Another day wasted....

 For four consecutive days, Parliament has remained stalled. The reason for this deadlock is not procedural complexity or legislative confusion, but a political standoff driven by the insistence of Rahul Gandhi. Parliamentary business has come to a standstill. The House was scheduled to debate the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, followed by the Prime Minister’s reply—a long-standing constitutional and parliamentary tradition.

The Prime Minister was to deliver his response on Thursday. However, even before he entered the House, the Congress leadership had formulated a strategy to prevent him from speaking. Priyanka Gandhi openly declared that if the Leader of the Opposition was not allowed to speak, no one from the ruling side would be allowed to speak either. This was not a spontaneous protest but a deliberate warning.

What followed inside the House was unprecedented. For the first time in India’s parliamentary history, Congress women MPs physically surrounded the Prime Minister’s seat—blocking access from both front and rear—so that he could neither reach nor occupy his chair. The Bharatiya Janata Party has alleged that this amounted to a planned attack on the Prime Minister. Whether that allegation is entirely accurate is debatable, but what cannot be disputed is that such conduct has never been witnessed in the Indian Parliament before.

No opposition, however strong or weak in numbers, has ever behaved in this manner. What is unfolding under Rahul Gandhi’s leadership has no parallel in parliamentary history.

Rahul Gandhi and his party repeatedly claim that he was not allowed to speak. This claim does not withstand scrutiny. He was allotted a full 40 minutes to speak on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. Yet he did not utter even four words related to the President’s speech. His insistence was singular: he wanted to quote from an unpublished book and was unwilling to speak on any other subject. The Speaker ruled clearly that parliamentary rules do not permit such a reference.

This has led to widespread confusion and debate about parliamentary procedure, especially since BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was allowed to display books. The rules are unambiguous. Any Member of Parliament—regardless of whether they are Leader of the Opposition or an ordinary MP—has the right to quote from books, documents, magazines, or newspapers. However, this right is subject to two mandatory conditions.

First, the source being quoted must be authenticated and formally placed on the table of the House. The MP must take responsibility for its contents, accepting accountability if any claim is proven false. This accountability can invite privilege motions, disciplinary action, or even loss of membership, depending on the Speaker’s decision.

Second, and more fundamental, the quotation must be directly relevant to the subject under discussion. If the House is debating the Budget, one cannot raise unrelated controversies. In this case, the House was debating the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address. Rahul Gandhi had no intention of addressing that subject at all.

Instead, he arrived with a book he claimed was authored by a former army general. The book, by his own admission, has not been published. He claimed it was published abroad but refused to disclose how he obtained it, responding with a cryptic smile when questioned. Logically, a foreign-published book cannot reach India within 24 hours. Moreover, past incidents—such as displaying a Constitution copy that turned out to contain blank pages—have already raised doubts about such theatrics.

Rahul Gandhi remained adamant that he would speak only from this alleged book, irrespective of the topic being debated. Parliamentary business, however, is not decided by individual insistence. The agenda is fixed by the Business Advisory Committee. Debate on the Motion of Thanks was scheduled until the 4th of the month, with all members—including the Leader of the Opposition—given time to speak, followed by the Prime Minister’s reply.

Two unprecedented developments occurred simultaneously. For the first time, a Prime Minister was prevented from replying to the President’s Address. And for the first time, a Leader of the Opposition openly refused to speak on the President’s Address at all. This makes it clear that disruption—not debate—was the intended objective.

Rahul Gandhi understood that parliamentary proceedings are broadcast live. Disruption guarantees visibility. Quiet speeches do not. In pursuit of spectacle, several Congress MPs climbed onto desks and threw torn papers at the presiding officer, leading to their suspension. Rahul Gandhi himself was not suspended.

In fact, the argument can be made that if any suspension was warranted, it should have applied solely to Rahul Gandhi. Once the Speaker delivers a ruling, it is binding on all members—regardless of position. Rahul Gandhi’s refusal to accept that authority lies at the heart of the deadlock.

The solution to this crisis, in the author’s view, is absurdly simple. Parliament should pass a resolution declaring that whenever a member of the Gandhi family—particularly Rahul Gandhi—rises to speak, no parliamentary rules or traditions shall apply to him. He may speak on any subject, at any time, in any manner. He may quote from any document without authentication. Topic relevance should not matter. National security considerations should not apply. No interruptions should be permitted.

Why? Because Rahul Gandhi considers himself entitled. In his worldview, laws, rules, and conventions are meant for others. Numerous legal cases—ranging from questions about citizenship to financial investigations—have lingered for years without resolution. High-profile controversies, including those that reached the Supreme Court, have produced little consequence. Even in cases where conviction occurred, relief arrived swiftly.

If constitutional law does not restrain him, why should parliamentary rules?

This recurring disruption has come at a cost. While Parliament remained stalled, major developments unfolded: the India-US trade deal announcement, the India-EU free trade agreement—described by European leaders themselves as the “mother of all deals”—and nationwide protests by youth over UGC guidelines. On these substantive issues, Rahul Gandhi has remained silent.

This is not new. From Rafale to Pegasus, from Hindenburg to other allegations, none of the issues raised by Rahul Gandhi have survived judicial scrutiny or public judgment. The electorate has repeatedly rejected his narratives. Yet he refuses to reflect or recalibrate.

Instead of engaging voters, he seeks to diminish institutions. Unable to draw a bigger line in politics, he tries to erase existing ones. In the process, he and his party continue to shrink.

In the Rajya Sabha, BJP President Jagat Prakash Nadda described Rahul Gandhi as an “immature child”—someone lacking understanding. The description resonates with the conduct on display. Rahul Gandhi himself claims he does not care about ridicule, even as members of his own party once coined mocking nicknames for him.

Congress leaders openly express frustration that the BJP continues to win while they continue to lose. But electoral defeat is decided by voters, not by disruption. The electorate removed Rahul Gandhi from Amethi in 2019, despite his position as Congress president at the time. Since 1984, Congress has not secured a full majority in the Lok Sabha—long before Narendra Modi entered national politics.

Yet instead of introspection, Rahul Gandhi believes that abusing Narendra Modi is his most effective political weapon. He uses language against the Prime Minister that no opposition leader ever used against Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, or Manmohan Singh—despite their serious policy failures.

This sense of entitlement explains why Rahul Gandhi compares himself directly to the Prime Minister, despite being only one MP among many and a Leader of the Opposition whom even the full opposition does not unanimously accept.

As long as this attitude persists, parliamentary paralysis will continue. Disruption will replace debate. And the Congress party will continue its steady decline—not because of conspiracies, but because of its own choices.

- Being Hindu  FP page.

A party which lost its identity

 They came hunting, but ended up being hunted themselves. This line seems to perfectly describe the current condition of the Congress party and Rahul Gandhi. Over the last eleven years, it has become increasingly difficult even to count how many times Rahul Gandhi has fallen into traps of his own making. Time and again, he has been caught in situations created by his own actions and statements.

In politics, defeat, failure, or even repeated setbacks are not unusual. Losing elections or suffering parliamentary defeats is part of democratic life. However, what Rahul Gandhi has been doing recently—especially during the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament over the last three days—goes far beyond normal political setbacks and enters the realm of serious institutional misconduct.

During the discussion on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address, several Members of Parliament spoke. As Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi was given priority and multiple opportunities—at least five or six times—to speak. Yet, on none of these occasions did he address the President’s Address itself. Instead, he attempted to speak about an unpublished book allegedly written by a former Chief of Army Staff, a book that has not yet been cleared by the Ministry of Defence.

Whenever material related to national security is to be published, it must undergo mandatory vetting by the Defence Ministry and the Home Ministry to ensure that sensitive information does not enter the public domain. This particular book has not received such clearance. Despite this, Rahul Gandhi wanted to raise so-called excerpts from this unpublished book inside Parliament.

On one occasion, Rahul Gandhi even claimed within the Parliament premises that he personally possessed a copy of this book. This immediately raises a serious legal question. If such a book exists without Defence Ministry clearance and has been circulated, then both the publisher and Rahul Gandhi himself could potentially be accused of violating the Official Secrets Act. Under Indian law, such violations can invite prosecution and punishment.

Ironically, history shows a clear contradiction in Congress’s own conduct. In the past, the Congress party itself had threatened legal action under the Official Secrets Act over the publication of books related to national security, including works on the 1962 India-China war. Today, leaders of the same party are attempting to rely on an unpublished, unverified manuscript dealing with sensitive defence matters.

This raises a deeper question about intent. The core objective behind such actions appears to be political rather than substantive. Rahul Gandhi, time and again, has demonstrated a willingness to align—directly or indirectly—with narratives that damage India’s national interest, as long as they serve one purpose: weakening Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s image, destabilizing his government, and creating an opportunity to remove him from power.

However, the situation escalated further with an incident inside the Parliament complex. Suspended Congress and opposition MPs were sitting near Makar Dwar, the main entrance of Parliament. As Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu was passing through, Rahul Gandhi reportedly addressed him with the words, “Hello, traitor brother,” while extending his hand.

Bittu refused to shake hands and responded strongly, stating that he could not shake hands with someone he considered anti-national. He reminded Rahul Gandhi of the role played by the Gandhi family during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the attack on the Golden Temple, questioning how a turban-wearing Sikh could be labeled a traitor. This exchange triggered a major political storm, with the BJP alleging that Rahul Gandhi had insulted the Sikh community as a whole.

What made the matter even more sensitive was the fact that Ravneet Singh Bittu was once a close associate of Rahul Gandhi within the Congress party before leaving to join the BJP and later becoming a Union Minister. Rahul Gandhi reportedly added that Bittu would “return one day,” to which Bittu later questioned why someone labeled a traitor would be welcomed back.

As Rahul Gandhi found himself cornered, Congress attempted to create a counter-narrative inside Parliament. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey presented multiple published books in the House—books detailing allegations against the Gandhi family, including works on the Mitrokhin Archive, the Bofors scandal, and other historical controversies. These books, written by various authors, including well-known journalists and scholars, are all published, publicly available, and part of the public domain.

Congress questioned why Nishikant Dubey was allowed to refer to books while Rahul Gandhi was stopped. The answer lies in basic parliamentary procedure. Parliament allows references to published material relevant to the subject under discussion. The discussion at hand was on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. An unpublished, unverified book allegedly containing sensitive national security information has no procedural relevance to that discussion.

Furthermore, Nishikant Dubey authenticated the books he cited by placing them on record, making himself accountable for any claims. Rahul Gandhi, on the other hand, refused to authenticate either the book or the newspaper clippings he attempted to cite. This fundamental procedural difference cannot be ignored.

The situation deteriorated further when Congress leaders announced that if the Leader of the Opposition was not allowed to speak, they would prevent members of the ruling party from speaking as well. As a result, when the Prime Minister arrived in the Lok Sabha at the scheduled time to reply to the debate on the President’s Address, aggressive protests by opposition MPs disrupted proceedings. The Presiding Officer was left with no option but to adjourn the House for the entire day.

This marked an unprecedented moment in India’s parliamentary history: a Prime Minister was prevented from delivering his reply in Parliament. The BJP has further highlighted that this reply was related to the President’s Address delivered by President Droupadi Murmu, who comes from a tribal background, framing the disruption as an insult to constitutional dignity as well.

Beyond individual incidents, this entire episode reflects a broader pattern. Congress repeatedly raises issues without fully understanding their implications, only to find that these issues ultimately turn against the party itself. By attempting to weaponize an unpublished book, Congress inadvertently opened the door to renewed scrutiny of numerous published works critical of the Gandhi family.

Rahul Gandhi’s conduct raises serious questions about parliamentary decorum and public responsibility. His language toward the Prime Minister, constitutional authorities, and fellow MPs reflects a disregard for institutional norms. His behavior suggests a sense of entitlement—the belief that rules, traditions, and accountability apply to everyone else, but not to him.

This behavior is rooted in frustration. Eleven years out of power is a long time for a party accustomed to ruling for decades. For the first time in independent India’s history, the Congress party has remained out of power for over a decade continuously. Deprived of authority, the party appears increasingly desperate, willing to cross any line to reclaim power.

History reinforces this pattern. Since 1989, the Indian electorate has repeatedly rejected Congress’s claim to a natural right to rule. Even when Congress formed governments in 1991 and 2004, it did so without a clear majority mandate, relying on sympathy or coalition arithmetic rather than popular endorsement. Allegations of horse-trading and corruption during confidence votes further weakened its moral standing.

In contrast, the BJP secured decisive mandates in 2014 and 2019, and even in the most recent election emerged as the single largest party by a significant margin. Congress, meanwhile, failed for the third consecutive time to cross even the 100-seat mark in the Lok Sabha.

Rahul Gandhi’s repeated breaches of parliamentary norms, his inflammatory language, and his handling of sensitive national security issues are steadily pushing the Congress party further into political irrelevance. Public memory is long, and voters are observant. Ultimately, it is the electorate that delivers the final verdict—and when the time comes, the answer will be given not in slogans or protests, but at the ballot box.

From Beiing Hindu FB