New Delhi, Aug 09: In a move that raised eyebrows, the Centre and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chose to sidestep addressing the critical situation in Manipur during the discussion on the no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha. Instead, the debate became a platform for highlighting the perceived contradictions within the coalition of opposition parties and extolling the achievements of the Modi government.
As the outcome of the no-confidence motion seemed predestined due to the overwhelming majority enjoyed by the BJP in the Lok Sabha, the main intrigue centered on whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi would participate in the discussion before delivering his response.
While Prime Minister Modi was present in the Parliament complex, he chose not to attend the Lok Sabha session on Tuesday. His reply is scheduled for Thursday, prompting members of the opposition to emphasize the need for the Prime Minister to address the Manipur issue, which compelled them to bring forth the no-confidence motion.
The tone of the BJP’s response to the motion was set by Nishikant Dubey, the MP representing Godda in Jharkhand. In his remarks, he briefly alluded to the situation in Manipur before launching a series of criticisms against various opposition parties for aligning with the Congress. He directed his queries at parties such as the DMK, Trinamul, and RJD, reminding them that their legal troubles could be traced back to their association with the Congress.
While subsequent speakers from the BJP and its ally Shiv Sena avoided addressing the Manipur situation, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju indicated that Home Minister Amit Shah would delve into the issue in detail during his intervention.
Also Read: 11 Distinguished Officers from Tripura Police Elevated to IPS Rank
Rijiju’s intervention mainly revolved around highlighting the long-standing strife in Manipur, attributing it to the negligence of the Congress. He underscored the achievements of the Modi government and its attention to the Northeast. However, he refrained from directly addressing the current plight of Manipur.
The Shiv Sena’s contribution to the debate came from Shrikant, son of Maharashtra’s Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. His remarks echoed the BJP’s stance and touched upon local Maharashtra politics.
While the discussion deviated from the Manipur issue at times, each opposition speaker made it a point to address the situation in the state. RSP’s N.K. Premachandran criticized the Prime Minister’s silence in the face of the suffering in Manipur, labeling it as “total indifference.” He questioned the failure of the “double-engine governance” in addressing the crisis and the Prime Minister’s absence in making a statement on the matter.
The Trinamool’s Saugata Roy decried the lack of attention given to Manipur’s distress, portraying it as a reflection of the ruling party’s insensitivity. He demanded the dismissal of the BJP-led government in Manipur and questioned the Prime Minister’s overseas travels while the state faced turmoil.
NCP’s Supriya Sule called for the resignation of Manipur’s Chief Minister, highlighting the matter as an issue of women’s dignity. She criticized the government’s track record, citing unfulfilled promises and inaction on critical matters.
The no-confidence motion debate underscored the tensions between the opposition and the ruling party. While the BJP chose to steer clear of the Manipur situation during the debate, opposition members reiterated the urgency of addressing the issue and called for greater accountability.
The discussion also highlighted the power dynamics and the complexity of political rhetoric within the Indian Parliament. As the no-confidence motion unfolds, it remains to be seen how the government and the opposition navigate the intricacies of public discourse and address the critical concerns raised by the motion.
