Fuel in terms of returned awards were sourced, oxygen in terms of Bihar election results was available, spark as in Aamir Khan’s remark was procured and a stage was set in winter session of parliament to burn all key reforms including GST bill in flames of intolerance denting the credibility of Modi government when it mattered most. It could be the sweetest revenge possible for the debacle in 2014 general election. Hence, Several notices were sent in both house of parliament for debating and condemning the ‘perception’ of rising intolerance.

Are current Parliamentarians (many of them) qualified to debate intolerance in Parliament? Is Congress morally right in debating intolerance, given they took whole parliament at ransom in previous sessions for their demands of removing Sushma Swaraj and simultaneously not being tolerant enough to listen to the accused? Is BJP capable of contradicting its own view on ‘obstruction in parliament a democratic tactic’ this time around?

Amidst many such apprehensions Loksabha started debating intolerance as the first of this series under rule 193 which did not necessitate voting. Kicking off the debate in the parliament, Md Salim went too far in accusing Rajnath Singh based on a magazine’s one line reference as a part of vast report when even the common sense suggests that had the Home Minister made such comment, it could have grabbed the front pages of headline frenzy media. In order to get prime time space on the first of such an important debate, the self-goal by the inaugural speaker left the united opposition standing on their wrong foot.

BJP had trusted Meenakshi lekhi in opening the defense and to say the least she did not disappoint. She tore into opposition with utterly logical, data driven and pin pointed responses. She accused congress as the ultimate banner that banned cow slaughter in 21 states, banned 31 book and curtailed freedom of speech when in power. Taking head on with award wapsi brigade she said that whole India is clueless on intellectuals returning awards in protest with center’s inaction on rising intolerance when law order is entirely the responsibility of states. Her power packed 40 minutes speech hinted that the BJP is more than prepared to debate intolerance once and for all.

After being marred by the first day’s debate on intolerance in the parliament, opposition tried hard to make a statement on second day, however, their leaders continued distorting data to manufacture lies. Opposition leader Mallika Arjun Kharge commented that communal clashes have increased where BJP was more present, Rijiju quickly dismissed that what Kharge’s telling does not tally with data.

Shashi Tharoor’s point of cows being safer than Muslims in India had no takers as it was hard to believe that more than 2000 years old Indian culture has degraded to this level in just 18 months. BJP MP Kirron Kher’s defense was strategically important as she belonged to the same fraternity who has taken the onus of keeping the fuss of intolerance alive. Citing references of banning Kishore Kumar, Devanand and Dilip Kumar, She lampooned congress for the intolerance shown against film fraternity when they were on their own.

She beautifully articulated the art of rising intolerance as opposition’s fallback plan whenever they fail to match BJP’s development agenda as it is the easiest thing to create a perception across the country which can’t be scientifically proven. Her mentioning of slaughtering of 50,000 sikhs in Punjab left the congress party tattered and looking for ground.

The whole intolerance debate took center stage for opposition in the parliament when India’s angriest young man Mr Rahul Gandhi chose to speak. Starting with his favorite time pass of bashing Prime Minister, he questioned the silence of Modi after Dadri incident.

Urging government to embrace the critics he ended his speech by comparing India to Pakistan where protest meant sedition, as usual he did not find the merit of adding why and how to his allegations.

Rajnath Singh in the capacity of home minister concluded the debate rejecting the allegation of rising intolerance in India however he showed the commitment of govt for zero tolerance against intolerance that they are ready for CBI probe even for the stray incidents if it is recommended by states. He extended his invitation to all intellectuals who had returned their awards for a discussion and expressed his commitment to act on their cues. Invoking India’s pride he told that Indian society can never be intolerant as tolerance is in its veins, tradition and culture hence the allegation of rising intolerance is by large an allegation on Indian society. He gave a sensible advice to all motor mouths that they should speak after thinking. When at the tail end of such a balanced speech an appalled Rajnath (due to the false accusation against him) started taking opposition for dividing India and delineating country’s focus from development, opposition could not remain more tolerant and staged walkout from the parliament.

BJP’s political acumen in parliament is in display. First they called a series to all party meeting to sense opposition’s game plan, later they prepared a solid defense to defeat the opposition in their own battle ground. While coming days in Rajya Sabha will witness more heated arguments, adjournments and walkouts, it can very well said that the government has the first round advantage. BJP should restrain itself in over mentioning of ’84 riots and atrocities against Kashmiri Pandits as it has greater danger of comparing the few isolated incidents with mayhems. Debates are desired in democracy and the more it happens, the better it will be.