How Modi can repeat Rajiv Gandhi's mistake, if he doesn't get Parliament to function

Majorities are vital for governing in a parliamentary democracy. But just as a majority is not all, a government needs to have credibility — or, that term I like to use often, and even when I am writing in English without translating because there is no fair translation for that wonderful quality, iqbal. Without iqbal, no government can govern credibly and with authority. It is very tough, but not impossible, for a government to have iqbal without having a majority, but it is impossible for a majority government to function authoritatively if it has a non-functional Parliament. Some examples from our recent political history: PV Narasimha Rao’s first two years in power with a minority government, and even Chandra Shekhar’s six months with a government of just 60 or so MPs. Both ruled with authority.

At the same time, Rajiv Gandhi, in spite of his brute majority of 413 in a house of 543, lost control and authority by early 1988, if not already in 1987, after the Bofors scam broke and his Parliament became non-functional. His advisors said, no problem, what is the opposition, just 10+2+3 (numbers the 1984 election had thrown up for the Janata Party, BJP and Lok Dal, respectively), and so what if they don’t attend Parliament, we can carry on. But he could not, his government began rapidly losing control from that point onwards.

Narendra Modi and the BJP have to be careful to not get carried away by the heady feeling of a full majority and believing they can ride roughshod over Parliament. Or thinking, so what if the opposition is not there. This week, Lok Sabha passed a law with the opposition benches completely empty. This is shocking and shameful. It’s an insult to the House and the people of India.

There is much more to a Parliament than majority vote. It is a forum of discussion and debate. The reason MPs have been given such powers and immunities is precisely so they can speak freely and make impact on behalf of the citizens, even if they are in a very small minority. In democracies, there is always a space for the opposition, however low may be its numbers.

The Modi government has lately displayed a sense that it doesn’t care whether the opposition exists or not. It has the numbers in Lok Sabha. And even if it lacks the numbers in Rajya Sabha, it can either persuade or “buy” the loyalties of the many smaller parties, or, if nothing else works, start passing laws by convening joint sessions. This is both arrogant and unsustainable.

It was out of the same sense of arrogance that the party promulgated a flurry of overnight ordinances at year-end. The other ordinances at least pertained to less controversial laws. But the land acquisition law is a highly contentious issue politically. It is further complicated by the fact that, rather than being a divisive law, it is an unifying one.

Let me try to explain. When you have a law on which different parties have varying opinions, it’s much simpler to just seek a division in the House, so the majority carries the day however strongly the minority may feel about it. But the land acquisition law was passed in 2013 unanimously. All parties, including the BJP and Congress welcomed it, spoke glowingly about it, and claimed credit for it. It was tough enough now to explain to public opinion that once in power the BJP thought it was such a bad law. But then to do it in what seemed, to most people likely to be affected, in the stealth of the night through an ordinance looked like a desperate land-grab. It alienated the BJP’s own allies and gave Rahul Gandhi the opening for his “suit-boot ki sarkar” slur. It has stuck.

Remember when the ordinance was brought in and the Congress said they wouldn’t let it pass in the Rajya Sabha, BJP spokesmen had foolhardily boasted they would pass it in a joint session. Also, that they would call joint sessions more frequently now and thereby make Rajya Sabha irrelevant. Now that boast has vanished and the party is willing to make very major concessions.

In the process, it has scored a series of self-goals, the latest of which is the suspension of 25 Congress MPs. Purely as a citizen and a voter, my first instinct is to say, well done, the Congress deserved it. But you wouldn’t say so if you were in the ruling party and had the responsibility of making sure Parliament runs, so you could govern smoothly. This is just another example of arrogant politics with no patience for dealing with the messiness of democracy, and it will cause a loss of face, just as did the earlier misstep of threatening to pass the land bill by convening a joint session if necessary.

Smart political leaders know two things. One, to employ their political capital very carefully. And two, to retreat the moment they see they are drawn into an un-winnable battle and cut their losses. Modi is at that juncture in Parliament this session. His missteps — including the nonchalant dismissal of very serious questions raised by the Lalit Modi-Vasundhara-Sushma and Vyapam-Shivraj issues — have united the opposition and left his Parliament non-functional too early in his government. If he doesn’t reach out to the opposition, get his Parliament working again and also convince people by and large that he takes the latest scandals seriously, he will be making the same mistake Rajiv Gandhi did post-Bofors. He went downhill in spite of his 413 and the fact that news channels, connectivity, social media were not existent then and literacy rates were much poorer. In this hyper-connected world, bad news spreads much faster, wider and deeper than it did in 1987.