As the Modi government played a central role in disrupting proceedings, Amit Shah undermined Ambedkar’s legacy 

THE Winter Session of the Parliament, held from November 25 to December 20, 2024, marked by unprecedented disruptions and acrimony, brought to the fore the ruling party’s contempt for parliamentary democracy. Strikingly, the government led by the BJP appeared more focused on disrupting proceedings than advancing the business of the House.

The session began with high expectations since it was intended as a platform to celebrate the Constitution’s 75th anniversary through meaningful deliberations. President Droupadi Murmu set the ball rolling with her address to the joint session, outlining the contours of the discussion envisioned by the ruling party. As expected, anyone and everyone who rallied from the treasury benches made the declaration of emergency by Indira Gandhi their pet theme to turn the tables on the main opposition party. CPI(M) members who participated in the debate pointed out that they were among the primary victims of the draconian measures taken by the Congress, starting with the dismissal of the EMS government in Kerala in 1959. In fact, several Hindutva leaders were excessively pally with the Congress during the Emergency and had welcomed the dismissal of the EMS government. Ironically, the BJP, which harps on the excesses of the Emergency, has now imposed an undeclared emergency over the nation. CPI(M) members repeatedly spotlighted this in their speeches.

Despite its declared agenda to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Constitution and address legislative priorities, the session quickly descended into political theatrics. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his team allowed Parliament to become a battleground for controversies and personal attacks thereby abandoning, without remorse, all the values held as sacrosanct in our Constitution.

Surprisingly, the union government—already known for its increasingly centralised and anti-federalist tendencies—played a pivotal role in derailing parliamentary proceedings. Much of this stemmed from its protests over allegations linking billionaire George Soros to the Congress, an issue that dominated the session. Interestingly, the treasury benches faced a volley of questions from the opposition on Soros as to why the union government, pervasive and powerful enough, was not interested in prosecuting Soros for his alleged crimes. Opposition also raised questions as to why the US embassy was functioning a stone throw away, with so much of impunity, even after the US State Department was accused of its role in the reported attempts to destabilise India! Soros, a 94-year-old man in his last innings, was brought in by the ruling party to deflate the attention from the web of litigations against the BJP-friendly oligarch Adani in the United States. 

Opposition MPs had moved adjournment motions to discuss pressing issues like escalating ethnic and communal tensions from Manipur to Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh. Charge sheet filed against Adani in the US court was also a focal point of concern raised by the opposition. Kisan agitation also found its echo in the house. However, the government’s strategy was to shift focus to political mudslinging, seemingly to distract the public from its own failures. 

Contentious remarks by Union Home Minister Amit Shah further set the tone for a polarised and highly acrimonious session. His entry in the Rajya Sabha as the arbiter in place of the prime minister to reply to the debate on 75 years of the Constitution itself was ominous and unprecedented. It would be the first time a prime minister stayed away from his cardinal duty of addressing the house on a matter of such importance. Amit shah, the rabble-rouser, seized this opportunity to put across the Hindutva agenda, dwelling on matters like the Uniform Civil Code, reservations, and Jammu & Kashmir.

Meanwhile, Amit Shah’s controversial remarks about Dr B R Ambedkar, clearly an attempt to undermine the legacy of the Constitution’s architect, rightly sparked outrage in the House. Opposition MPs accused Shah of insulting Ambedkar, stating that his comments were rooted in upper-caste bias and his RSS-driven worldview. He peddled lies and half-truths to put across the view that the legacy of many icons including Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Dr B R Ambedkar rests on them. After all, rewriting history and appropriation of historical figures who have no connection whatsoever with BJP or their cause always has been a preoccupation with the BJP dispensation. The home minister’s inflammatory speech only helped polarising the discourse and derailing substantive discussions on the Constitution.

It is no secret, as evident from reports of those media platforms not aligned with the government, that Amit Shah has a habit of making disparaging remarks targeting individuals based on their socio-economic and ideological leanings. His rhetoric has undeniably lowered the standards of parliamentary discourse. Shah’s arrogance and imperious demeanour are widely acknowledged, earning him a reputation for hubris. 

The opposition’s notice for a no-confidence motion against Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and a motion to impeach an Allahabad High Court judge during the session underscored their frustrations with the ruling dispensation which is driven largely by unilateral decisions and manned by yes-men in institutions. The no-confidence notice against Dhankar was disallowed on flimsy grounds that the 14 day-time period was not adhered to. However, it’s being pointed out that such a notice should be kept alive and taken up for deliberations in the coming Budget session of the Parliament.

One of the most unprecedented aspects of the session was the government’s decision to stall proceedings over the alleged Soros-Congress link. Traditionally, it is the opposition that disrupts parliamentary sessions to highlight issues, but this time, the ruling party took on this role with alarming intensity. The BJP used its influence over mainstream media and social media to amplify its accusations, leaving Parliament paralysed. For an entire week, the treasury benches protested vociferously, bringing legislative work to a standstill. 

The result? Abysmal productivity. The Lok Sabha functioned for just 52 per cent of its scheduled time, while the Rajya Sabha fared even worse at 39 per cent. Question Hour, a cornerstone of parliamentary accountability, was virtually non-existent, with the Rajya Sabha failing to hold it on 15 of the 19 days. The Lok Sabha, on most days, spent less than 10 minutes on Question Hour. 

Amit Shah’s remarks on Ambedkar continued to stoke tensions, further fracturing the already strained relations between the treasury and opposition benches. The Speaker’s attempt to restore order by barring demonstrations at Parliament’s gates did little to alleviate the chaos. The acrimony reached its peak on the penultimate day of the session when MPs from the BJP physically clashed with opposition members, resulting in FIRs being lodged.

On the legislative front, the session’s output was dismal. Of the 16 bills slated for discussion, only one—the BharatiyaVayuyan Vidheyak, 2024—was passed by both Houses. Controversial bills, such as the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which proposed implementing “One Nation, One Election,” were referred to a joint select committee. The two bills introduced will be vetted by a 39-member House panel which has got CPI(M) Lok Sabha leader K Radhakrishnan as a member. The content of these bills are in line with the recommendations of Ram Nath Kovind committee that envisaged simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly elections as a first step. The whole purpose is aimed at denting the federal nature of the nation and seeks to add new provisions that will provide for the timeline for simultaneous elections. This change could possibly happen only in 2034. 

The Waqf Bill, which is part of the divisive agenda of the ruling party, has been postponed as the tenure of the joint committee has been extended till end of the budget session. It’s common knowledge that BJP wants to use this bill as a ploy to whip up communal passions. Already, it has used this bill to drive a wedge between the Muslim and Christian communities in Kerala.

Contrary to the opposition's anticipation of a prolific legislative session, the government chose to push only a handful of bills in Parliament, most of which were far from groundbreaking. Of the three bills passed in the Rajya Sabha – the Boilers Bill, The Oilfields Regulation and Development (Amendment) Bill, and The Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak – the underlying narrative was less focused on substantive reform and more on linguistic imperialism, particularly through the imposition of Hindi in colonial-era legislation. For instance, the Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024 replaced the Aircraft Act, 1934, but the core provisions remained unchanged. Beyond the renaming exercise, the bill missed a crucial opportunity to address pressing issues such as regulating oligopolistic practices among airlines or curbing excessive and predatory tariffs. Similarly, the bill failed to establish equitable mechanisms for designating "points of call" for airports for foreign airline carriers, leaving room for arbitrary political considerations.

A similar story unfolds with the Boilers Bill, 2024, a replacement for the Boilers Act, 1923. Beyond surface-level modifications, the bill raises serious federal concerns. It mandates that states should follow central directions in investigating boiler accidents, blatantly disregarding that law and order is a state subject. The bill also grants the central government appellate authority over decisions by state-level boiler chief inspectors, undermining the autonomy of states to manage localised issues. Why should a boiler operating within a state have to appeal to Delhi for resolution? Are the states suddenly not capable of managing boilers on their own?

The Oilfields Regulation and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2024 clandestinely incorporates provisions allowing petroleum leases to be extended without fresh auctions, blatantly sidestepping the Supreme Court's directive emphasizing fairness and transparency in resource allocation.

In retrospect, this session marked a troubling shift in parliamentary norms. By leading disruptions and perpetuating polarising rhetoric, the Modi government undermined the core principles of democratic deliberation. Far from being remembered for its legislative achievements, the Winter Session of 2024 will stand out for its acrimony and dysfunction. 

As India reflects on 75 years of its Constitution, the need to restore civility and purpose to parliamentary discourse has never been so stark. Clearly, the Modi government owes the nation an explanation for its systematic erosion of democratic principles and its repeated compromises on the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution.