Rahul Gandhi’s Mockery of Indian Parliament: A Deeper Look into His Behavior and the decorum 

Once again, Rahul Gandhi has raised accusations that he is not allowed to speak in Parliament. This time, however, he has taken a more direct approach, specifically targeting the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Om Birla. Meanwhile, Speaker Birla has responded with a firm stance, something rarely seen in the Lok Sabha. He issued a stern reminder to Rahul Gandhi, stressing that the dignity and decorum of Parliament should be upheld. After this admonition, Rahul Gandhi not only made a statement within the House but also extended his remarks outside it, turning the dispute into an all-out battle between him and Om Birla.

Rahul Gandhi’s assertion that he is constantly denied the opportunity to speak in Parliament deserves scrutiny. It should be noted that he has been a Member of Parliament for nearly two decades, and the Congress party has had more than sufficient time to debate key issues. Nevertheless, Rahul Gandhi’s behavior in the House tends to indicate that the whole opposition should be centered around him, and his failure to grasp the parliamentary process has raised serious doubts. His conduct in Parliament, particularly his annoyance with the Speaker, is worrying.

Sometimes it appears that he feels that his family background – being the son of Rajiv Gandhi and the grandson of Indira Gandhi – puts him beyond the rules that apply to the behavior of parliamentarians. Additionally, his show of a medal in a seemingly provocative way only serves to accentuate his sense of entitlement. His recent allegations of being “stopped” from speaking due to his role, or his microphone being switched off when he talks, only manage to highlight an underlying problem – an ignorance of his role as a leader. The question that needs to be asked is: why does Rahul Gandhi believe that his role allows him to defy parliamentary conventions?

The notion that he is above criticism and deserves special treatment betrays the very essence of parliamentary democracy. Parliament is actually a forum for level-headed discussion, not for drama-filled outbursts of anger. Leaders such as Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Somnath Chatterjee, even when they were in the opposition, commanded respect and played by the rules of parliament, making sure the proceedings were dignified. But Rahul Gandhi’s actions suggest that he is more interested in creating drama than in participating in meaningful debates. Speaker Om Birla’s criticism of Rahul Gandhi’s behavior is absolutely valid.

The Speaker referred to the rulebook, which explicitly outlines behaviors that are unacceptable in the House. These include disrupting speeches, reading newspapers, interacting with others during debates, and engaging in frivolous distractions that undermine the debate at hand. Sadly, Rahul Gandhi has been observed to indulge in all these disruptive activities. In reply, Om Birla reminded him, as he reminds all MPs, to follow the rules and be respectful of the House. Further, Rahul Gandhi has publicly attacked Om Birla, stating that whenever he rises to speak, his mic is switched off, or the session is suddenly adjourned.

But this assertion is in direct contradiction to the fact that prior to Rahul Gandhi’s interventions, other members of parliament have been permitted to speak without such interruptions. This selective perception of events appears to be part of a larger narrative that Rahul Gandhi is attempting to advance, one in which he casts himself as a martyr in Parliament and blames everyone else for his failure to make progress. While Rahul Gandhi’s frustration with the Speaker is evident, it raises questions about the opposition leader’s credibility and the seriousness with which he takes his role in Parliament.

His behavior is not only disruptive but also a mockery of the institution he is supposed to be a part of. Rather than respecting the procedures and having healthy debates, Rahul Gandhi seems to be more preoccupied with bringing himself into the limelight, paying no heed to the greater cause of Parliament. This situation indicates towards a larger issue: increasing contempt of Parliament at the hands of the Leader of the Opposition.

The position of Leader of the Opposition is a prestigious one, and it comes with the responsibility to lead the opposition with respect, dignity, and maturity. However, Rahul Gandhi’s actions reflect none of these qualities. Rather than utilize the platform to challenge the government constructively, he has preferred to dwell on trivial complaints and sensationalize each scenario, which makes it increasingly difficult for the opposition to establish credibility and confidence in the minds of the public. Rahul Gandhi’s ridicule of the Indian Parliament is not only about his failure to adhere to the rules but also about the manner in which he undermines the very fabric of democratic discourse.

His persistent efforts to cast himself as a victim of systemic injustice in the Parliament only contribute to undermining the credibility of the institution. By violating the rules and acting in a manner inconsistent with the duties of a parliamentarian, he is not only eroding his own reputation but also pulling down the opposition along with him. In conclusion, Rahul Gandhi’s actions in Parliament, marked by his disregard for decorum, his repeated accusations against the Speaker, and his failure to understand the responsibilities of a leader, are a mockery of the democratic process.

His behavior serves to undermine the principles that have long guided the Indian Parliament and reflects poorly on both him and the Congress party. Instead of leading by example and using the platform to engage in productive discussions, Rahul Gandhi’s theatrics continue to distract from the important issues facing the country.