Will Parliament debate or ‘disrupt’ again?

The monsoon session of Parliament begins on July 21 with the BJP-led NDA entering the House in a far stronger political position than it did just a few months ago. Following recent political realignments after the West Bengal elections, the alliance’s strength in the Lok Sabha has risen significantly, giving the government greater confidence in managing legislative business.

Yet numbers alone do not guarantee better governance. A stronger treasury bench is meaningful only if Parliament functions as it should. If the coming session once again descends into slogan-shouting, disruptions and political theatre, the biggest losers will be the people.

Parliament was never meant to be a battleground where every disagreement ends in adjournment. It was designed as the nation’s highest forum for debate, accountability and law-making. Those who witnessed Parliament sessions in earlier decades know how dramatically things have changed and saving democracy remained a mere slogan.

As a young journalist covering Parliament, I watched some of India’s finest parliamentarians—Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Chandrashekhar, Somnath Chatterjee, Indrajit Gupta, Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna and Mulayam Singh Yadav. They were fierce political opponents, but they never forgot that they were first custodians of Parliament’s dignity.

Question Hour mattered. Zero Hour was taken seriously. Members came prepared with facts, statistics and well-researched speeches. Heated exchanges certainly occurred, but they rarely degenerated into chaos. Members respected the Chair. When the Speaker intervened, they complied. Walkouts were used sparingly, usually after making their political point, allowing the House to continue its work.

Contrast that with today’s Parliament where members on the slightest pretext rush into the Well, shouting slogans until proceedings are adjourned. Entire days are washed out. Television cameras often capture more drama than debate. Public money is spent, but little legislative scrutiny takes place. Political messaging has increasingly replaced parliamentary performance.

Many MPs now appear more interested in creating viral clips for social media or impressing their party leadership than in persuading fellow legislators through reasoned argument. Speeches are often heavy on rhetoric but light on research. Ironically, every MP today has access to digital archives, parliamentary records and technology that previous generations could only dream of. Yet the quality of debate has steadily declined.

The opposition’s constitutional responsibility is not to paralyse Parliament but to hold the government accountable. Equally, the government’s responsibility is not merely to use its numerical strength to pass legislation, but to answer uncomfortable questions and accommodate meaningful debate.

The earlier generation understood this balance remarkably well.

One memorable example was Vajpayee’s speech on corruption during the I K Gujral government. Vajpayee welcomed the Prime Minister’s willingness to discuss corruption but sharply criticised the government’s inability to act after the debate concluded. Mere discussions without follow-up, he argued, betrayed the public’s trust in Parliament. He went a step further, suggesting that any political leader facing serious allegations should step aside until cleared by the courts.

During another debate on a no-confidence motion, he warned that frequent changes of government embarrassed the office of the President because successive governments forced entirely different policy statements upon the Head of State within months of one another. It was criticism rooted in constitutional concern rather than political point-scoring. Respect across party lines was equally visible.

When Vajpayee became the Prime Minister, former Prime Minister Chandrashekhar openly disagreed with several government policies but acknowledged that the government had considered many of his suggestions. Mulayam Singh Yadav remarked that despite ideological differences with the BJP, there were occasions when the opposition had to cooperate with the government in the national interest. “Otherwise, the country would be sold out,” he warned. Reacting to this Vajpayee shot back to say that the person, who could buy India had not taken birth.

Vajpayee’s famous response reflected both confidence and civility: no one had yet been born who could buy India, and if anyone tried, the people themselves would reject such attempts.

Such exchanges reflected political maturity. They disagreed vigorously without questioning each other’s patriotism.

That culture is increasingly missing today.

Instead, politics has become deeply polarised, with every issue viewed through the prism of electoral calculations and vote-bank considerations. Public outrage often appears selective. Political parties rush to mobilise protests on issues that suit their constituencies while remaining conspicuously silent on matters that may inconvenience their support base. Such inconsistency weakens credibility and further erodes public faith in politics.

Against this backdrop, the government’s strengthened numbers have naturally fuelled speculation over its legislative agenda.

There is considerable discussion among all parties that the NDA may revive contentious measures such as delimitation, constitutional amendments, implementation of women’s reservation, the Uniform Civil Code and amendments to other important legislation. While constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, actual parliamentary arithmetic often depends on attendance, abstentions and floor management. The government will undoubtedly try to maximise its advantage.

The opposition, however, appears set to continue its familiar strategy of disruption.

Congress is expected to aggressively raise issues such as the NEET examination paper leak and the alleged financial irregularities relating to donations at the Ayodhya Ram temple. Both are legitimate issues and deserve parliamentary scrutiny. If the government has faltered, it must answer. Parliament exists precisely for such accountability.

The question is whether these issues will be debated or merely shouted across the aisle.

Congress also appears to have squandered political momentum on the NEET issue. It initially attempted to project Rahul Gandhi as the face of a nationwide youth campaign against repeated examination paper leaks. However, after the initial push, the campaign lost direction. Gandhi’s extended private visit abroad created a leadership vacuum that others sought to occupy, diluting Congress’s political advantage. Raising an issue is one thing; sustaining public engagement requires consistency.

The BJP, meanwhile, cannot afford complacency. The NEET controversy exposed administrative weaknesses, while allegations relating to temple donations have raised uncomfortable questions that deserve transparent answers. Simply relying on numbers in Parliament will not resolve concerns outside it.

Both sides therefore enter the monsoon session carrying political baggage. The NDA has the numbers but faces difficult questions. The opposition has issues but risks wasting them through habitual disruption.

As the government finalises its floor strategy and allies are instructed to ensure full attendance during key legislative business, one hopes that parliamentary managers on both sides recognise what is truly at stake.

India’s Parliament is not a television studio where the loudest voice wins. Nor is it merely an arena for partisan confrontation. It is where governments are held accountable, laws are scrutinised and national consensus is built.

The country does not need another session that is remembered for adjournments, placards and protests at Parliament’s gates. It needs serious debates, informed interventions and constructive disagreement. Only the quality of debate determines the health of a democracy.

(The author is former Chief Editor of The Hans India)