The Mimicry, The Chair, and The Fraying Threads of Parliament's Dignity

Parliament, the hallowed ground of democratic discourse, has recently become a stage for unsavoury spectacles, sparking widespread debate about the erosion of institutional dignity. At the heart of this recent storm lies a critical examination of the conduct surrounding the office of the Vice President, particularly C.P.

Radhakrishnan's brief stint as the Rajya Sabha Chairperson and the controversial mimicry of Jagdeep Dhankhar.

The genesis of this controversy can be traced to the Parliament complex itself, where opposition members staged a 'dharna,' a protest often marked by passionate but typically respectful dissent.

However, the situation took an unexpected and highly criticized turn when a prominent MP engaged in an act of mimicry, openly imitating Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar. What followed was a swift and intense backlash, not just against the MP, but also, critically, against those perceived to have condoned or, worse, celebrated the act.

It is C.P.

Radhakrishnan's alleged reaction, or lack thereof, that has drawn significant scrutiny. Holding the temporary charge of Rajya Sabha Chairperson, Radhakrishnan found himself under the spotlight for his perceived inaction or even approval of the incident. Critics argue that his conduct fell short of the gravitas and impartiality expected from someone presiding over the Upper House and, by extension, holding the Vice President's authority.

The question looms large: did he uphold the dignity of the Chair and the institution, or did he inadvertently contribute to its diminishing stature?

The office of the Vice President and the role of the Rajya Sabha Chairperson are imbued with profound constitutional significance. Historically, incumbents like Dr.

S. Radhakrishnan, Zakir Husain, and Hamid Ansari have been revered for their impartiality, intellectual depth, and unwavering commitment to parliamentary decorum. Their conduct set a benchmark, ensuring that even in the most heated debates, the sanctity of the legislative process remained sacrosanct.

The current episode invites an uncomfortable comparison, prompting reflection on whether these elevated standards are being upheld in contemporary political theatre.

This incident is more than just a fleeting political spat; it signifies a deeper malaise within the parliamentary ecosystem. When gestures of disrespect towards constitutional office-holders are seemingly tolerated, or even encouraged, it sends a troubling message about the value placed on institutional integrity and democratic norms.

The Vice President's office, meant to be a beacon of impartiality and a guardian of parliamentary traditions, appears increasingly vulnerable to the vicissitudes of political rivalries.

The ongoing narrative surrounding the mimicry, the 'dharna,' and the perceived responses of those in authority casts a long shadow over the state of parliamentary democracy in India.

It serves as a potent reminder that the onus of upholding the dignity of our democratic institutions rests not just with the individual members, but profoundly with those who occupy the highest constitutional offices. Restoring faith in these institutions will require a concerted effort to recalibrate conduct, re-emphasize respect, and reaffirm the foundational principles upon which India's vibrant democracy stands.