<p>That it is the Prime Minister who will inaugurate the new Parliament building has attracted criticism from across political parties and a wide array of people. The grandiose plan of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to occupy centre-stage on the occasion, instead of gracefully inviting President Droupadi Murmu to do the honours, should have been avoided. It has triggered anguish over the government’s neglect of constitutional niceties. Opposition parties have said they will boycott the inauguration. This does not augur well for Parliament’s functioning henceforth.</p>.<p>The President of India is the constitutional Head of State of the Republic of India. Article 79 of the Constitution lays down that: “There shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People.” The President thus holds a unique position -- as Head of the Executive and as the sovereign symbol under whose seal Parliament makes laws. The Constitution-makers did not prescribe any procedure for the inauguration of national symbols such as the Parliament building, but the government and the ruling party are expected to show an understanding of constitutional niceties and grace, rather than pure political instinct, on such matters. Instead, Union ministers and BJP leaders have indulged in whataboutery over previous instances related to Parliament Annexe and Parliament Library. They have also argued that as the Head of Government, the PM has the right to inaugurate the Parliament building. An inconvenient fact ignored is that the PM emerges from Parliament, to which he is accountable, and so does not have the same stature as the President. Unfortunately, the precedent for the PM taking precedence was set when he opened the National War Memorial, when the President, as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, should have. May 28 will reinforce that tendency. It is this overbearing approach, which will keep away the Vice President, who is also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, too, that the Opposition’s protest highlights. </p>.<p>The ordinary citizen is bewildered as to what all the fuss is about. The Opposition’s boycott of the inauguration is only symbolic, as they well know that they have to attend Parliament in that very building henceforth. Nor can anyone take away credit for the new Parliament building from Prime Minister Modi. For good or bad, and despite all the opposition to it, it is his plan that has taken shape now. Yet, it is only a building, howsoever grand. The majesty of Parliament lies not in the building but in the Constitution under which Parliament, and the Prime Minister, function. The PM should act like a statesman and request the President to dedicate the new ‘temple of democracy’ to the people. It will set New India on the right course.</p>
<p>That it is the Prime Minister who will inaugurate the new Parliament building has attracted criticism from across political parties and a wide array of people. The grandiose plan of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to occupy centre-stage on the occasion, instead of gracefully inviting President Droupadi Murmu to do the honours, should have been avoided. It has triggered anguish over the government’s neglect of constitutional niceties. Opposition parties have said they will boycott the inauguration. This does not augur well for Parliament’s functioning henceforth.</p>.<p>The President of India is the constitutional Head of State of the Republic of India. Article 79 of the Constitution lays down that: “There shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People.” The President thus holds a unique position -- as Head of the Executive and as the sovereign symbol under whose seal Parliament makes laws. The Constitution-makers did not prescribe any procedure for the inauguration of national symbols such as the Parliament building, but the government and the ruling party are expected to show an understanding of constitutional niceties and grace, rather than pure political instinct, on such matters. Instead, Union ministers and BJP leaders have indulged in whataboutery over previous instances related to Parliament Annexe and Parliament Library. They have also argued that as the Head of Government, the PM has the right to inaugurate the Parliament building. An inconvenient fact ignored is that the PM emerges from Parliament, to which he is accountable, and so does not have the same stature as the President. Unfortunately, the precedent for the PM taking precedence was set when he opened the National War Memorial, when the President, as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, should have. May 28 will reinforce that tendency. It is this overbearing approach, which will keep away the Vice President, who is also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, too, that the Opposition’s protest highlights. </p>.<p>The ordinary citizen is bewildered as to what all the fuss is about. The Opposition’s boycott of the inauguration is only symbolic, as they well know that they have to attend Parliament in that very building henceforth. Nor can anyone take away credit for the new Parliament building from Prime Minister Modi. For good or bad, and despite all the opposition to it, it is his plan that has taken shape now. Yet, it is only a building, howsoever grand. The majesty of Parliament lies not in the building but in the Constitution under which Parliament, and the Prime Minister, function. The PM should act like a statesman and request the President to dedicate the new ‘temple of democracy’ to the people. It will set New India on the right course.</p>
