’s the NDA that has 300-plus seats in Parliament, not the so-called I.N.D.I.A. How can the NDA, which won the 2019 Lok Sabha elections with a landslide, be painted as anti-India? They have the people’s mandate. Even among the Opposition, parties such as YSRCP of Andhra Pradesh and BJD of Odisha among others are not part of I.N.D.I.A. So how is I.N.D.I.A. synonymous with India? The name I.N.D.I.A. is bound to backfire in the elections, because the Indian voter is intelligent enough to see through such gimmicks.
The need of the hour is substance, not optics, and it is here that the Opposition is failing. All that sound and fury—and alliance name—emanating from the Opposition will amount to naught if substance is lacking. Not allowing the Parliament to function on an issue that the government is willing to discuss, Manipur in this case, is not a sign of maturity. Disrupting Parliament may be about optics for the Opposition—but these are terribly negative optics. The message that is going out is of an anarchic Opposition not allowing any constructive business to take place in the House. It’s coming across as politics taking precedence over people’s welfare. The Opposition must let the House function, let the debates take place, discuss every issue that is there on the table, including important bills. It needs to wake up to the fact that people are watching.