Ashok Ogra
ashokogra@gmail.com
Rahul Gandhi being disallowed by the Hon’ble Speaker to refer to a reputed magazine article – carrying excerpts from a yet-to-be-published book by former Army Chief Manoj Mukund Naravane – should be viewed in a democratic and institutional light, not merely as a matter of parliamentary propriety.
Members of Parliament have the right to speak freely inside the House. This protection, known as parliamentary privilege, exists so that matters of public concern can be raised without fear of legal consequences.
It is worth noting that the material Rahul Gandhi was trying to cite was neither secret nor leaked intelligence. It had already been published by an established magazine, which means it was part of the public domain. In parliamentary systems, elected representatives are expected to debate issues already being discussed in society. Referring to published material is not unusual; it is part of normal political discourse.
Interestingly, General Naravane has not publicly denied the excerpts attributed to him. Until an author disputes what has been published, those extracts remain part of legitimate public discussion.
It is also worth remembering who the source is. General Naravane served as Chief of Army Staff of the Indian Army, a role involving the highest responsibility for national security. An officer who rose through every major rank, including promotions from Major General to Army Chief during the tenure of the current regime, would have been carefully vetted at each stage. His professional views may be debated or disagreed with, but they cannot simply be brushed aside as uninformed, or not in the interest of India’s security. To argue that his observations should not even be discussed would indirectly question the system that elevated him to the top – a conclusion few would support.
The broader issue, therefore, is not about Rahul Gandhi’s speech but about whether Parliament should remain open to informed discussion, even when it is uncomfortable. Democratic institutions do not become stronger by avoiding debate; they grow stronger when they address difficult issues openly. At the same time, this does not give the Opposition a free hand to disrupt Parliament. Debate must take place within established rules. The responsibility to keep proceedings orderly lies with all parties.
Parliament relies on information circulating in society; it cannot investigate every issue independently. When published journalism is kept out of discussion, the range of debate becomes narrower.
In 2010, Arun Jaitley, while in Opposition, justified parliamentary disruption as a democratic right under certain circumstances. That position may have served the BJP politically when in the opposition, but it has weakened its moral ground when in government. Today, BJP has distanced itself from that ill-advised remark of Arun Jaitley. A tactic defended in opposition became a vulnerability in power.
A similar situation can arise with objections to Rahul Gandhi citing a published article in Parliament. When political roles reverse, the same rule could be used to silence BJP members when sitting in the opposition. Parliamentary norms, once bent for convenience, rarely stay selective- they return as constraints on those who first shaped them.
Indian political history shows that many major national issues first appeared in the press before reaching Parliament. During the time of Jawaharlal Nehru, the Mundhra financial scandal surfaced after newspapers drew attention to questionable investment decisions involving public money. The issue did not remain confined to editorials. MPs, led by the Congressman and son-in-law of PM Nehru- Feroz Gandhi, raised it in Parliament. Nehru’s government faced tough questioning, which eventually led to the resignation of Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari and the setting up of a judicial inquiry. It was one of the earliest examples of press reports leading directly to parliamentary accountability.
A similar pattern appeared during the years of Indira Gandhi. Several controversies- ranging from government decisions to concerns about the functioning of institutions- first gained attention through media reporting. Opposition MPs often relied on newspaper investigations and magazine stories, including those relating to Sanjay Gandhi, to question the government inside Parliament. The press brought issues into the open; Parliament became the forum where they were debated.
The trend extended to matters involving leaders’ families as well. During the Janata Party period, newspapers carried allegations concerning Morarji Desai’s son, Kanti Desai. Some of these claims were sharp and even speculative, but they were taken up in Parliament by political opponents, compelling the leadership to respond. Whether or not such allegations were later proven, the important democratic point was that media reports led to parliamentary questioning.
Parliament is not a court deciding guilt or innocence. It is a forum of political accountability. Issues raised by journalists – confirmed, disputed, or unclear- can still be debated because they involve public trust and governance.
This tradition continued in later decades. Investigative reporting by Arun Shourie exposed misuse of authority in the Antulay episode. The issue became nationally significant when it reached Parliament, eventually leading to the resignation of Chief Minister A.R. Antulay.
The Bofors controversy followed the same pattern. Noted journalist Chitra Subramaniam tracked alleged kickbacks in a defence deal. Her investigative reporting in a national daily brought the matter into public view, but it was parliamentary debate that turned it into a political storm. Later, the telecom spectrum case and the coal block allocation issue during Manmohan Singh’s tenure were also first widely reported in the media before dominating parliamentary sessions.
This link between the press and Parliament has long been recognised by political thinkers. Edmund Burke described the press as the Fourth Estate, acknowledging its role alongside formal institutions. John Stuart Mill argued that open discussion is essential to correct mistakes and approach truth. Their ideas underline the belief that power should operate in the open, subject to questioning.
Western democracies provide similar examples. The Watergate Scandal began with media reporting and led to hearings in the US Congress and the resignation of President Nixon. The Pentagon Papers revelations moved from newspapers into legislative debate. In the UK, media exposure of MPs’ expenses resulted in reforms and prosecutions. Even current debates, such as those around the disputed Epstein files, show how media stories lead to questions in legislatures.
The media is not perfect. Some influential and reputed western outlets repeated flawed claims before the Iraq War. In India, live coverage during the 2008 Mumbai attacks raised concerns about security risks. Fast news cycles can spread unverified information. But mistakes do not justify silencing the press. The answer to weak journalism is better journalism and open discussion, not restrictions.
From Mundhra and Antulay to Bofors, telecom, and coal, the pattern has been consistent: the press uncovers, Parliament questions. This connection keeps power under scrutiny and maintains the link between citizens and the state. Weakening that link weakens accountability.
In conclusion, the current debate is about more than one speech (RG). Parliament depends on information already circulating in society. Therefore, preventing references to published journalism narrows debate and weakens the democratic process. Let me paraphrase the wise words of former US President Ronald Reagan “Information is the oxygen of the modern democracies.”
(The author teaches media studies at the reputed Apeejay Education Institutes.)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
