We the People & Sceptre
The inauguration of the new Parliament building has already sparked huge debates in many parts of the country. Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated on May 28, in conjunction with the Modi government's anniversary celebrations. Although the idea of a new parliament building is attractive for many reasons, the importance of the old parliament building in the history of the country is immense. This old Parliament building is situated on 2.43 hectares of land in New Delhi.
The Old Parliament Building was completed in 1927 and has witnessed many important events in the history of India, spanning almost a century. From the initial steps towards self-governance to independence and beyond, the formation of the nation was in the presence of this building. The walls of the Old Parliament House reflect many things, including heated debates, historic legislation, slogans fueled by protests, and speeches by famous leaders.
1947 was not the year India 'got' independence. It is a year in which we bought by giving the lives of many people. It was the year when a new nation called the Indian Union was formed. Its foundations are democracy, secularism, equality, federalism, and justice. It was at that time that Indians, who had been subjects for millennia, became citizens. The process of making that modern Indian citizen back into a subject is now taking place here. That is why it is opposed.
Not only is the new Parliament building being inaugurated, but it is also made up history. The new parliament building and the manufactured history created with it is also an easy way to evacuate the 'plague' of history that the Sangh Parivar cannot bear, despite the installation of Savarkar's image, a proponent of a vision of the nation that is diametrically opposed to Gandhiji's, in the central hall of the old parliament.
Not to be the prime minister of a modern Indian nation; Narendra Modi wants to be the Veerabahu of the Mahishmati nation as in the film Bahubali. Sangh group likes to see him that way; they are proud of him that way—strange births living in the warmth of past greatness.
It was the stage for the great debates of the constitution-making process, where the words of Nehru welcomed India to freedom and life while the whole world was sleeping, and the stage for Bhagat Singh's bombardment, which exploded on the deaf ears of the British authorities. What if the picture of one of the accused in the Gandhi assassination case fails to infiltrate the great national movement symbolised by the Central Hall, which has witnessed so many brilliant moments in history? What if you can't get there even though you cut the history to make room? It is like creating a fake parallel history and then organising a golden sceptre in the mirror of that history.
A sceptre is now placed over modern India from a museum in Allahabad, cleaned by Amit Shah and handed over to Narendra Modi via a Shaivite monk from Tamil Nadu, to adorn the new Parliament House's chair. The authenticity and credibility of the 'sceptre charita' cooked up at WhatsApp University, with no historical basis, have been dismantled within hours.
What is the place of the sceptre, the symbol of monarchy, in Parliament, the most important place of democracy? The sceptre is going to be brought out of its forgotten chambers and installed in the Parliament as part of the move to give Hindutva colour to some of the critical moments in India's history.
There are dangerous political overtones of a Prime Minister constitutionally enthroning himself as the supreme head of the nation, superseding the President and the Constitution, who is the head of the nation and both houses of Parliament. Behind this is a move to replace India's dawn of independence, as the world still understands it through Nehru's speech and the like, with the Brahminical-Raja imagery of the passing of the sceptre.
It was just a ceremony created by those interested in rituals and Brahminical culture. What relevance does the withdrawal of the British and India's independence have to the ceremony or what is supposed to have followed the transfer of power by the kings?
The most significant event in Indian history took place in the Parliament building on August 14, 1947. It was on that day that the Indian Constitution-Making Committee announced that the administration of India had been taken over from the British. At 11 pm President Dr. The Constituent Assembly was formed under the leadership of Rajendra Prasad. This was followed by India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's famous 'Tryst with Destiny' speech. Echoing the country's aspirations and speeches, this speech has been recorded as one of the great speeches of the 20th century. The tricolour flag was first flown as the national flag of India over this Parliament building.
The dawn of India's independence, which the world still understands through Jawaharlal Nehru's speech, Now there is a move to replace the sceptre with Brahmin-king imagery.
The President has no place at the foundation stone laying or inauguration of the new Parliament building. The Vice President, who is the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, also has no place in the inauguration ceremony; only Narendra Modi. Nation means Modi, and Modi means nation. A slave phrase reminiscent of the old emergency is being imposed through symbols.
As for the sceptre that Amit Shah and Modi bring from history, the difference in meaning that occurs when it reaches the Parliament of India in the present day is important. The sceptre, which was a symbol of royal power, is coming to the new India after 2014, not as a museum piece; it is the rod of power of fascism falling on democracy.
It is not surprising that the Sangh Parivar, which has not faced any accusation of having any role in the freedom struggle by claiming that Amit Shah fabricated the red carpet story as a ceremony of 'transfer of power', sees independence as a 'mere ceremony of transfer of power'. But for the Indian nationalist movement, freedom also meant the political, social, and economic emancipation of every Indian. Crores of people in India tried to realise that dream of liberation by building a constitution that guaranteed liberty, justice, equality, and fraternity. What the Constitution did was make the people sovereign in an independent India. If the sovereignty of the people is to be respected, the presiding officer of the new Parliament is the famous preamble of the Constitution, which begins: We the People; Not a Sceptre.
The evolution of 'New India' is marked by the fact that wrestlers, who have raised national pride and fame in front of the world, have to take to the streets in search of justice on the day that the sceptre of the monarchy is replaced by the constitution that guarantees justice. The accused who walks into the grand new Parliament building today with a body language of haughty authority and swagger becomes the crowning epitome of the 'new India'.
The Sangh Parivar replaced the constitution with Sengol as it sought to fulfil their failed dream of transferring power to a Hindu Rashtra along with Islamic Pakistan in 1947. What else is the message of that sceptre if not that of a fascist religious state that falls on constitutional values and secular-democratic India? Added to this is the difference in posture of the lions on the new Ashoka pillar erected above the new Parliament building.
It is also no coincidence that in place of the peaceful lions that adorned the old Ashoka pillar at Sarnath, the depiction of lion figures with protruding fangs and menacing lion figures with a violent expression. The choice of characters to fit the fascist logic of force and violence is deliberate. Through those symbols, the nature and values of the nation are being violently redefined. What is the relationship between the inauguration ceremony of the Parliament building with Yaga and the fundamental duty of the Constitution to promote scientific awareness?
There is a constitution hall in the new parliament building, but when the historic central hall where the original constitution was made is right next door, why a new constitution hall? How is it possible in today's India not to suspect that the constitution of secular-democratic India is not a foresight to build a new constitution of a religion-based state? New citizenship law, new concept of nation based on religion, new parliament, new constitution hall, new constitution, new constructed history, new place names, and above all, the inauguration of the new parliament building on Savarkar's birthday There is a single supreme leader with a brand new rod of authority. If the sceptre is now the coronation, those who do not yet understand all the ingredients and outlines must be so naive.
A new history of democracy's journey from the Amritakal to the Dead Period has begun. The lions rampant above the parliament of that time, the sceptre of fascist power inside the parliament, and the Swayamsevaks carrying sticks and spikes on the streets would be marked.
The news that the inauguration of the new building is on the day predicted by the astrologers has not yet been seen. The day chosen is Savarkar's birthday. Nothing happens by chance, even though it may seem like a coincidence. The news that the inauguration of the new building is on the day predicted by the astrologers has not yet been seen. The day chosen is Savarkar's birthday. Nothing happens by chance, even though it may seem like a coincidence. It has to be said that Narendra Modi has inaugurated the Parliament of the Hindutva Rashtra, which has been declared "to be established in 2025, the centenary year of the RSS, if the situation is favourable.".
In Ayodhya, Narendra Modi was the high priest who laid the foundation stone with pujas for the construction of the temple in Ayodhya. In memory of Nehru, the priests of Thiruvavatthurai have come to the inauguration and handed over the sceptre given by the Math from the museum in Allahabad to Narendra Modi. The sceptre is a relic of history that is abandoned in democracy. Modi, who admires the sceptre, is another Louis XIV—Louis who declared the nation was waiting for the revolution of the people. A revolution happens at the height of power Those who shamelessly say that the birth of democracy was not in Athens but in ancient India are busy making new history. Tomorrow, children's textbooks will proclaim that Narendra Modi is the father of parliamentary democracy in India.
Karl Marx's words that history repeats itself first as a tragedy and then as a farce resonate in this situation as well.
