The no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla was doomed to fall because the Narendra Modi government has numerical superiority over the opposition parties. Has this victory accorded greater legitimacy to Birla, who was accused of blatant partisan conduct aimed at providing political comfort to the government? Has his stature as a neutral umpire been enhanced after the enormous praise he received from the ruling combine?An impartial arbitrator in parliament is designed for the protection of democratic principles. Parliament has not been conceptualised only to facilitate the government’s business and enact legislation. That can also be done without the institution of parliament, which is envisaged fundamentally to save the nation from a government drunk on power. Parliament’s primary purpose is to make the government responsive and accountable.The speaker’s role emanates from this responsibility. Lavish praise of the speaker by the rulers – be it the home minister or other MPs – has little value. The government’s frenzied defence only deepens the suspicion that the speaker is serving their interests. Only the opposition leaders’ endorsement bolsters a speaker’s credentials.The speaker sits in parliament not to protect the powerful but to ensure that the voice of the powerless is heard. The powerless are those citizens who speak through the opposition. Only the most vulnerable want an impartial arbitrator; the most powerful demand an obedient collaborator. A collaborator who will not only trample over the rights of political opponents but go so far as to deny an invitation to the president of India for the foundation-laying and inauguration ceremonies of the new parliament building; a collaborator who will see the opposition as the destroyer of the emperor’s joys rather than the protector of democratic values.The imagery of rejoicing rulers and a discontented opposition in parliament bears testimony to the umpire’s diminishing neutrality.Home minister Amit Shah made some important points in his speech: the speaker symbolises parliamentary dignity, his decision is the last word not liable to scrutiny or criticism, maintaining order and decorum is the speaker’s first task and democracy comes under a cloud if the chair is questioned.Democracy, unfortunately, wasn’t invented in 2014. B.R. Ambedkar himself warned the nation against the possibility of an individual subverting the country’s institutions. If the speaker’s wrong decisions aren’t to be contested, an undemocratic doctrine of bowing to power and authority with reverence should be formally adopted.It is true that democracy will lose its minimal legitimacy if the institutions of the chief election commissioner, chief justice of India, Lok Sabha speaker and Rajya Sabha chairperson suffer a credibility crisis. But the legitimate answer is not to silence the opposition. The answer is to offer credible remedies and restore the institutional autonomy of vital constitutional instruments.While the prime minister was busy campaigning for elections, the home minister who took charge should ideally have shown a better understanding of the issue. He talked of the speaker’s power to stop a member who violates the rules but didn’t speak a word on the speaker’s duty to protect a member’s rights.Political conflict is not about power; it is about the larger public good. The bogus theory he propagated, that the speaker’s decisions can’t be questioned, is a dangerous ploy to cripple democracy.Anybody in their senses will question the speaker’s decision to expunge anything that is critical of the prime minister. If the opposition thinks the prime minister is compromised, it is the duty of the government to offer an explanation. The speaker can’t bring the curtains down. The home minister should return to school if he believes the speaker is the government’s bulldozer.Post-truth deceptionShah feels ashamed that the government is condemned to deal with a leader of the opposition who winks, hugs and sends a flying kiss inside parliament. The culprit, Rahul Gandhi, indeed winked at a male colleague sitting next to him in the Lok Sabha, hugged the prime minister to deliver a symbolic message that political opposition didn’t mean personal enmity and blew a flying kiss towards the BJP MPs who collectively jeered at him as he was walking out.“Aankh maarte hain [he winks]…” Shah’s poignant lament contrived a moment of shame for the young leader who has defiantly refused to satisfy the government with his attitude and performance.Aankh mare… what a crime! Even those accused of swindling hundreds of crores, those charged with heinous crimes like rape, murder and engineering riots and fake encounters had never winked inside parliament. What kind of a leader was heading the opposition parties?As if winking was not bad enough, he flew to Germany, England and Singapore during parliament sessions. How could he speak from abroad? Even the kindest and the most considerate government couldn’t have arranged a video-conference for him to rip into the ruling party from foreign soil. Shah so passionately explained to the country the exact nature of the crisis that parliamentary democracy in India is grappling with!Demagogues nurture an astonishing faith in the gullibility of the masses. They know the power of propaganda can override political rationale and blunt the critical faculties of a section of the population large enough to keep them afloat. “Videsh se sadan mein kaise bologe [how will you speak in parliament from abroad]”, Shah wondered, creating a fake question to replace the real concern about freedom of speech. That was like a typical fascist attack on reason, twisting the substantive discourse to fuel surreal fantasies.Videsh se kaise bolenge…? Wow! What a concern. This was a cunning ploy to tell the nation that the leader of opposition isn’t serious about his job. His fellow BJP members giggled at this mischief; the media merrily lapped it up, pushing the truth behind the smokescreen of illogic. Shah accorded a shade of legitimacy to the farce by repeating the cliché – that parliament is run according to rules and procedures.Shah recalled that the Congress was given so many hours in every session but that Rahul didn’t participate in any debate on legislations. Scratch a little and the true intent of Shah’s contention pops up. He was suggesting that Rahul is free to speak but what he can speak will be regulated. The government and the speaker will be generous only if they can digest the content. If the leader of opposition talks about the prime minister’s nexus with a corporate house, the speaker’s axe will fall on his words. That unconstitutional intervention is hawked as a “sacred duty”.Shah insisted the conduct of the leader of the opposition will also be examined if the roles of the prime minister and the speaker are scrutinised. Who will tell the conceited home minister that the prime minister’s responsibilities can’t be compared with the opposition leader’s job?History is known by the ruler’s conduct; from Adolf Hitler to Donald Trump, the world knows what the rulers do. Who knows what the leader of opposition in England was doing when Winston Churchill led the forces into World War II? India’s media doesn’t understand, but the home minister should know that the accountability monster chases the rulers, not their opponents.What’s unparliamentary?Shah said parliament is not a mela (fair) where anybody can speak anything. That’s not open to dispute; parliament indeed is not a mela where trade and entertainment reign. No ringmaster’s whip can make the lion dance here. Compromise and obedience do not constitute the opposition leader’s “sacred duty”. A genuine fight for democracy and sovereignty, for justice and accountability, will invariably drift beyond the cozy mela culture. The government will definitely not have a problem if Rahul behaves like a trained circus lion.Alas! He hasn’t internalised the message despite a sustained vilification campaign, countless legal cases and even an expulsion from parliament.He could have criticised, or praised, the prime minister on triple talaq, Article 370, the Jal Jeevan Mission, the Ayushman Bharat scheme or the Viksit Bharat agenda. Why jump to Rafales, talk about being compromised, refer to Chinese aggression or the surrender in the trade deal with the US? And then enter that strict no-go zone of the Epstein gutter. So incorrigible! Let’s discuss winking and hugging. Why delve into the wicked world of Epstein who trafficked and raped little girls. Right, Mr Home Minister?Anybody doing that will rightly be stopped by the speaker. So what if a minister’s name is splashed all over the Epstein files? So what if a discredited businessman pleaded with the sex offender to fix the prime minister’s meetings? Keep those things under wraps. If you don’t behave like a good boy, they will unleash a Nishikant Dubey, who will throw mud on four generations, blackening the face of your entire family. The speaker will not intervene then because his “sacred duty” is to stop only opposition leaders.Sanjay K. Jha is a political commentator.