AA Edit | Major issues raised in Parliament, but little clarity

Parliamentary discussions contribute a healthy lot to the success of electoral democracy all over the world. Though only a minuscule share of the electorate closely follow what transpires in what we call the temple of democracy in real time, they expect that their interests and aspirations to be reflected in the discussions and debates there, and given the possibilities that technology has opened up for all, they can always go back in time and check what went on, and come to their conclusions. The elected representatives must be mindful of this possibility when they speak in Parliament.

It is because of this reason the speeches of the leaders of the two main sections of the Lok Sabha while participating in the discussion on the motion of thanks to the President’s address were less than edifying. While Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi put some questions that are fundamental to the survival of our democracy, he ruined his advantage by mixing the real issues with some unverified claims. The Prime Minister was right when he expected the leader of the Opposition to be more mature but he refused to answer valid questions in an unequivocal way, allowing them to linger.

It has been a practice for some time now for the Opposition parties, especially the Congress, to raise a finger at the electronic voting machines if they lose an election. They did it after their loss in the Haryana and Maharashtra elections which they had expected to win but failed to make a foolproof case. However, the party has of late been making a strong claim that an unusual number of new voters were enrolled in the short span of six months between the last Lok Sabha elections and the Assembly elections in Maharashtra. While the party, as well as Mr Gandhi, claim that 70 lakh new voters were added to the list, the Election Commission data shows that the roll had an additional 41 lakh votes, which is approximately 4.4 per cent of the total number of electors in the state. There are also doubts about the disproportionately high percentage of votes being cast during the final hours and the Bombay high court has sought the response of the Election Commission on this question. The Election Commission will have to come up with a convincing answer.

Mr Gandhi’s statements giving his own interpretation of what the Army chief said on the situation on the border with China and the travel external affairs minister had undertaken to the United States have been refuted by the ministers concerned. It will be wise for the Opposition leader to abstain from honouring conjectures by giving them space in the parliamentary debate.

The Prime Minister’s approach has been to ridicule the Opposition and its leader instead of offering them, and the nation, direct answers to the questions raised on the floor of the House. There may be details that the government may not be able to divulge to the people, especially on border issues due to operational constraints, but it is the PM’s duty to make a case for it. Cherry-picking from history and whataboutery are not appropriate behaviour in Parliament which is a forum for asking specific questions and giving plain, reasonable and direct answers.