Myth-making in a democratic era

The inauguration of the new parliament building in Delhi was marred by numerous controversies, including the absence and non-cooperation of most opposition parties. This followed the concern that the government acted arbitrarily in deciding the inauguration formalities. On Sunday, Prime Minister Modi opened the building and placed a Sengol, purportedly used earlier to symbolise the transfer of power from the British in 1947, near the Speaker’s podium. The inauguration took on the semblance of a religious ceremony, complete with rituals, chants, and even a prostration by the prime minister. These were among the many questionable choices the government made ahead of the event. While President Droupadi Murmu, as the head of state, had the rightful claim to inaugurate the building that houses the country’s highest democratic forum, the prime minister assumed the role of the chief orchestrator. Unfortunately, Murmu’s rightful role was unjustly overlooked.

Also Read | Sengol installed in Lok Sabha will continue to inspire us, says PM Modi

Additionally, the installation of the Sengol, a sceptre presented to Jawaharlal Nehru by a Hindu mutt in Tamil Nadu, has created a new controversy with the claim that it serves as a national symbol. However, there is no historical evidence to substantiate the claim that it represents a transfer of power. Despite its neutral nature as a royal sceptre, the circumstances surrounding the Sengol have transformed it into a religious symbol, oddly suggesting kingship in a democracy. Modi subtly implied this by stating that the Sengol would connect India’s pre-colonial past with its future. In reality, there is no need to fabricate new symbols to unite India’s past, present, and future, and it is regrettable that such symbols are being created through misrepresentation of historical objects and events. This practice aligns with recent trends of myth-making and historical revisionism, now permeating the very halls of the parliamentary republic, whose motto is ‘Satyameva jayate’ (Truth alone triumphs).

Also, it is disheartening that the inaugural ceremony witnessed the participation of only the government, the ruling party, and a few select parties, while most opposition parties chose to stay away. The 20 parties that refrained from attending the event rightly argued that the President, as the highest symbol of the republic, should have been entrusted with the inauguration. The government should have acknowledged this legitimate demand, instead of allowing the ceremony to be dominated by Prime Minister Modi. Parliament represents the entire nation and all political parties, and thus, the event should have exemplified national unity transcending politics and partisanship. Unfortunately, the government’s partisan approach diminished the significance of the moment, detracting from its true greatness.