On Independence Day, a dive into the Constituent Assembly's archives that advocated for a strong Opposition to be the pulse of Indian democracy and the biggest guarantor of freedom..—.AS India celebrates her 77th Independence anniversary this year, the emergence of a formidable Opposition in the 18th Lok Sabha that holds the government to account has become a defining feature of the country..It affirms the Constituent Assembly's legislative intent and M.K. Gandhi's vision which favoured a strong and resilient Opposition..Gandhi's idea of swaraj.Gandhi's illuminating exposition of swaraj, articulated a hundred years ago in 1925, embodied not just the idea of securing power from British authorities to rule India, but also the importance of making Indians aware of their critical role in exercising regulation and control over those wielding that power..“"Swaraj is to be obtained by education of the masses to a sense of their capacity to regulate and control authority," said M.K. Gandhi..That prescient vision of Gandhi was nothing but a vision for a strong Opposition. On January 29, 1925, he outlined his invaluable perspective in Young India wherein he wrote, "By swaraj I mean the government of India by the consent of the people as ascertained by the largest number of the adult population, male or female, native born or domiciled … and who have taken the trouble of having registered their names as voters.".Also read: Expunging words from speeches of opposition leaders should not compromise accountability of government to legislature.While stressing that the government of India would be formed on the consent of the people, Gandhi unambiguously stated, "Real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of the capacity by all to resist authority when it is abused."."In other words," he forcefully remarked, "swaraj is to be obtained by education of the masses to a sense of their capacity to regulate and control authority.".Resonance of Gandhi's vision in the election mandate.The deep resonance of Gandhi's words in Young India was intensely felt during the 18th general elections in India. The masses were awakened by their power to make the issue of protecting the Constitution a key electoral topic..They elected a government that did not give the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) an absolute majority and also gave their mandate for an Opposition— the strongest ever in the history of our Republic— to "regulate and control authority"..A strong Opposition's legislative effect.It is because of the strength of a vibrant Opposition that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's regime has referred the Waqf Board (Amendment Bill), 2024 to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha..The same government had used its brute majority during the 16th and 17th Lok Sabhas to pass Bills without referring them to parliamentary committees for adequate scrutiny, thereby dispensing with the deliberative and consultative process of law-making..The Opposition leaders played a stellar role in highlighting that the provisions in the Waqf Board (Amendment) Bill, 2024 negated the Constitution, violated the special safeguards guaranteed to minorities, including Muslims, and compromised the State's neutrality toward religion..“The farmers' movement represented the Opposition to laws imposed without any meaningful engagement with them to determine their shape and content..If the BJP had secured a clear majority, as it did during the 16th and 17th Lok Sabhas, and if there had not been a robust Opposition, the Modi regime would have passed the Waqf Bill without considering the pleas of the people to refrain from doing so..Also read: If the Opposition does not enjoy higher immunity, should government officials do, as the new Union government SOP suggests?.Similarly, the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024 which had been widely criticised for its stringent provisions that could potentially impair press freedom, particularly affecting YouTube channels and other social media platforms, has been withdrawn by the Modi regime..It has been stated that a new draft will be introduced after due consultations. The withdrawn Bill would have been passed in the same manner in which three farm laws were passed in 2020, which were enacted through a voice vote in both the Houses of Parliament and enacted without consulting the relevant stakeholders..Farmers staged a year-long peaceful movement against those laws, enduring harsh measures taken against them to prevent them from reaching Delhi. Even Prime Minister Modi ridiculed them, labelling them as "andolanojivis"— agitational life-forms, insinuating that they were people who only lived for agitation..It is because of that peaceful movement that the farm laws were eventually withdrawn and repealed. The farmers' movement represented the Opposition to laws imposed without any meaningful engagement with them to determine their shape and content. In the words of Gandhi, it reflected "their capacity to regulate and control authority"..BJP's anti-India accusations against Opposition.It is rather tragic that when the people and the Opposition were fulfilling their roles in holding the government to account, Jagdeep Dhankar, the Vice President of India and chairman of the Rajya Sabha, made uncalled-for remarks on August 9, 2024, just six days before the 77th anniversary of India's Independence..While presiding over the House, he accused the entire Opposition of destabilising the nation. He made these remarks after Opposition parties walked out of the House in protest against his outburst towards member of Parliament (MP) Jaya Bachchan, who had objected to his tone..The protest was also in response to his refusal to expunge BJP MP Ghanshyam Tiwari's remarks against the leader of Opposition (LOP) in Rajya Sabha, Malikarjun Kharge..Also read: Opposition Bandies Together to Support Farmers, but can it Emerge as a Force?.Such disparaging remarks about the entire Opposition by Dhankar, a presiding officer of the Rajya Sabha, are unprecedented in the history of independent India. They negate the vision and ethos of the freedom struggle, which was rooted in the ideal of securing independence for our country in which the Opposition would have a legitimate and honoured place of equal importance to the government..“While presiding over the Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankar accused the entire Opposition of destabilising the nation..Even Union parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju has accused the main Opposition parties, including the Indian National Congress, of working against India because they criticised the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) chairperson Madhabi Buch on the issue of conflict of interest based on the Hindenburg report..Such unfair characterisation of the Opposition by both Dhankar and Rijiju, combined with the Modi regime's relentless actions targeting the Opposition by taking multiple coercive measures and employing stringent laws to arrest its leaders, are against the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly..There were numerous occasions in the Constituent Assembly where the role of a strong and vibrant Opposition in our democracy was flagged with added importance..Constituent Assembly and a strong Opposition.On December 17, 1946, eight days after the Constituent Assembly commenced its functioning on December 9 that year, its distinguished member, M.R. Masani, while participating in the discussion on Objectives Resolution moved by Jawaharlal Nehru on December 13, persuasively argued for a strong Opposition..He asserted that merely making India a republic and democracy would be insufficient if it led to the creation of a police State, where secret police could arrest or liquidate people without trial..It would establish a totalitarian State, with one party seizing power, suppressing Opposition parties and denying them the freedom to function freely and with equal facilities..Also read: '90 percent of the Constituent Assembly', Modi and Ambedkar.M.R. Masani's words from 1946 assume significance in the context of the stifling of the Opposition over the past ten years..“There were numerous occasions in the Constituent Assembly where the role of a strong and vibrant Opposition in our democracy was flagged with added importance..Somnath Lahiri, a distinguished member of the Constituent Assembly, while participating in its proceedings on April 27, 1947, referred to a circular noting that the provision of fundamental and civil rights would not only enable India to function as a free country but also create conditions for the Opposition to grow..When asked about the necessity of fundamental rights in a bourgeois national democracy, Lahiri responded that one of the fundamental objectives was to ensure that a political Opposition would have full freedom to express its views, draw its own conclusions and to speak freely..Lahiri asserted, "If I am in the Opposition or if someone else is in the Opposition, it is certainly his business to say that the existing government is despicable.".He then forcefully remarked that without the freedom to express such polarising views, the role of the Opposition would be meaningless. He maintained that curtailing the right to express such opinions against the government of the day would hinder the growth of political Opposition and democracy in India..He went on to explain that if the Opposition were to remain dependent on the goodwill and the tender mercies of the ruling party or the executive, the very foundation of democracy would collapse..It is instructive to note that Z.H. Lari, during a discussion in the Constituent Assembly on November 8, 1948, referred to the provision for an LOP in an advisory committee to advise the President. He thoughtfully suggested that the position of LOP should be formally recognised in the Constitution itself..Later, on May 20, 1949, when Article 86 of the draft Constitution of India (corresponding to Article 106 of the Constitution), which provides for the salary for MPs, was being discussed in the Constituent Assembly, Lari moved an amendment to include provisions for the salary for the LOP in the Article..Also read: Constituent Assembly: A chequered history.He forcefully argued that promoting parliamentary Opposition, along with upholding the rule of law and maintaining a strong press, would constitute the bulwark of democracy. Therefore, he advocated for statutory recognition of the institution of parliamentary Opposition, which he said was often regarded in certain circles as tantamount to sedition..Among others, T.T. Krishnamachari and Ananthasayanam Ayyangar agreed in principle with Lari on the need for an LOP. But they pleaded against a constitutional provision for it and suggested that the future Parliament should enact a law instead..“Among others, T.T. Krishnamachari and Ananthasayanam Ayyangar agreed in principle with Lari on the need for an LOP..Dr B.R. Ambedkar agreed with them in his response, leaving the issue to be addressed by future legislatures of our country. This vision to have an LOP was fructified in 1977 when the Parliament of India passed a legislation to that effect..As India celebrates the 77th anniversary of our Independence, a strong Opposition with a significant mandate of the people is now effectively fulfilling its role in holding the government to account..Therefore, by respecting the Opposition, the Modi regime would respect the people of India, the vision of Gandhi and the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly.
