
P Chidambaram writes: Life is a mystery, not always beautiful
What happened between July 10 and July 21 is what makes life a mystery.
Both Houses of Parliament began 'normally' on Monday, July 21. On the previous day, the government had convened the customary meeting of the floor leaders of political parties. The customary assurances of debate 'on all issues' and co-operation were exchanged between the government and the Opposition. Sadly, however, in the working of the Indian Parliament, there is currently no consensus between the Treasury and the Opposition on what, when and how the House may debate an issue of urgent importance.
The Opposition in the Rajya Sabha usually insists on a debate under Rule 267. Rule 267 is a parliamentary device to defer the listed business and take up an issue of urgent importance. The motion is called an 'adjournment motion'. There is nothing sinister about invoking Rule 267. However, the NDA has considered a debate under Rule 267 as equivalent to a 'censure' of the government. (Perhaps, some governments in the past also took the same view). In the last 11+ years, the ruling Establishment had allowed a discussion on a motion under Rule 267 last on 'demonetisation' in November 2016. Since becoming Chairman, Mr Dhankhar had not allowed any debate under Rule 267.
July 21 was no different, and what happened was straight out of Mr Dhankhar's playbook. A lone BJP member had given a notice under Rule 167 to discuss the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor; several members of the Opposition had given notices under Rule 267 on the same issue. The Chairman admitted the motion of the BJP member as a 'No-Day-Yet-Named Motion' and rejected the other motions on the oft-repeated ground they were not in conformity with the Rules and the laid-down procedure. Commotion followed. (No one has been made wiser on how to draft a motion under Rule 267 that would be in 'conformity with the Rules and the laid-down procedure').
The Chairman called a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) at 12.30 pm. Mr J P Nadda and Mr Kiren Rijiju attended representing the government. After some discussion, the meeting was adjourned to 4.30 pm. When the BAC met again, the two ministers were absent. Apparently miffed, the Chairman adjourned the meeting. He resigned at 9.25 pm, citing 'medical advice'.
It is a telling commentary that no Party or MP implored Mr Dhankhar to withdraw his resignation. On July 22, the Deputy Chairman tersely announced in the House the 'occurrence of vacancy' in the Vice Presidency. Clearly, the government had decided to bid goodbye to Mr Dhankhar without fuss or fanfare or a farewell.
The NDA government owed a lot to Mr Dhankhar. In American football parlance, he took upon himself the role of 'tackle'. He defended the RSS/BJP's position on One Nation, One Election (ONOE) and on the removal of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble to the Constitution. He criticised the Supreme Court for its judgement propounding the Basic Structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati case). He questioned the theory of judicial review of laws passed by Parliament. He asserted the right of the government to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, debunking the proposition that the judiciary has primacy in such appointments (Second Judges case). He slammed the Supreme Court for invoking Article 142 to direct governors (and the President) to grant or refuse assent to Bills within 3 months. Contradicting Article 105, Mr Dhankhar asked members to 'authenticate' documents or data cited in their speeches. He defended sanatana dharma. He heaped fulsome praise on the RSS. His positions mirrored the conservative Right's views, and ought to have pleased the BJP.
At different times, Mr Dhankhar belonged to the Janata Dal, Samajwadi Janata Party (of Chandra Shekhar), Congress and BJP. His appointment as Governor of West Bengal resurrected his political career. His unwarranted run-ins with the state government may have burnished his pro-BJP credentials but tarnished the office of governor. His surprise elevation as Vice President showed the faith reposed in him by the RSS/BJP to bear the right-wing flag. His conduct of proceedings earned him the distinction of being the first Chairman against whom a No Confidence motion was moved.
What broke the cordial ties between Mr Dhankhar and the RSS/BJP? The idea of a motion to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma had germinated in a meeting of the Congress parliamentary strategy group on July 15. Signed by 63 members, the Opposition left Mr Dhankhar no choice but to admit the motion on July 21 (while a similar government-inspired motion had been lodged in the Lok Sabha on the same day). The motion forced Mr Dhankhar to act on the motion to impeach Justice Shekhar Yadav that he had held back for seven months. The speculation is that Mr Dhankhar's decisions on the two motions broke the camel's back. I disagree; the two motions were light straws. Obviously, there were more.
Life is a mystery, and sometimes ugly.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India Today
22 minutes ago
- India Today
'Maun vrat': Shashi Tharoor, not on Congress's Op Sindoor discussion list, evades queries
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Monday chose silence over clarity as he evaded questions on the upcoming Operation Sindoor discussion in the Lok Sabha, responding only with "maun vrat" repeatedly (a vow of silence) when asked by reporters whether he would brief yet pointed reply came as he arrived at Parliament amid rising anticipation over the party's line during the discussion on Operation Sindoor. The Congress MP declined to offer any comment, simply invoking the term associated with voluntary silence, prompting speculation over his stance. advertisementAccording to Congress sources, Tharoor is unlikely to speak during the discussion. "Shashi Tharoor unlikely to speak on Operation Sindoor. The MPs, who want to speak on certain issues, have to send their requests to the CPP office, however, Shashi Tharoor hasn't done so far," a party insider said. According to the list of speakers provided by the Congress, Gaurav Gogoi is going to open the discussion in Parliament today, followed by Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Deepender Hooda, Praniti S Shinde, Saptagiri Ulaka and Bijendra S Ojha. Additionally, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi is scheduled to speak in the discussion potential absence from the discussion comes against the backdrop of his uneasy relationship with the party leadership in recent Thiruvananthapuram MP had earlier led a government-formed delegation abroad to speak on the India-Pakistan conflict, a move seen as going against the Congress line. His public support for the government's stance and the subsequent pause in hostilities had triggered friction with colleagues critical of the government's Opposition on July 25 agreed to a 16-hour discussion in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. The discussion will focus on the government's response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 civilians and injured several Gandhi and several other Opposition leaders have criticised the government for alleged intelligence failures and questioned US President Donald Trump's claims of mediating between India and Pakistan, which the government has denied.- EndsTune InMust Watch


India Today
22 minutes ago
- India Today
Always had faith in Indian Army: Pahalgam attack victim's wife on Op Sindoor
74:26 A political storm has erupted ahead of the Parliament debate on 'Operation Sindoor', as the BJP launched a sharp attack on the Congress party. The row began when Congress MP P. Chidambaram questioned whether the Pahalgam attackers actually came from Pakistan, demanding proof in a recent interview.


India Today
22 minutes ago
- India Today
Maun vrat, manu vrat: Shashi Tharoor avoids commenting on Op Sindoor debate
74:26 A political storm has erupted ahead of the Parliament debate on 'Operation Sindoor', as the BJP launched a sharp attack on the Congress party. The row began when Congress MP P. Chidambaram questioned whether the Pahalgam attackers actually came from Pakistan, demanding proof in a recent interview.