B L Saraf

In the past two weeks we heard two high profile debates held in two countries which conveyed one message. Incidentally, the countries under reference- US and India -boast of high degree of culture, civilization and a firm belief in the democratic principles when it comes the governance matters.

The message to the world at large was that the civility in political behavior is a thing of past and a new “normal ” which doesn’t place much value even in the elementary etiquettes is well and truly reset in the political lexicon. The ‘normal ‘bestows a clear impunity to the vicious political discourse which, unfortunately, has become hall mark of a present day politician.

The first debate happened in USA where this year’s Presidential aspirants — Democratic Joe Bidden and Republican Donald Trump -in departure from the tradition opted for a studio debate at the CNN headquarters where audience was absent. Whereas, as per the tradition, such debates would take place in universities, organized by an institution called Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

Knowledgeable observers noted many things that would point towards an acrimonious nature of the event, and found customary civility missing. Such as : the two candidates didn’t shake hands like they used to amidst a thundering applause from the audience : talked at each other than to each other : their spouses were absent and above all there was a discernible partisan acrimony which buried many salient features of the tradition .

The contestants lost opportunity to influence potential voters because in the din both failed to project their agenda. The debate indeed ended in a futility.

In home, a debate ensued on the customary address made by the President to both houses of the Parliament which incidentally coincided with maiden session of the 18th Lok -Sabah. Two speeches setting the debate in motion had some elements enough to describe them of ‘ star attraction ‘, though for the reasons not so pious .

While re-elected PM, Narendra Modi, spoke for the Treasury Benches, Rahul Gandhi, in his new avatar as a Leader of Opposition (LOP), took the stage as star speaker for the Opposition .

For want of space and time it will not be possible to examine the speeches thread bare but what should make for it is the reflection on tone and tenor of what two eminent persons spoke.

The contents and mode of delivery of speeches made one wonder whether it was the continuation of what had been left on June the 2nd when electioneering came to the end. We were made to rehear what we had heard, ad nauseum, during the election campaign – spanning March to the end of May,2024 .

The speeches had everything in them except the seriousness in content and no regard for the basic civility. Both, PM Modi and LOP Rahul Gandhi still seem to be locked in a campaign mode.

Rahul Gandhi, in exuberance acquired by the relatively good show in the election and getting the coveted post of LOP, traversed a little bit more than was required of the occasion. Being a master craftsman with words and bestowed with an eloquent flourish in delivery, Narendra Modi, in some sense, proved more than a worthy competitor. However, in this verbal dual both civility and the facts fell a causality.

Rahul Gandhi may have bolstered his political image as a genuine leader dotting political landscape of the country but his speech in many places did sound jarring and an exercise in digression. He and the parties in opposition should understand that though their numbers have swelled in the Lok Sabha they are yet far away from claiming an outright victory.

Similarly, PM Modi and the BJP must recognize that Rahul Gandhi has added some political gravitas to his persona and is no more a ” political babe ” to be chided at the throw of a hat . Also, they may care to know that their political and numerical strength, enjoyed in 2014 and 2019, has fallen much below .

This was a solemn occasion for both Treasury and Opposition benches to lay out a vision as to how they propose to tackle myriad economic and social problems a common citizen faces in the country, even after 75 years of self-rule. In one up man ship bid the opportunity was lost.

In between the debating event we came across an interesting development emerging from the precincts of US highest judiciary which may have some bearing on socio/ political environment prevailing in India today.

The US Supreme Court made it clear to whoever wins the Presidential election that its judges ” will no longer sit back and watch their country descend into a banana republic and hurtle towards African or Latin -American -style chaos in public life .

” U .S judges made themselves clear that, though some of them may be Trump appointees, they are not going to allow Trump run away with his dictatorial instincts, should he come to occupy the White House in November, 2024 . In clear terms, the US Supreme Court has assured the Americans that it will not allow the US become a sectarian state no matter who controls the administration.

This assurance goes well with what our Supreme Court has been saying over the years when it often refers to the Constitutional morality and need of adherence to it. Apex Court Judges in India too have been speaking of it whenever occasion arose.

On completion of one year in office, on 9th November, the Chief Justice of India D Y Chandarchud spoke to a national daily emphasizing the need to adhere to the principles of constitutional morality. At another occasion Chief Justice Of India DY Chandrachud told his audience that the judiciary has a “stabilizing influence” in the evolution of societies which are rapidly growing with technology.

CJI made these observations while speaking in the 3rd Comparative Constitutional Law discussion co – hosted by the George Washington University Law Centre and society for Democratic Rights – New Delhi. He said “I do believe that we have a role to play in the overall stability of our own civilizations, our own cultures, particularly in the context of a plural society, such as India.”

An year or so ago, at a function, he emphasized importance of the people and their welfare by observing that it is the people and not the territory that makes nation. We hope our politicians understand this and rise above narrow political and polarizing considerations. They may help instill some modicum of civility and respect for one another in our social and political discourse.

(The author is former Principal District & Sessions Judge)