The Gaurav Gogoi Question!

Months on, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has foamed at the mouth that the alleged Pakistan affiliation by Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi is a national security issue. Not political rivalry. Not ideology conflict. National security.

Such is not a haphazard wording. It is the gravest accusation which can be brought against a democracy.

The charges were multiplied many times over: mentions of the previous professional activity of Gaurav Gogoi’s wife in Pakistan, mentions of Ali Taukeer Sheikh being flagged in an Assam Police SIT investigation, hints that this was not part of partisan politics. This was this message it was about protecting India.

New Delhi did something wonderful then.

The same Gaurav Gogoi was appointed President of the India-Philippines Parliamentary Friendship Group - a formal diplomatic grouping which is to fortify the India-Foreign relationships.

Pause for a moment.

When the foreign affiliations of an MP are said to be posing national security, then how is he entrusted to represent India in an international parliamentary body? Is Parliament unaware? Is the security apparatus slumbering? Or can national security be bargained on?

It is not a minor contradiction. It is glaring.

The Chief Minister responded in an ironic fashion and proposed that Gogoi should lead a Pakistan Parliamentary Friendship Group. The snort might have brought in laughter, but it also revealed the incompatibility behind it. In case the threat is real, sarcasm is not the reaction - an institutional resistance would be.

Union Minister of State Pabitra Margherita, tried to do damage control and withdrew the nomination process. He made it clear that Gogoi has continued to be an elected member of parliament and is still enjoying his privileges unless he is proven guilty. Inquisitions, he said, will be pursued.

Fair enough. Due process must prevail.

The inconvenient fact here is, however, that on the one hand, you cannot raise an allegation to the pitch of national security in a breath and, on the other, that you can dump it as ordinary parliamentary business. The accusation is serious enough to be subject to instant institutional protection, or this is mere heinous political rhetoric meant to incite.

When the issue of national security is brought up, there is no in-between ground.

In case the government actually feels that Gogoi is dangerous then instead of jibing at him publicly it should intervene appropriately. In the unlikely event that parliamentary leadership does not perceive a threat of the same, then the unremitting effort to project Gogoi as a security threat starts to appear as a case of political overstep.

It is no longer the case of a single MP. It is about credibility.

The issue of national security cannot be weaponised as campaign speak and watered down by institutional action. When that expression is taken loosely, it is rendered meaningless and when it is rendered meaningless a real danger is that the real dangers will be sent to the point of triviality.

Ultimately, the question boils down to this: Is it an issue of serious security concern that needs to be proved - or a storyline in the political theatre?

Since all is national security, then nothing really is.

ALSO READ: Assam CM Hits Out at Gaurav Gogoi, Claims Pakistan-Funded Connections and Intelligence Breach