Air strikes against ISIS or destroy Modi image: Lessons for Indian Parliament
There was drama, there was theatre, and there was a vote. In the end, after a gruelling ten-hour long debate, the British House of Commons overwhelmingly passed the government's resolution by 397 to 223 to authorise UK air strikes against so-called the Islamic State in Syria. It was parliamentary practice at its best as 67 opposition Labour MPs, including several members of the shadow cabinet, voted with the government to back air strikes after they were given a free vote by the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn whose pacifism put him in a minority within his own party.
It was a remarkable scene when shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn was applauded by the MPs from across the House when he urged his own side to "confront this evil" posed by the Islamic State, who he said "held our democracy in contempt". In an impassioned speech opposing his own leader Jeremy Corbyn's position that the case for war "does not stack up", Benn said the international community was "faced by fascists and what we know about fascists is that they must be defeated". While there were "rarely perfect circumstances to deploy military forces", he said "the threat is now" and the UK must rise to the challenge. It was Benn's speech that resulted in a decisive mandate for the Tory government in the House of Commons.
At a time when there was a danger that the message to Britain's adversary would be of a weak and divided United Kingdom, the nation's Parliament delivered a stinging rebuke to those who think that the UK is a bit player in international relations. The message from Westminster was clear and unambiguous: when the time demands, the nation's leaders can come together to face serious threats to their nation's interests as a collective, not as members of one party or the other but as politicians governing a major global power. There are reasons why Britain continues to punch above its weight and its parliamentary tradition is one of the main ones.
The decision of David Cameron to go into Syria with his bombers can be debated endlessly. It is not even clear if it will have any substantial impact on the ground realities in Syria. But that is not the point here. The larger issue is the way mature democracies handle complex political issues of national import. It would have been easier for the British political system to stake out partisan positions with the Opposition and especially the main opposition party deciding to derail the prime minister's agenda. But the two main opposition parties, the Labour and the Liberal Democrats, debated it internally and a substantial number within the Labour decided to go against their own leader's position to support the prime minister.
Compare this to the petty partisan bickering in the Indian Parliament where the "Destroy Modi" agenda of the Congress party has taken precedence over the national imperatives. Even the GST Bill, which was originally the brainchild of the Congress, has been languishing because it might help Modi's development agenda. And God forbid should Modi get credit for anything positive! Even on issues as grave as national security and foreign policy, the Congress party had had no compunction in opposing the Modi government. Congress luminaries like Mani Shankar Aiyar and Salman Khurshid are openly targeting Modi out of spite. In the past even Mumbai attacks and Batla House encounter were given communal colour just to serve short term political agenda of the party. There is a reason why India, for all its potential, continues to punch below its weight.
As Rahul Gandhi and his sycophants roll up their sleeves next time in Parliament to once again target Modi, they should remember that they are in the august building to serve the nation. The dynasty and the Congress will survive, only if India survives as a healthy, vibrant democracy which means joining hands with the government at times to serve larger public goals. If scoring debating points is the only game Rahul wants to play, then not only will he suffer, for Modi is a much superior orator but the nation and its priorities will suffer much more.
The British political system also offers some interesting pointers for Modi and his agenda. Modi has a real opportunity today to gradually turn the BJP into a traditional Centre-Right party, out of the clutches of the extreme Right which continues to hamper Modi's own developmental agenda. Just as Tony Blair took the Labour Party out of the stranglehold of extreme Left and made it a party of governance, David Cameron has tried to do the same with the Conservatives by bringing the Tory agenda to the centre. Their success underscores the continuing relevance of the maxim that elections in liberal democracies are largely won or lost on the centre ground. Modi won a massive mandate for the BJP on issues of good governance and development. If he wants to continue receiving the support from the youth and the middle classes, he now needs to ensure that the BJP evolves into a party which is conservative on economics and national security while being liberal on social and cultural issues. It is not going to be easy but if anyone can achieve this, only Modi can.
The Congress with its dynastic obsession and internal dysfunctionalities cannot really change but Modi has to find a way to govern effectively. Changing his own party is going to be much easier for him than hoping that Rahul Gandhi will evolve into a mature politician anytime soon and the Indian Parliament can start functioning like its British counterpart.