Parliament is not a place or a building but it is an ideology, a concept, a philosophy shaped by our forefathers to embrace democracy, secularism, socialism and freedom.
In the General Elections of 1952 where Dr. B.R. Ambedkar lost to the Congress Party but still then Prime Minister Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru invited him to be India’s first Law Minister, showed us the inclusivity and defined the beauty of democracy. On the other hand, we witnessed the auspicious inauguration of an enormous Parliament building totally defying the ideology behind the making of Parliament.
The Parliament is totally different from the concept of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. Being the shrine of a secular state does not enforce any particular religion. As Parliament belongs to the citizens of India be it of any clan, any caste, or any religion. Thus, the traditional ceremonies performed for the inauguration brought protest and was boycotted by almost 20 opposition parties.
Although Mr. Modi declares Parliament as the temple of Democracy and still does not invite The Head of the Parliament, The President of India, came as a shock and did offend the masses and opposition as well.
The new Parliament as the symbol of aspirations of People of India while simultaneously these aspirations of People of India were crushed under the foot of police when the wrestler’s protest was oppressively suppressed when they tried to march to India’s new Parliament building.
The question that still remains is the philosophy behind the parliament still intact?
.png)
Very poorly written.
No correlation between different lines.
Does not make any sense.
In every country, traditional ceremonies are performed. This is not something which is happening for the first time.
I don't see why you mentioned ram mandir here? In what sense?
I