By K Raveendran
The role of the Rajya Sabha Chairman stands as a symbol of authority, decorum, and impartiality. The manner in which these individuals conduct proceedings not only shapes legislative outcomes but also influences public perception of the functioning of democracy itself.
Incumbent chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar the other day expressed his anguish over the situation prevailing in the House, stating that ‘it was painful for him’ to witness Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge entering the Well to protest. Dhankhar went on to criticize Kharge for allegedly misreporting, misrepresenting, and speaking untruths outside the house. This direct confrontation with a senior opposition leader underscored Dhankhar’s confrontational approach and his willingness to call out perceived misconduct without mincing words.
In similar circumstances way back in 2021, the response by the then chairman Venkaiah Naidu said a lot about his personality. Naidu’s approach to presiding over the Rajya Sabha was marked by his commitment to parliamentary decorum and adherence to procedural norms. His speeches often resonated with quotes from Indian scriptures and historical references, emphasizing the gravity of parliamentary proceedings. One of his defining moments came during a particularly tumultuous session when members of the house turned unruly, threatening to disrupt proceedings. In a display of both vulnerability and firmness, Naidu broke down, visibly moved by the chaos unfolding before him. His emotional response underscored his deep-seated belief in the sanctity of parliamentary democracy and the responsibility of elected representatives to uphold its ideals.
Venkaiah Naidu, a seasoned politician known for his oratory skills and deep-rooted political experience. Prior to this role, Naidu had served in various ministerial capacities, displaying a reputation for diplomacy and consensus-building. Throughout his tenure, Venkaiah Naidu was noted for his patience and tolerance in dealing with dissenting voices. He was known to give ample opportunity for all members to voice their opinions while maintaining order and discipline. His speeches from the chair were often balanced, urging members to uphold parliamentary traditions and engage in constructive debate rather than resorting to theatrics or obstructionism.
In contrast to Venkaiah Naidu’s statesman-like demeanour, Jagdeep Dhankhar has been known for his assertive style and vocal stance on various political issues and brought a confrontational edge to the role of Rajya Sabha chairman. His speeches often carry a tone of directness, reflecting his impatience with what he perceives as parliamentary inefficiencies and opposition obstinacy.
Dhankhar’s handling of disruptions within the house has drawn attention for its provocative nature. The personality of Jagdeep Dhankhar reveals his legal background and informs his sharp understanding of procedural matters, but it also adds a layer of rigidity to his approach. Dhankhar’s speeches often highlight his frustration with the slow pace of legislative progress and his desire to expedite decision-making processes.
The contrasting responses of Venkaiah Naidu and Jagdeep Dhankhar to similar parliamentary challenges underscore their divergent leadership styles and philosophical approaches to governance. Naidu’s tenure was characterized by a focus on consensus-building and preserving the dignity of parliamentary proceedings. His emotional breakdown during a particularly chaotic session revealed a leader deeply invested in upholding the sanctity of democratic institutions.
On the other hand, Dhankhar’s tenure has been marked by a more confrontational stance, with an emphasis on accountability and expediency. His provocative rhetoric and direct challenges to opposition members reflect a leadership style that prioritizes action over consensus.
Naidu’s tenure was defined by tolerance, even-handedness, and a commitment to upholding parliamentary traditions. His emotional response to disruptions underscored his belief in the importance of decorum and respect within the house. The results were indeed telling: when he took charge as chairman, productivity of the House in the first five sessions was in the range of only 6.80 percent to 58.80 percent, which improved over the next eight sessions, from 76 percent to over 100 percent. (IPA Service)
