Addressing the Critique : A Balanced Perspective

“NO GOVERNMENT CAN BE LONG SECURE WITHOUT A FORMIDABLE OPPOSITION “

                                                                                             : -Benjamin Disraeli

India is a vast country comprising of 3.287 million KM2  ,with 141.72 crore (2022) population density of 488 people per square kilometer. Which is consisting of 543 constituencies from all across 28 states and 8 union territories, in Lok Sabha and in Rajya Sabha there are all total 250 members 238 representing states and union territories and left 12 members are nominated by the President of India on various grounds.

India has opted FPTP mode (FIRST PASS THE POST SYSTEM), thus which comprise one single representative from all different constituencies, which are further is classified on basis of their ideologies or institutional moto. and further they can be classified as majority or minority one who forms the government is majority and rest in minor which is consist together to form an opposition.

                                       The term opposition was most probably not required till the Nehruvian era (1952-1964) when there was Indian National Congress in Centre headed by Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, and till his time the opposition was not required as the leader in majority government acted as opposition on to certain matters which were of great concern.

The role which is most crucial in policies is played by people not sitting in to the majority, it is and it could be only done the member sitting in the opposition. (OPPOSITION ACT 1977) having 10 percent of total members, which have structured their salary &allowances. and has Statutory recognition with rank similar to any other cabinet minister.

                                                  The opposition ensures the proper formation of any act which is to be implied on people of nation. the ideology of opposition has been drastically changed post coalition period. Earlier it was that focused on proper smooth functioning of parliament, but later time passed it has completely changed its ideology to toward “disrupting the parliament sessions “which resulted in slow and steady functioning and lack of qualitative output in certain sets of which were required by the time.

There have been ideal leaders who have performed well while being in opposition against the functioning government instead of disrupting the parliamentary session, they have stood on their ideas and concerns which made them to make it applicable.

 Few of great leaders are Jayaprakash Narayan one of leaders who have stood against entire government who had organized Total revolution against the Indira Gandhi led government. Acted against corruptions, Anti-establishment movements, which have significant impact on political landscape.  Indira Gandhi has acted one of the strongest opposition roles during period of political turbulences. Atal Bihari Vajpayee who has acted a crucial role in critiquing the congress government and advocating for alternative policies. etc.…

                      There are many of more such leaders, who can perform ethical than what is being practiced in parliament these days. Which could result in crisp the intellect on issues   which are modern and have not been glanced, which could in welfare of common people and citizens of the State.

Thus, as conclusion, we don’t need leaders who are thrilled to own the power and not the leaders who are loafing after attaining the power. thus, what we (common people of nation) need is a moderate leader who could act in interest for which he/she has been elected whether they are in government or in opposition as we call our self as The Biggest Democracy of the world, we have to act far different to be ideal.