It is really a bad time for the Indian democracy. The year 2023 witnessed the Modi establishment extending its control on democratic institutions like the Election Commission and CAG. Indian parliament looks more like Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Grand National Assembly.
Let’s begin with the subjugation of Bharatiya Janata Party organisation. The electoral victory in Hindi hinterland has put Modi in a triumphalist mood. The process of centralisation and bureaucratisation of the organisation is now complete. Chief ministers are fixed at will by Amit Shah on the advice of internal experts. This time, even the formalities like the parliamentary board’s endorsement and central observers’s report have been done away with.
Instead, the central observers carried a sealed cover which contained the name of the high commands choice for the chief ministership. And the observers respectfully opened it and declared the winner. The sealed cover is a symbol of authority which every one in the party must accept without grudge.
Gone are the days when those those enjoying maximum support among the elected MLAs should take the cake. The GenX BJP CMs are not answerable to MLAs or their electors but high command. No one else. Amit Shah’s trust is most crucial. Otherwise you lose the job within weeks. That is the story that Tirat Singh Rawat’s four-month tenure as Uttarakhand’s CM tells us.
The sealed cover doctrine is a Gujarat model. It was first introduced when Bhupendra Patel replaced Vijay Rupani as chief minister in 2021. Since then, the CEO-style imposition had become the norm.
The choice of the new CMs – Bhajan Lal Sharma, Mohan Yadav and Vishudeo Sai – follows a pattern: confirmed RSS background with tilak on forehead, less known outside the state if not first timers and with little following in the state. They perpetually look to high command for support.
The very first action of the new CMs was to issue full-page advertisements in Delhi with their photos with PM. They all look to Adityanath and Manohar Lal Khattar as role models. So much so, the first decision of new MP cabinet was to ban sale of meat and eggs in public places. Bulldozers roam on the streets looking for the right targets.
The parliament
Now, parliament is the latest to fall for the new imperious style. During the winter session, a record number of 146 opposition MPs – 100 from the Lok Sabha and 46 from Rajya Sabha – have been suspended. During the Modi rule, expulsions and suspensions in parliament shot up by 71 times.
From 2019, presiding officers resorted to suspensions at the drop of a hat. During this winter session, every day the Speaker and Chairman drew up a list of what they called violators of discipline and went on announcing the names of MPs to be suspended.
At least in one case, name of a MP who was on leave was included.
His suspension was withdrawn when the error was pointed out by the concerned member.
It all began with the jumping of two youths into the House from the visitors gallery – again a first – to highlight the growing unemployment. To heighten the drama, the youths burst smoke canisters. They had pamphlets calling PM a ‘missing person’. All such embarrassing details were played down by the government’s vast publicity machinery and the mainstream media.
Instead, the intruders were charged charged under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, while the the BJP MP who issued passes to them went scot free. For, he is tilakdhari, with a prominent trishul in the background of vibhuti on forehead.
The main demand of the suspended opposition members was a discussion in House on the serious security breach happened. They also insisted on the PM and home minister come to the House to explain the circumstances under which the security breach happened. This is a legitimate right the members this august House had exercised in the past. Presiding officers have generally been very lenient on such protests.
Consider what happened after a more threatening attack on parliament happened in December, 2001. The opposition Congress and other parties insisted on the PM’s presence in the House. Unlike Modi and Shah, Vajpayee and home minister L.K. Advani readily came to the House and gave an account of the line of investigations into attack. The government side also allowed a short duration discussion in both Houses.
Similarly, parliament remained paralysed for weeks together when BJP was in the opposition on the issue of coal allocations. Such expressions of dissent were always viewed as legitimate mode of expressing democratic protest.
Two senior ministers of the Modi cabinet – Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitely – had in the past forcefully disagreed with what Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha chairman Dhankhar now describe violation of parliamentary discipline. On September 7, 2012, Swaraj had said: “Not allowing Parliament to function is a form of democratic protest.”
Jaitely, senior minister and close aide of Modi even when L.K. Advani was in contest for the prime ministership, said: “When Parliament is used to ignore issues… parliamentary obstruction is not undemocratic.” Jaitely said so at Ranchi on January 30, 2011.
The two late colleagues of prime minister Modi were simply reiterating the existing the parliamentary traditions. Disruptions have never considered as a punishable offence deserving suspensions. It is a pernicious practice now being imposed by the two incumbent presiding officers. Apparently, parliamentary management has become part of the larger Modi project to perpetuate a system of duopoly.
This is what political thinker Pratap Bhanu Mehta describes as ‘India’s monumental tragedy.’ Parliament as an institution of functioning democracy is effectively dead, he says. He hit the bull’s eye when he says that Modi wields power without any seriously effective constitutional limitations.
What happened in the House since the mass suspensions confirm this conclusion. With the opposition benches nearly empty, ministers came and bulldozed bills. Amit Shah pushed the three bills affecting the entire criminal justice system by voice vote in both Houses.
Demand from the BJP’s women for more time to discuss the bills was curtly brushed aside.
Also rushed through were such crucial legislations as the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, Telecommunications. Bill, and Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill. And at the end of the session it was declared that a 74% productivity was achieved in the opposition-mukt parliament.
The decline of parliament as a deliberative body under the present dispensation looks really alarming This week, the PRS Legislative Research revealed that about half of the bills passed by the 17th Lok Sabha were cleared after less than two hours’ discussion. Only 16% were referred to standing committees.
Also, the proportion of the bills referred to standing committees came down from 72% during 15th Lok Sabha to just 16% during 17th Lok Sabha. No bill was referred to House committees this winter session.
The EC
The Election Commission was the next in line of fire. So far, the election commissioners, including the CEC, were appointed by a three-member panel consisting of the PM, opposition nominee and the Chief Justice of India. The system was introduced following a Supreme Court judgement.
The new bill passed by during the winter session excludes the CJI from the panel. The CJI’s position will be filled a minister nominated by the PM. Thus Modi has an assured majority in the three-member selection panel.
This has prompted the retired Justice Rohington F Nariman, a former solicitor general, to describe the bill as one severely imperilling the independence of the Election Commission. He wanted the judiciary to strike down the amended act.
The CAG
Tow months ago, the last bastion of resistance fell. Comptroller of Audit and Accounts was totally silenced in October, when Girish Murmu, a Gujarat cadre officer, was appointed as CAG in August 2020, it was seen as virtual death for CAG. For, Murmu was considered as a trusted Modi aide and principal secretary to him when he was chief minister. He had also worked with Amit Shah.
However, the deep state within CAG, an institution of high repute, showed signs of occasional resistance. Murmu’s strategy was to concentrate on cases in opposition-ruled states and avoid central accounts. This was greatly successful. Despite this, the government was infuriated when CAG came out with a number reports critical of Centre’s projects.
The Modi establishment retaliated by allegedly transferring the officials who prepared the offending reports. Their reports had dented the Modi’s claim of being a corruption-free government.
The offending reports had brought out several irregularities in the implementation of Ayushman Bharat and Dwarka Expressway.
The decline of CAG under Modi has been really disheartening. An analysis by The Hindu showed that the number of reports averaged 22 between 2019 and 2023. During the pre-Modi days it was as high as 40.
This is the broad position as far as the checks and balances to unbridled executive power envisaged by the Indian constitution are concerned. In sum, there is no obstacle to the abuse of authority. Narendra Modi has accomplished all this in less than two terms – ten years – and is now hoping to return to power in the 2024 elections. If he succeeds, there will be no more pillars left to crumble.
P. Raman is a veteran journalist.
