Rahul Gandhi's Cambridge Lecture , Widened Gap between Government and Opposition and Older Times

Congress leader and MP Rahul Gandhi's recent visit to the UK has sparked heated arguments across our country -- his accusations that DEMOCRACY is under attack in India, the government is undermining the constitution, and the sources provided, which were basically either anti-government print houses such as The Print or western media who have been pushing anti-Indian articles and publications. One of his claims that government machinery and agencies are being used to fix political opponents, as given as an example by the arrest of Deputy CM of Delhi Manish Sisodia, is also ironic, in the sense that he doesn't utter a word regarding this in India but expresses his concern on a foreign land. If he expresses his concern about Sisodia here, he is likely to project a strong political front against the BJP. I perceive this as barking up the wrong tree.

Nevertheless, this article is not specifically about his 1-hour lecture delivered at Cambridge University, which according to me has no positive political outcome for the Congress[ neither politically nor electorally] and remains just a desperate attempt to overcome his party's failure to face the strong cadre-based BJP.

It is about A TIME TO REFLECT ON "Government-Opposition Relations".

Primarily, political parties are the ones to form the government and opposition, but they fail to draw a line in the watertight area between political tussles and represent themselves as a unit for the country. These long-lasting issues between these parties lead to situations like this, where a prominent person from the principal opposition party defames the country on foreign soil and discredits the administrative and governing successes of the Indian government. What the opposition fails to realise is that these individuals, who are your "," have gained Janta's mandate and have assumed some of the highest positions with the people's confidence. It's a very thin line between MODI, the person, and the position he has achieved, PM.

On the other hand, the government has absolutely failed in its obligation and duty to take the opposition into account with every policy, decision, and bill it passes. There has been a series of events that have increased the gaps between the government and the opposition: All Party Meetings are a joke, the government passes the bill without any discussion or deliberation, opposition parliamentarians blame the government for the failure to discuss REAL issues, all of which have led to a situation of mistrust among themselves.

Also, there is a serious problem with the BJP for not having someone who can get consensus across the party lines and bridge the gap, which the BJP earlier had, like Pramod Mahajan and Arun Jaitley, who had friends across parties.

This takes me back to earlier times of political coexistence where the government and the party in opposition both set aside their differences and joined hands as -

On 27, 1994, Pakistan made a proposal to the United Nations Human Rights Commission through the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to condemn India for human rights violations in Kashmir. This was a clever move by Pakistan to internationalise the issue. The trouble was that if this resolution was passed, India would have to face tough UNSC economic sanctions.

At that time, PV Narasimha Rao's government was at the centre . There was immense pressure on the government. So, PM Narsimha Rao took the issue into his own hands and carefully assembled a team to represent India in Geneva. In this delegation, Atal Bihari Vajpayee led the delegation. Everyone was shocked, as Vajpayee was the leader of the opposition, and his inclusion came as a shock.

On the day of voting on the resolution, the countries which were expected to be in support of Pakistan withdrew their hands. Indonesia and Libya dissociated themselves from the resolution passed by the OIC. Syria also distanced itself from Pakistan's proposal by saying that it would look into its revised draft. On 9 March 1994, Iran demanded the passage of a revised resolution after consultations. China supported India. Having lost two of its most important supporters, China and Iran, Pakistan withdrew the resolution. Vajpayee and Narsimha Rao both engineered THE VICTORY AT GENEVA.

As Salman Khurshid accounts - "That was an occasion when India’s voice had to be heard as one voice. It was truly one voice of India . There was no desperation in the opposition, at that time led by Vajpayee, to snatch power away from the party that ruled. There was a kind of attitude and atmosphere that worked towards people getting together."

The Indian delegation at Geneva returned to the DELHI to the kind of euphoric welcome, usually given to victorious cricket teams.

Conclusion - Old School of Politicians were not SAINTS but they had their values intact whereas the new type has turned towards revenge-based politics which creates a vicious cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation. Way forward , we the citizens can only pretend as IDEALIST and vouch for the Shakespearean quote from THE TEMPEST -

" Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows " - interpreting in modern-day polity we can say-

" Politics makes strange bedfellows "