Had the act taken place, the sight would have torn democratic traditions to shreds, Speaker Om Birla said
NEW DELHI: Speaker Om Birla disclosed in Lok Sabha on Thursday that it was at his request that PM Narendra Modi had decided not to come to Lok Sabha to reply to the President’s address, as he had concrete information that protesting opposition members standing near Modi’s designated seat could pull off some “unexpected act”.“Had such an unpleasant act happened, then its sight would have torn the country’s democratic traditions to shreds,” he said amid protests from opposition MPs.Modi’s scheduled reply to the Motion of Thanks on the President’s address was called off at last minute on Wednesday due to intense protest from opposition MPs, with some women members hovering near the PM’s seat ahead of his expected arrival. Many other members from Congress and regional parties were raising slogans in protest, including over BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s reference to several books carrying uncharitable references to members of the Nehru-Gandhi family. Birla said, “The whole country watched the incident yesterday as to how some women members reached there. It was not in accordance with the House’s dignity.”Birla also made it clear to the Opposition the House will not function “either today or tomorrow” if they continue bringing posters and pamphlets inside and asked them to express their views in line with parliamentary traditions.With the discussion on the motion thwarted since Monday over LoP Rahul Gandhi’s insistence on referring to an unpublished book written by former army chief M M Naravane and Birla disallowing it, Lok Sabha passed the motion with a voice vote without Modi’s reply, a first since the NDA regime began in 2014, though not without precedence. Birla also voiced disapproval of opposition members’ vocal protest at his office — an apparent reference to their show of displeasure over Dubey’s speech — and slammed it as a “black spot” in parliamentary conventions. It has never happened that MPs bring their political differences to the office of speaker in such a manner.“It is in no way appropriate that the leader of the House (PM) could not speak.” He thanked Modi for accepting his request aimed at maintaining the House’s dignity.Absolute lie, says Priyanka; PM hid behind Birla, claims RahulCongress on Thursday accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of seeking cover behind the Speaker as it rubbished the Chair’s statement that the PM had skipped his scheduled reply to the Motion of Thanks in Lok Sabha on Wednesday over fears that women MPs of Congress could trigger an unprecedented incident against the BJP mascot. It further said that Om Birla’s statement had been dictated by the Modi govt.Rahul Gandhi said, “Modi was so scared of the truth that he sought refuge in lies. Khair, jo uchit samjha, woh kiya (anyway, he did what he felt appropriate)” — the remark in Hindi being a sarcastic reference to what General MM Naravane has said was the PM’s stand during the Chinese aggression.Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra said, “They are making the Speaker say all this because yesterday he (PM) did not have the guts to come to the house. Because three women were standing in front of his bench?”Priyanka asked what was so strange if women MPs were standing in front of the treasury benches. “There is no question of anyone raising any hand on the PM or trying to hurt him or any such thing. There is no question. It is an absolute lie.”With the ruling BJP castigating the Opposition for stalling PM Modi’s speech on the President’s address, Congress spokesman Jairam Ramesh recalled that on June 10, 2004, then PM Manmohan Singh was prevented by BJP from speaking on the Motion of Thanks. Ramesh posted on X Singh’s reply to the Motion of Thanks on March 10, 2005, where Singh starts his speech by saying that he had “waited out an entire year to perform this happy task” and thanked the President for the address of both 2004 and 2005.Ramesh said, “…we needed to put it on record that UPA PM Manmohan Singh was not allowed by the BJP to reply to the motion of thanks in 2004 even though the house had concluded the discussion on the motion, and only Singh’s reply remained.”
