Parliament: a Forum for Dialogue and Debate, Not Disruption

– Lalit Garg-

The strongest identity of a democracy is its Parliament. It is the institution where representatives chosen by the people deliberate on national policies, laws, and welfare schemes. Parliament is that supreme forum where diverse ideologies and viewpoints clash, only to arrive at solutions in the national interest. Unfortunately, today the image of the Indian Parliament is increasingly being associated not with meaningful debate but with chaos, disorder, and deadlock. The recently concluded Monsoon Session was a striking example, reduced almost entirely to noisy disruptions. It was a session that ended in disappointment, marked by escalating confrontations between the government and the opposition. In the Rajya Sabha, only 41.15 hours of work took place, and in the Lok Sabha, barely 37 hours. Many crucial questions remained unanswered—questions the nation had every right to expect answers to. Instead of dialogue and consensus, both sides contributed to an atmosphere of acrimony, sacrificing national interest. This is not only regrettable but a matter of grave concern for the future of Indian democracy.

For the Monsoon Session, 120 hours of discussion time had been allocated in the Lok Sabha. Yet, proceedings lasted only 37 hours. More than 70 percent of scheduled time in the Lok Sabha and over 61 percent in the Rajya Sabha was wasted in uproar. Every hour spent in Parliament is funded by crores of rupees from the taxpayer’s pocket. When that time is squandered, it is nothing less than a betrayal of the people. An independent MP from Gujarat rightly asked whether those responsible for disrupting Parliament should be held accountable to repay this waste of public money. The question is not merely symbolic—it strikes at the very seriousness with which we regard our democracy.

The imbalance is stark: less work, more noise. Why have our political parties and representatives chosen to shred the dignity and ideals of democracy? Consider this irony—419 starred questions were listed for oral answers in the Lok Sabha, but only 55 were actually answered. In a democracy, dissent is not only natural but essential. The opposition’s role is to ask questions, hold the government accountable, and ensure transparency. But this cannot be achieved through slogan-shouting, rushing into the Well, or bringing proceedings to a halt. Parliament is meant to be a forum for dialogue, not an arena of conflict. Sadly, debate and reasoning are being replaced by commotion and confrontation. The result is neither fruitful discussion on the people’s pressing issues nor the preservation of Parliament’s dignity.

This Monsoon Session was convened at a time when India faces new and complex challenges—both economic and geopolitical. It was a moment that called for serious deliberations, but instead, the opportunity was squandered. Critical issues—from electoral reforms to constitutional amendments on holding office while under conviction—were left untouched. Matters like Operation Sindoor and the revision of Bihar’s voter list were barely discussed. The lack of seriousness was evident across the board. It would be wrong to blame only the opposition. The ruling party, too, is often equally responsible for fueling disruption. When in opposition, political parties justify chaos as a tool of protest; when in power, they lament the erosion of parliamentary dignity. This doublespeak weakens democracy itself. The responsibility of ensuring smooth conduct of the House rests not just with the government but with the opposition as well. Both must realize that they are servants of the people, and the people are closely watching.

There is a strong case for introducing stricter rules to maintain discipline and dignity in Parliament. Repeat offenders—those who deliberately disrupt proceedings—must face punitive action. Financial penalties could serve as an effective deterrent. Just as an employee loses wages for indiscipline in the workplace, an MP who wastes the nation’s time and money should have allowances and privileges curtailed. Only then will legislators realize that Parliament is not a playground but a sacred platform for serving the nation. Some MPs argue that disruption is their last resort when their voices are ignored. But this justification does not hold. Parliament already offers ample opportunities—through Question Hour, Zero Hour, special mentions, and Standing Committees—to raise issues. If these avenues are used effectively, disruption becomes unnecessary. Street protests and parliamentary conduct must remain distinct. If Parliament begins to resemble a street protest, the sanctity of democracy itself comes under threat. It is time for voters to start questioning their representatives. Citizens should not vote merely on caste, religion, or party loyalty but on performance: How often is their MP present in Parliament? How frequently do they speak? How many questions do they raise? How seriously do they participate in debates? The Election Commission and media should publish such performance records widely. Once voters make this the benchmark, political behavior in Parliament will change.

Democracy does not survive by Constitution or institutions alone—it thrives through the conduct of those who operate them. If MPs fail to shoulder their responsibility, democracy will become hollow. What is urgently needed is a collective pledge by all political parties: whether in government or in opposition, they will safeguard the dignity of Parliament. Dissent and confrontation are natural in a democracy, but these must be expressed through reasoned debate and dialogue, not through chaos and disorder. The culture of disruption is an assault on the very soul of democracy. It is a reckless waste of taxpayers’ money and an insult to public trust. It is squandering of resources and betrayal of hope. Disturbingly, this has now become the norm: in the last Winter Session alone, over 65 hours were wasted in the Lok Sabha. Every minute of Parliament costs the exchequer more than ₹2.5 lakh. When sessions collapse into disorder, both money and invaluable national time are lost. Parliament must remain a forum for debates that shape the nation’s future, resolve problems, and frame effective policies. If it degenerates into a theatre of noise and disorder, democracy itself fails in its purpose. Opposition is necessary, but it must be constructive and focused on issues. Only then can Parliament regain its stature as the temple of democracy.