No end in sight to Parliament logjam

The deadlock in the Monsoon Session of Parliament has carried on for three straight days with no end in sight. The government and the main Opposition party, the Congress, have dug their heels in. Being firm on principles is one thing, but being rigid on tactics when governance suffers cannot be a virtue.
Ensuring that political conditions are conducive, so that Parliament may run smoothly in order to conduct its main business of making laws, is the responsibility of the government. This is because law-making is the government’s job. In fact, that is why it is elected. But the Narendra Modi government has steadfastly refused to be flexible.

It has stood on false prestige, particularly in the matter of the relationship of external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj to the scandal-prone former cricket czar Lalit Modi, a fugitive from the law, whom she sought to assist, bypassing all norms of propriety.

If the Prime Minister had asked her to step aside in light of the Opposition demand, until such time as the matter was cleared, his stock would have risen. Mr Modi would have been seen as the man who had done the right thing. The point was not how many parties pressed that demand.
Even if one MP raised a finger, the minister’s resignation would have been in order, pending an inquiry. Ms Swaraj could have been re-instated if she was clear in the inquiry.

The Congress has also asked for the heads of the Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh chief ministers. Instead of pointing out that these were under state jurisdiction, the BJP has resorted to the tactic of raking up allegations of corruption in Congress-run states.

Petty games such as these compound the problem. Fundamentally, to douse protest, action at the Centre by the Modi government could have headed off trouble for the BJP in the states, although in the Rajasthan case a BJP MP’s controversial commercial dealing with Mr Lalit Modi is involved, and the MP in question is the CM’s son.

The BJP’s standard line is that it is open to discussion and debate on any subject in Parliament. Only a “loyal Opposition” works on such a premise in a democracy. The BJP has been in Opposition long enough to know that. UPA-2 cold not meaningfully complain that it could not pass vital legislation because the Opposition was being truculent, and BJP was the principal instigator. Much of the latter part of its term will historically be put down as governance paralysis. Learning from that experience, the BJP could think to be innovative about dealing with the Opposition. If it can show that capability, any grandstanding by the Opposition will be exposed.