The Modern Chakravyuha: Speaker Om Birla's Bias and the Battle for Democratic Integrity

 

The Modern Chakravyuha: Speaker Om Birla's Bias and the Battle for Democratic Integrity

Can you bend any further?

 

Speaker Om Birla’s recent actions have sparked widespread concern over the erosion of neutrality in Indian politics. Instead of maintaining the impartiality expected of his position, Birla seems increasingly protective of the BJP, Adani, Ambani, and various government agencies accused of being misused over the past decade. His behavior suggests transitioning from a neutral figure to one exercising dictatorial control, seemingly driven by the fear of losing his position if he fails to support the ruling party. This subservience draws a parallel with historical figures like Mann Singh of Rajasthan, who surrendered to Akbar, symbolizing a lack of shame and independence.

The tensions came to a head during the recent budget discussions in the Lok Sabha. Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the opposition, delivered a pointed critique of the budget, highlighting its favoritism towards a few wealthy individuals—specifically Adani and Ambani—while neglecting the struggles of ordinary citizens. Gandhi's mention of these names was not just justified but necessary, as these figures are emblematic of the economic disparities exacerbated by government policies. Despite Gandhi’s legitimate critique, Birla repeatedly interrupted him, particularly when he named these influential businessmen. It is almost comical to consider that Birla believed the public would not understand these references if Gandhi had opted for pseudonyms like A1 and A2.

This scenario led Gandhi to evoke the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, likening the current political landscape to the complex military formation known as the Chakravyuha. In the epic, the Chakravyuha is a multi-layered, nearly impenetrable defense strategy that traps and defeats even the most skilled warriors. Gandhi's analogy was a pointed critique, suggesting that the current government has constructed a similarly intricate and deceptive web, designed to ensnare and silence critics while shielding those in power.

The partiality of Speaker Birla was further evidenced during the defense of the Agni Veer scheme by Rajnath Singh. Singh’s misleading statements about the compensation for deceased cadets were not adequately challenged by Birla, who seemed intent on stifling any opposition response. Despite these efforts, Gandhi managed to expose these falsehoods, highlighting the challenges faced by the ruling party when confronted with strong opposition. The general public’s limited understanding of government intricacies often leads them to accept the narratives fed to them by their leaders, further complicating the political discourse.

This situation is reminiscent of political accountability in other democracies, such as the United States. Kamala Harris, as a senator, held the Attorney General accountable by questioning whether the Trump administration had pressured him to investigate opposition members. The Attorney General’s hesitation to answer indicated a potential misuse of power, a subtle yet powerful revelation. In contrast, BJP leaders in India openly call for investigations and arrests of opposition members, often without substantial evidence, a practice that blatantly violates democratic norms and the Indian constitution.

The BJP's strategy of disseminating misinformation and unchecked lies has become a staple of their governance. Leaders like Modi and Shah have perfected the art of deception, leveraging the public’s lack of awareness and their control over various institutions to sustain their narrative. Their absence from parliamentary sessions to avoid confrontation with the opposition underscores their unwillingness to face accountability. The handling of Arvind Kejriwal's bail, where the CBI actively sought to delay his release despite a favorable court ruling, showcases the judiciary's manipulation for political ends.

Rahul Gandhi’s invocation of the Chakravyuha is particularly apt as it encapsulates the intricate and insidious strategies employed by figures like Modi, Shah, Ajit, Adani, Ambani, and Bhagwat. Each plays a crucial role in maintaining a formidable and often opaque power structure: Adani and Ambani dominate the economic sphere, Ajit manages the manipulation of government agencies, Bhagwat provides ideological and moral justification, while Modi and Shah wield political power with little regard for democratic principles. This modern Chakravyuha is a well-oiled machine designed to concentrate power and wealth among a select few at the expense of the broader population.

In conclusion, Speaker Om Birla's conduct, marked by bias and a departure from democratic norms, indicates a larger malaise afflicting Indian politics. The use of sophisticated and deceptive strategies akin to the Chakravyuha serves to stifle dissent and protect the interests of a privileged few. As Gandhi pointed out, understanding and unraveling this complex web is crucial for safeguarding democracy and ensuring that the government remains accountable to its people. The citizenry must stay informed and critically assess the actions of their leaders to preserve the integrity of India's democratic framework.