Parliamentary drama unfolded in New Delhi as BJP parliamentarian Nishikant Dubey launched a privilege motion against Rahul Gandhi, explicitly referencing the 1978 expulsion of Indira Gandhi. This bold step aims to strip the Congress leader of his Lok Sabha seat and bar him from future polls, citing breaches of House decorum.
The catalyst was Gandhi’s outspoken assault on the Centre’s trade pact with the United States during a recent session. He claimed the agreement undermines India’s sovereignty and citizen welfare, prompting immediate backlash from BJP lawmakers who sought to erase his comments from official proceedings.
On X, Dubey posted archival clips from December 1978, when a privilege committee found Indira Gandhi guilty of contempt for obstructing investigations into Sanjay Gandhi’s Maruti venture amid the Emergency. The original motion, tabled by then-PM Morarji Desai, passed after heated arguments, leading to her ejection from Parliament and incarceration until the session’s end.
Dubey meticulously outlined the process: An original motion stands alone, open for House approval, debate, and vote. He argues Gandhi’s statements constitute a direct affront to parliamentary norms, warranting identical repercussions. ‘History must repeat for privilege violators,’ he declared.
The government, through Minister Kiren Rijiju, paused its parallel initiative since Dubey’s private member’s motion takes precedence. Congress hit back, framing it as vendetta politics and defending Gandhi’s prerogative to challenge executive overreach on trade, agriculture, and energy fronts.
This saga revives the ghosts of 1978, when political fortunes swung dramatically. Indira’s disqualification was temporary, overturned in 1981, but it marked a low point in her career. Analysts view Dubey’s tactic as a counteroffensive to blunt opposition momentum, potentially reshaping Lok Sabha dynamics.
With the motion now in play, all eyes are on Speaker’s ruling and subsequent proceedings. It could either fizzle out or explode into a full-blown constitutional crisis, mirroring the intense partisanship of yesteryears.