Who should inaugurate? – Tarun Bharat
The issue of who should inaugurate India’s new Parliament complex has become a point of contention in recent days. It would be more appropriate to say that it has been made than to say that it has been made. A preliminary discussion of this has been taken in the foreword of two days ago. But, as a lot of new information has become available in this regard, it is necessary to discuss in detail who should inaugurate the new Parliament building. Parliament is the most important pillar of Indian democracy. The presidency is constitutionally supreme. Therefore, the opposition asserts that it is appropriate for the President to inaugurate. Not only this, but the matter has now reached the Supreme Court, and a petition has been submitted to the Supreme Court demanding that the government be given an order that the inauguration should be done by the President. Against this background, three important questions arise regarding the inauguration. The first is that if Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated, what kind of violation is there going to be? Another question is, is this issue so big that 20 opposition parties should boycott the inaugural programme? And the third question is that when the Congress was in power, what exactly happened in similar situations? The third of these three questions deserves consideration first. From the information that has become available in various media and social media, it is clearly seen that this path was not followed during the Congress rule. Even considering the pre-independence period, the present Parliament building was inaugurated in 1927 by the then Viceroy Lord Irwin. According to the current logic of the Congress, it should actually have been done by the British monarch. Motilal Nehru, great-grandfather of Rahul Gandhi, was present at that event. Neither he nor the Congress had boycotted the programme. Even after independence, the first annex building of Parliament was inaugurated not by the then President, but by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Maharashtra’s new ‘Vidhan Bhavana’ was also inaugurated in 1981, not by the then Governor of that state, but by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The foundation of the present Parliament Library and the library architecture was established not by the then President, but by the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. In 2020, the state assembly building of Chhattisgarh was inaugurated not by the state’s governor, but by Sonia Gandhi, who is neither the country’s prime minister nor official opposition leader. This means that the person who is being strangled today in the name of democracy was not even remembered when these events were happening. The opposition parties at that time neither boycotted all the above-mentioned programs nor taught anyone the lessons of the constitution regarding who should inaugurate. Also, no one had knocked on the door of the Supreme Court. In such a situation, if the inauguration of the new Parliament House is being done by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then what is there to make such a fuss about it? Shouldn’t those who oppose it check their own history and the steps they have taken? But, that won’t happen. Because, Lok Sabha election will be held in one year. Therefore, this year, the work of the opposition parties will be to set fire against the government at the center and especially against Prime Minister Modi. There is no objection to doing that. However, opposition parties need to be careful not to laugh at themselves while doing so. For this, the opposition parties should have enough patience and patience to think whether their side is strong while keeping the government on edge. But this basic aspect is basically lacking. Moreover, inauguration of any vastu is only a formal event. It is only expected that it should be done by a noble person. Prime Minister Modi is the head of the country. If the inauguration is being done by them, there is no reason to create a ruckus. The decision to boycott is extreme. The decision of boycott has given the answer to the question of who does not have the freedom of democracy in real sense. Who is the founder has nothing to do with the country’s democracy, constitution or any laws or traditions. It has nothing to do with bad-smelling politics. So far many ‘constitutional’ buildings have been inaugurated or installed by other leaders. The same is happening now. Some political parties have a habit of playing politics in every small matter. In fact, the possibility of any political gain from this is remote. The last issue is whether the President is invited to the event. Royal etiquette is that if the President is present at any public event, he is the first to be honored. By inviting them, giving them a secondary role does not work. Doing so is a breach of etiquette. So perhaps, the President should not be invited to this event. But the situation in this regard is not clear yet. In any case, the boycott of the program by the opposition parties is not justified. It will not protect, promote or respect democracy or the Constitution.