Political stir as Asaduddin Owaisi invokes Palestine in Lok Sabha oath

In a move that ignited political tensions, AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi’s recent remarks in the Lok Sabha, immediately following his oath of office, have drawn considerable attention and criticism. During the session, Owaisi, a five-time MP from Hyderabad, took his oath in Urdu and made statements expressing solidarity with Palestine, which led to a significant uproar among the treasury benches.

The controversy stems from Owaisi’s extension beyond the formal oath, where he mentioned “Jai Bheem, Jai Meem, Jai Telangana, Jai Palestine.” These comments prompted immediate reactions from the members of the parliament, with the presiding officer at the time, BJP leader Radha Mohan Singh, and Pro tem Speaker Bhartruhari Mahtab asserting that only the oath would be recorded officially, excluding any additional statements.

The situation escalated as Union Minister Shobha Karandlaje called for action against Owaisi, penning a letter to the Home Minister’s office and urging the Pro tem Speaker to request Owaisi to retake his oath. This incident echoes a similar scenario in the Rajya Sabha earlier this year, highlighting the delicate balance of political expression within formal proceedings.

Owaisi defended his remarks, challenging the opposition by referencing the Indian Constitution and quoting Mahatma Gandhi’s views on Palestine. He argued that his statements were in line with expressions by other members and emphasized the oppression faced by Palestinians.

This controversy coincided with the first session of the 18th Lok Sabha, which also saw 262 MPs, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, taking their oaths. The session has been marked by debates over the reappointment of Om Birla as Lok Sabha Speaker, with the INDIA bloc nominating K Suresh for the position, signaling ongoing disputes between the ruling party and the opposition.

The incident with Owaisi underlines the intricate interplay between political ideology and parliamentary decorum. It raises questions about the scope of political expression in legislative settings and the implications for diplomatic neutrality, particularly in a diverse and politically sensitive environment like India.