Tag: Democracy

  • “Soul Of Democracy Sucked Out”: Opposition To Boycott Parliament Opening

    “Soul Of Democracy Sucked Out”: Opposition To Boycott Parliament Opening

    HomeIndia News“Soul Of Democracy Sucked Out”: Opposition To Boycott Parliament Opening

    “Soul Of Democracy Sucked Out”: Opposition To Boycott Parliament Opening

    The opposition parties have denounced plans by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to inaugurate the new parliament building, instead of President Droupadi Murmu.

    India NewsEdited by Divyanshu Dutta RoyUpdated: May 24, 2023 12:25 pm IST

    https://www.ndtv.com/video/embed-player/?id=701710&category=embed&autostart=1&pWidth=650&pHeight=403&embed_type=story&mute=1&autostart=1&mutestart=true&ctitle=1&miniplayer=1&cache=2022

    PM Modi is set to inaugurate the new parliament building on Sunday.

    New Delhi: The inauguration of India’s new parliament in New Delhi on Sunday may resemble an event in Beijing with nearly zero representation from the opposition, as 19 parties announced they will not be attending the ceremony.

    Here is your 10-point guide to this story:

    1. The Congress, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Trinamool Congress, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the Left, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Janata Dal-United (JDU), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Samajwadi Party, Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena faction and others said on Wednesday that they will not be part of the event.
    2. The opposition parties have denounced plans by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to inaugurate the new parliament, instead of President Droupadi Murmu, to make a political statement ahead of next year’s national election.
    3. Some of them have also criticised scheduling the event on the birth anniversary of VD Savarkar, the Hindutva ideologue who shared views radically divergent from Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, and had pledged lifelong fealty to the British after prolonged incarceration.
    4. “Prime Minister Modi’s decision to inaugurate the new parliament building by himself, completely sidelining President Murmu, is not only a grave insult but a direct assault on our democracy… This undignified act insults the high office of the President and violates the letter and spirit of the constitution. It undermines the spirit of inclusion which saw the nation celebrate its first woman Adivasi President,” the opposition parties said in a statement.
    5. “Undemocratic acts are not new to the Prime Minister, who has relentlessly hollowed out the Parliament. Opposition Members of Parliament have been disqualified, suspended and muted when they raised the issues of the people of India… When the soul of democracy has been sucked out from the parliament, we find no value in a new building,” they added.
    6. Addressing a news briefing, Union Home Minister Amit Shah declined to comment on the backlash but said, “We have invited everyone. They can decide according to their wisdom.” Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi urged opposition parties to reconsider their decision to boycott the ceremony.
    7. Earlier, Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri on Tuesday accused the Congress of lacking “national spirit and sense of pride” in India’s progress. He said former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had inaugurated the Parliament Annexe building on October 24, 1975, and successor Rajiv Gandhi had laid the foundation of the parliament library on August 15, 1987. “If your head of government can inaugurate the Parliament annexe and library, then why can’t the head of the government of this time do? It’s as simple as that,” he said.
    8. Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh countered: “SUV-Self-Usurped Vishwaguru-has already annexe-d the Parliament for self-aggrandisement. But surely, there is a fundamental difference between inaugurating an Annexe where officials work and a library which is hardly used on the one hand, and inaugurating not just the Temple of Democracy but its sanctum sanctorum itself.”
    9. From its cost to the uncharacteristic fierceness of the lions in the national emblem atop the building, the construction of the new parliament – announced in 2020 at the height of the coronavirus pandemic – has found itself tangled in controversy.
    10. The government has said India’s current parliament building was built under British rule in 1927 and has grown too small. Laying the foundation stone of the new building in December 2020, PM Modi has said it would be an intrinsic part of a “self-reliant India”. It will accommodate 888 members in the lower house and 300 members in the upper house, as compared to the current 543 and 250, respectively, and is part of the Modi government’s plan to redevelop the historical heart of New Delhi called the Central Vista.
  • Press must be free for democracy to survive: CJI Chandrachud

    Press must be free for democracy to survive: CJI Chandrachud

    Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while speaking at the Ramnath Goenka awards for excellence in journalism, said that a “functional and healthy democracy must encourage the development of journalism”. The winners of 2020 and 2019 were felicitated at this year’s function in New Delhi. He also stressed the role local and community-based journalism plays in “social cohesion and political activism”.

    Here is the full text of his speech:

    A very good evening to everyone present here today. At the very outset, I extend my heartiest congratulations to the winners in all the categories of the awards presented today. Earlier today, I was browsing through the categories in which awards are presented as well as a few stories by previous winners and I must say that I am tremendously impressed by the depth and breadth of the reportage that journalists in our country engage in. To those journalists who have not won today – you are no less a winner in the game of life for yours is a noble profession. To have chosen it at all (especially when more lucrative options are available) and to continue to pursue it despite the many difficulties which arise, is admirable indeed.

    As I was reflecting on the profession of law and that of journalism, it occurred to me that journalists and lawyers (or judges, as in my case) share some things in common. Of course, persons of both professions are fierce believers of the aphorism that the pen is mightier than the sword. But, they also share the occupational hazard of being disliked by virtue of their professions – no easy cross to bear. But members of both professions keep at their daily tasks and hope that one day, the reputations of their professions will receive a makeover.

    The magnitude of the task that journalists face in their careers was well described by G K Chesterton, who said “Journalism largely consists in saying “Lord Jones is dead” to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive.” Journalists are constantly engaged in the endeavour of simplifying complex information for the consumption of the public, which is frequently unaware of even the most basic facts underlying the issues sought to be exposed. This simplification of information must not be at the cost of accuracy, which further complicates the journalist’s job. This is true world over.

    The media sparks debates and discussion, which are the first step towards action. All societies inevitably become dormant, lethargic and immune to the problems that plague them. Journalism (in all its forms) is one of the key aspects which prods us out of this collective inertia. The media has always played and continues to play an important role in shaping the course of current events, and by extension, the course of history itself. Recently, the #MeToo movement was sparked in part by the publication of stories concerning the accusations of sexual harassment against prominent figures in the film industry in USA. The #MeToo movement had cascading effects all across the world and was a watershed moment in history. In India, the media’s coverage of the rape of Jyoti, or Nirbhaya, by certain men in Delhi resulted in widespread protests and later, in reforms to criminal law. Even on a day-to-day basis, some news stories prompt questions and discussion in Parliament and in the legislative assemblies of states.

    The media is the fourth pillar in the conception of the State, and thus an integral component of democracy. A functional and healthy democracy must encourage the development of journalism as an institution that can ask difficult questions to the establishment – or as it is commonly known, ‘speak truth to power.’ The vibrancy of any democracy is compromised when the press is prevented from doing exactly this. The press must remain free if a country is to remain a democracy.

    India has a great legacy of newspapers which have acted as catalysts of social and political change. Prior to independence, newspapers were run by social reformers and political activists in order to raise awareness and also as a means of outreach. For instance, Dr. Ambedkar launched several newspapers such as Mooknayak, Bahishkrut Bharat, Janata, and Prabuddha Bharat to create awareness about the rights of the most neglected communities in India. The newspapers and other publications of pre-independence India also give us a picture of the detailed history of those times. These newspapers are now a source of knowledge, a historical record of the times when courageous men and women acted against the colonial rulers and fought fiercely for our independence. The newsprint voiced the aspiration of the soul, a yearning