By Kumkum Chadha
The three-week Parliament session has concluded. Amid the chaos which is now a constant in parliamentary proceedings, there was some business transacted with of course some heated moments, including Congress MP Renuka Choudhury actually driving into premises with a dog. But that is another story.
The winter session started on expected lines: anger, disruptions, and finally adjournments. Opposition members demanded a discussion on the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, exercise with the government arguing that this was the domain of the Election Commission of India and hence outside the purview of the government.
However, the logjam ended with what the Opposition dubbed as the government “giving in” to the demand to discuss the SIR though with pre-conditions—one, that the issue would be debated under a different nomenclature of election reforms and two the debate on Vande Mataram would precede it: “The government is ready to take up a discussion, but to have it before the discussion on Vande Mataram may not be appropriate,” Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said. So, it was—Vande Mataram followed by a debate on election reforms.
It was Prime Minister Narendra Modi who led the charge even as he alleged that the Congress “agreed to divide” the national song “under pressure of politics of appeasement”. Hurling a charge at Jawaharlal Nehru, Modi said that the Congress deliberately removed stanzas of Vande Mataram: those that hailed the goddess.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah went a step further and held Nehru directly responsible for truncating the national song to two stanzas, on grounds of appeasement, “Tushtikaran ki niti” to quote Shah. In a no-holds-barred response, Shah said that had the Congress not divided Vande Mataram under the policy of appeasement, the country would not have been partitioned.
The Opposition charge: the BJP was keen on bringing Vande Mataram centre stage because it wanted to accrue political advantage ahead of the forthcoming state elections in West Bengal: a charge that the ruling party rebuffed.
Trinamool Congress’ Mahua Moitra nailed it by questioning the timing of the debate: To quote her: “…when real unemployment among youth is over 20 percent, when we are choking in Delhi with average AQI over 800, when BJP is starving Opposition-led states of MGNREGA funds, when session after session, we are bullied, browbeaten and stopped from raising national issues”. She also accused the BJP’s commitment to this song, saying that it is a “badly scripted comedy”.
But the speech that went viral was Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi’s. “There are two reasons” for the debate on Vande Mataram, she told the Lok Sabha—the Bengal elections and levelling accusations against those who fought the freedom struggle. “This debate has been organized to divert attention because this government wants to hide the reality of the present,” she said.
In what can easily be termed as being at her “fiery best”, Priyanka hit out at the ruling party for its tirade against Nehru. She also advised Prime Minister Modi to make a list of insults for Nehru. “Whether it is 999 or 9,999, make a list, and then we can decide on a time, just like we are debating for 10 hours on Vande Mataram. We are ready to debate about it for as long as you want.
But let us use the precious time of this Parliament for the job people have elected us for. Once and for all, let’s close the chapter,” she said amid loud cheers from the Opposition benches.
“The country” she added “will hear the complaints, what Indiraji, what Rajivji did, what is dynasty politics, what are Nehru’s mistakes, let’s speak about them and end it there. Then we can talk about unemployment and price rise,” Priyanka said.
Her colleague and Congress Deputy Leader of the House Gaurav Gogoi, in turn, flagged a list of the number of times Nehru and Congress had been mentioned during proceedings. “PM Modi takes Nehruji’s name and Congress’ name in every debate. Operation Sindoor—Pandit Nehruji’s name 14 times and Congress’ name 50 times, 75th anniversary of the Constitution—Pandit Nehruji’s name 10 times and Congress’ name 26 times, President’s Address in 2022—Pandit Nehruji’s name 15 times, President’s Address in 2020—Pandit Nehruji’s name 20 times,” Gogoi said, adding that however hard the ruling dispensation may try, they will not be able to “put even a single black mark on Pandit Nehruji’s contributions”.
Gogoi reiterated that important issues are being given a go-by. “PM Modi did not mention Delhi blast once. We are not able to protect our citizens, neither in Delhi or Pahalgam. People are unable to breathe,” he said.
But Gogoi, like many others in the Opposition, were minor players. The speech that went viral was Priyanka’s—both in terms of content and delivery. The content was decidedly strong and relevant which each word measured, but it was the delivery that won kudos. That Priyanka is charming is a given.
In Parliament, she has made a mark by her demeanour and style. Her smile is disarming and her femininity which she displays in abundance absolutely disarming. She shoots, but does only honey-dipped arrows. Pitch her against her brother Rahul Gandhi and it is Priyanka who shines.
In the current session, both spoke, but it was Priyanka’s speech that made headlines with little or no mention of what Rahul said or did not say. Thankfully, he wore a kurta pyjama instead of his signature T-shirt. This perhaps was because his opening remarks were about khadi and Mahatma Gandhi—a little off the discussion on electoral reforms.
In fact, it was Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijjiju who made the point that Gandhi had not even touched on the election reforms and was taking up irrelevant issues. This time around Rijiju was right. Rahul was completely off the mark.
It was not till the first 16 minutes that he spoke, did he mention the Election Commission, but by then, Rahul had lost the plot. And what he spoke for the remaining part of his speech did not cut ice.
Therefore, comparison apart, even on his own Rahul did not make a single point that is worth recalling or remembering except hammering his vote chori, theft, theme. It is a theme that has outlived its utility and one that does not resonate with the people. The election results in Bihar amply substantiate this.
But back to Priyanka and what is being dubbed as her “stellar performance” during the Vande Mataram debate. The way she is going, she will soon overshadow her brother Rahul. And this is where family politics will come in. Their mother Sonia Gandhi, it is well known, is gripped with the son syndrome. Credence is lent to this by the fact that way back in 2004 when the so called youth brigade were elected there was a wave of hope that the grand old party will now reposition itself and surge ahead. There were young people who had been elected, including Sachin Pilot, Milind Deora, Jitin Prasada, Sandeep Dikshit, among others. There was hope and there was promise. That was also when Rahul was elected.
That perhaps was the major roadblock—in other words the fear of him being overshadowed. This was not baseless because Rahul was not a patch as compared to the bright people like Pilot and Deora. Therefore, the message—lie low and let the Congress scion shine. That this took a long time is another matter.
Within the family, too, it was the same message that kept Priyanka out of politics for many years. It was only after Rahul found his feet that she contested her first election some 20 years after her brother entered Parliament. And in less than a year, she has deftly covered the distance her brother could not in the two decades as a parliamentarian.
And here lies the key question: Will she be asked to lie low and not overshadow her brother who is being positioned by his loyalists as the prime minister-in-waiting? Will she be pulled back and her political future staked for Rahul? And will she suffer the same fate as some of the young bright boys of the 2004 youth brigade?
Time will tell, but if that happens, it would be at the cost and peril of the party: a party which needs promising people to pull it out of the crisis it is presently facing. As of now, it needs more than one Rahul Gandhi to resurrect it politically.
—The writer is an author, journalist and political commentator
The post Vande Mataram, Disruptions—and the Rise of Priyanka Gandhi appeared first on India Legal.