In parliamentary democracy, it is expected that the elected representatives of the people will have their say on whatever turns them vocal— government’s policies, decisions or conduct of any legislator or minister maintaining due decency and decorum. If they stir up too great an uproar and a pandemonium is created inside the House, then they may be restrained. But their freedom to express views cannot be curtailed. But, the BJP-led Central government like fascist autocracy has been merrily trampling underfoot even the barest precepts of democracy. Of late, they have banned use of as many as 329 words (151 English and 178 Hindi) as unparliamentary. Among the banned words, some are most common like ‘abused’, ‘ashamed’, ‘bloodshed’, ‘anarchist’, ‘corrupt’, etc. Among Hindi words deemed objectionable are ‘gaddar’ (traitor) ‘girgit’ (chameleon), ‘behri sarkar’ (a deaf government), ‘danga’ (riot), ‘jumlajeebi’ (thriving on false promises), etc. Obviously, the objective is to debar the opposition members from criticizing the government.
It is worth noting that the words earmarked now as ‘unconstitutional’ or ‘unparliamentary’ are those commonly used by the opposition against Modi and his government, though BJP leaders are known to have themselves used some of them when they were in opposition. Also, not long back, Home Minister himself has used the word Jumla (false promise) in media glare whereas the Prime Minister had used a word Andolanjeebi (movement-mongers) to deride the opposition. Moreover, the BJP government has also prohibited demonstration, dharna and hunger strike within the Parliament premises by the opposition seemingly to ensure that globally, the BJP could project itself as a ‘protest-less’ government. These are all aimed at gagging voice of protest or dissent which is an essential component of parliamentary democracy as enunciated by the its founding fathers. So, it is obvious that based on the strength of a brute majority which the BJP enjoys in Parliament, it is treading the path of stripping parliamentary democracy of what little of it is still in vogue.
To resist such despotic undemocratic measures, what is needed is a powerful organised sustained movement of the common people under correct revolutionary leadership. It leaves no doubt that it is only through organised people’s resistance movement, such systematic and persistent curtailment of what little of democratic norms and practices are still prevalent in the country.