#Human #Dimension
Sadanandan Master’s act of placing his prosthetic limbs on the table of the Rajya Sabha was not a theatrical stunt but a powerful moral statement. It was a silent yet eloquent reminder of the personal cost of political violence and a testimony to what he claims to have endured in the name of ideology. Parliament is not merely a chamber of procedures; it is also a forum for truth, conscience, and lived experience.
By showing the nation what he had lost, Master sought to underline the fragility of democracy when intolerance turns into brutality. Such a gesture demands empathy and reflection, not technical hair-splitting. If democracy cannot accommodate the pain of a victim speaking through symbols, then it risks becoming an empty ritual rather than a living moral institution.
John Brittas’s objection, framed narrowly as a “point of order,” came across as insensitive and evasive. Instead of engaging with the substance of Master’s allegation and the larger issue of political violence, he chose to hide behind procedural formalism. This response appeared less like a defense of parliamentary decorum and more like an attempt to silence an uncomfortable narrative.
Ironically, when disruptions and placards have often been tolerated from opposition benches in the past, invoking rules selectively exposes a troubling double standard. True democratic spirit lies not in suppressing symbolic protest but in confronting painful truths with openness and humility.
In that sense, Brittas’s reaction diminished the dignity of the House, while Master’s gesture reaffirmed the human dimension of politics.

