It is a catch-22 situation. If you have a debate in Parliament even before the surcharged emotions due to the recent riots and violence in northeast Delhi have had time to cool, chances are that rival speakers would further inflame divisive passions. But if you don’t have a debate on the violence which left 53 dead and more than 400 injured, besides loss of property worth hundreds of crores, Parliament would lose its relevance, its sheer raison d’etre for discussing and debating the concerns of the people. However, the compromise solution is to hold a debate after a proper cooling period. Creating pandemonium in Parliament and not allowing it to function is not the way to show solidarity with the victims of the riots. Let not the sparks that are bound to fly both ways in a potential debate light up the fires of sectarian violence yet again. And let not the local police and other agencies engaged in restoring peace and relief and rehabilitation be detracted by finger-pointing that is bound to be the staple of the two-way harangues from our honourable MPs. Simply put, we are not against Parliament debating the ugly events in northeast Delhi. No, but we are afraid that instead of a constructive contribution, the proposed debate will see a rabid display of a both-sides-ism. Since nobody who occupies the Opposition benches has a spotless riot-free record while in power, the ruling party is bound to recall with great gusto their past record to fob off the charge of its failure in maintaining peace. Genesis of the violence in northeast Delhi would certainly lead to charges of dark forces sustaining the anti-CAA protests. In short, such a debate would run through a set-piece course and yield nothing more than a rehash of charges and counter-charges between the ruling and Opposition members. Thus, it is a wrong to suggest that an open debate in the Lok Sabha and/or in the Rajya Sabha even before the victims of the violence have had time to re-configure and re-constitute their lives after all the loss and devastation would serve as a great healer. No, it would only spray more salt on their wounds, with the victims depending, on their own personal perspective of the violent events, endorsing one set of speakers while pouring scorn and ridicule on the others. A productive debate should not be an exercise in mere mud-slinging and point-scoring. It should act as a balm on the wounds of the victims of violence. Of course, there will soon be time for a debate, for fixing blame, for calling to account the government which clearly failed to correctly assess the situation when anti-CAA sit-ins blocked major arteries linking parts of the city to major roads, when tens of thousands of ordinary people were inconvenienced daily for over two months.
The ruling party abdicated its duty to remove willful obstruction with the selfish motive of exploiting it for electoral purposes, but it disregarded the fact that simmering tensions due to the prolonged road blockages could explode into a violent eruption. Now that normalcy is returning slowly to the affected areas, wisdom lies in not aggravating the situation by making passionately incendiary speeches in Parliament which would be duly shown live to the people. Therefore, the suggestion that the debate on the Delhi riots be held after Holi, that is, March 10, sounds sensible. Of course, nothing will come out of the debate barring a rancorous display of ‘tu-tu-mein-mein’, but at least members can preen themselves for out-abusing one another. Meanwhile, the demand for the resignation of Home Minister Amit Shah for the failure to prevent riots is neither here nor there. It is doubtful if anyone demanding Shah’s resignation seriously believes that he would quit (or whether they would have if they were in power when such riots had taken place).
