Decorum in corridors of power a far cry

The Congress may be tube light as Prime Minister Narendra Modi says but the question is: Has the BJP proved to be LED bulb emitting the brightest light? Has the party which adopted slogans like 'Sub Ka Saath Sub Ka Vikas' and 'Sub Ka Vishwas' succeeded in its goal?

The fact remains that politics in the country is getting murkier. Just as there has been decline in the growth rate of economy, there has been marked fall in values among the law makers irrespective of political affiliations and the legislatures which used to be the epitomes of decency and decorum are fast losing respect among the people.

The presiding officers of any legislative body is always from the ruling party. But then, once elected to that seat, they had always tried to be as neutral as possible though there may be certain issues where they tended to tilt towards the line of thinking of the ruling party, by and large they remained neutral and do everything possible to ensure that the decency and decorum of the legislature was well-maintained.

Till they were in that Constitutional position, they never used to participate in party programmes or make political statements. But that did not mean that they used to neglect their constituency or voters. But now, in some States a new trend has emerged which can be termed as an unfortunate and dangerous trend.

Speakers are playing the role of party activists when House is not in session and are resorting to challenging the members of the Opposition from the chair they are occupying. There are any number of examples where some Speakers support the decisions of the party to which they belong openly, level allegations against the leaders of Opposition and justify saying that they are supposed to be neutral only when conducting the proceedings of the House.

There used to be a time when people used to watch the proceedings of the Parliament or State Assemblies with attention as they used to come up with some thought-provoking discussions and enlighten the people. The media also used to feel happy as they used to get lot of news instantly. But things have now changed.

Having allegiance to the party which one belongs to is good. But that does not give any member the right to use abusive language against the opponents. These days both the language used on the floor of the House and the body language is highly condemnable.

It is not just verbal diarrhoea but now they are even resorting to physical attacks as was witnessed in Parliament on Friday over the remark of Congress MP Rahul Gandhi that the Prime Minister will have to face Danda's soon. Such scenes have become common in State Assemblies as well. Recently we had seen several Ministers climbing on table in one of the Houses of Elders.

In the present budget session of Parliament we have seen how YSRCP members had been obstructing the TDP members who were permitted by the Speaker to present their argument on the issue of shifting of capital from Amravati to Visakhapatnam. It appears that members have adopted zero tolerance even in such august bodies.

A look at the last six years clearly indicates that the BJP-led Central government failed to achieve 'Sub ka Vishwas' and 'Sub ka Saath'. It seems to have given more importance to its vertical and horizontal political growth. Though it has been chanting the mantra of true federalism, in implementation, it was not visible.

It has been indulging in all kinds of politricks and the ultimate goal seems to be that how to help the party in terms of electoral gains. Some of the policy decisions it had taken are undoubtedly responsible for slowing down of the economy.

Having said this, credit should be given to the BJP for certain major decisions it had taken which the Congress had never thought of and would never venture to take as it believes more in vote bank politics and is yet to get out of colonial style of functioning.

This does not mean that the BJP does not believe in 'divide and rule' policy. It is no way different in this aspect. But, yes, it certainly needs to be appreciated for bold decisions like abrogation of Article 370, the CAA and decision to construct Ram Temple at Ayodhya. All this was done with little disturbance on the streets.

At the same time, the BJP has been playing safe on many contentious issues. For example in regard to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh government to have three capitals, it had given a reply in Parliament which on one hand says that the government of Andhra Pradesh had decided that Amravati would be the seed capital and the Centre had accordingly notified it.

But at the same time it says that it is a matter within the purview of the State government. Now the big question here is what is within the purview of the State government. Deciding on capital every time a government changes? Will Centre continue to be a mute spectator in such matters and refuse to give a clear judgement on it? This certainly is not an intelligent way of management. One may argue that the Centre has stated Constitutional position.

What if successive governments keep shifting capitals to their place of choice quoting this as a precedent? Does it also mean that just as the assurance given by the then Prime Minister on floor of Rajya Sabha that special status would be given, the foundation laid by the present Prime Minister also has no value?

Is the Centre so powerless to guide the States? Or is the Centre using this issue also for political gains?

The State unit of BJP opposes shifting of the capital. Centre takes a middle path. Interestingly, the State unit of the party says it will fight the issue politically. But so far they have not hit the roads and are confined to statements. On the other hand, the government is determined to shift executive capital and is making all out efforts to speed up the process.

What needs to be noted in this game of politics is that everyone wants that his word should prevail and no one is bothered to even find out what the common man wants. "For the people, of the people and by the people," is becoming a mockery. Let's hope 'ache din' will come sooner than later.