Kashmir, gau rakshaks: Azad is right, PM Modi should speak more in Parliament than outside

Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad is right when he says that Prime Minister Narendra Modi needs to have his own ideas and action in dealing with the turmoil in Kashmir rather than simply reiterating his erstwhile party stalwart and former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s beautifully coined terms to handle the issue - Insaniyat, Jamhuriyat and Kashmiriyat.

Azad was neither overtly critical nor needlessly combative against the Prime Minister or the Union government, as most opposition leaders tend to do but he succeeded in effectively conveying the message. There is a need for early intervention by the Prime Minister on such critical issues and make his position known in Parliament.

His contention was that Vajpayee and Modi have two different persona. When Vajpayee used the terms Insaniyat, Jamhuriyat and Kashmiriyat it conveyed a certain sense because words like these gelled with his persona. Whether it changed situation on the ground or whether it had any long term and short term impact was not an issue today but over a decade ago, the words had their novelty and opened a dialogue process with separatists and others. Modi has a different persona and these terms didn’t really reflect this thought process. Prior to Modi, Home Minister Rajnath Singh and Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti had spoken about it and the latter had urged PM Modi to go by Vajpayee’s line. Modi had talked of the same in Madhya Pradesh on Tuesday.

Azad’s speech was a disappointment on other count given the fact the Leader of Opposition had been J&K chief minister and currently represents the state in Upper House. More substantive arguments on the issue at hand and some suggestion as to how the situation could possibly be dealt was expected from him. His attention was focussed on PM Modi and damage that pellet guns used by security forces had caused to young boys and girls in the valley.

But then he said as an opposition leader his role was to highlight the issues and take on the government, he couldn’t be speaking the language of those in the government.

The other point that he made had some merits. The senior Congress leader said PM Modi had a commendable routine of coming to Parliament House, during session at 10 am and leave only at 6 pm. He would be in his Chamber and keep a close eye on proceedings of both Houses in Parliament. No other prime minister followed the kind of daily routine as Modi did. But then, he does not apply the same when it comes to actually sitting inside the House and speaking on matters of substantive importance.

The distance between his chamber in Parliament House and Lok Sabha is of 15 seconds, Rajya Sabha would be few more seconds away. But it took days for him to come to either of the two Houses. This has been a standing criticism of Modi by Opposition leaders. They had been demanding PM’s presence in the House when Kashmir issue was being debated today. Though Home Minister Rajnath Singh on whose prompt response during Zero Hour on Tuesday made it possible for the issue to be discussed today, starting from 11 am, even cancelling Zero and Question Hour but the PM was not there.

It was also unusual for House to take up same subject (Kashmir) four times for discussion in this short, 20-working day session. In fact on Tuesday when the opposition leaders led by Congress were demanding yet another full-fledged debate on the subject during Zero Hour, Singh came to the House and agreed to discuss it today as the first subject in the morning.

The home minister’s gesture was appreciated. But the opposition leader’s argument was that when dalit issue was discussed in the House, PM didn’t speak in Parliament, instead he chose to speak on other forums in Delhi and Hyderabad on gau rakshaks and dalits. Again on Kashmir issue, he chose to speak in Alijapur in Madhya Pradesh but he gave his views on the matter in Parliament.

Though it’s difficult to say whether things would have taken a different turn if he had spoken in Parliament rather than outside. But his intervention in Parliament on any given issue has its own importance. A case in point is his intervention on GST in Parliament on Monday.

The Prime Minister did warn the self-styled gau rakshaks of stern action while addressing a town hall recently in New Delhi. He even offered his support to the dalit community and pledged to stand by them. Had he done the same in Parliament, it would have only strengthened parliamentary democracy.