Disrupted Decorum

Parliamentary democracy rests on a simple bargain that governments govern and oppositions oppose, but both respect the stage on which the argument is conducted. But that bargain frayed when the Lok Sabha descended into orchestrated disorder, culminating in the extraordinary sight of a Motion of Thanks passed without the Prime Minister’s reply. At the centre of the disturbance stood Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and a Congress party that seems increasingly convinced that if it cannot command the House, it will immobilise it.

Congress leaders insisted that Gandhi be allowed to speak on the President’s address. When the Chair did not oblige on their terms, the party escalated. Protests multiplied and business stalled leading to the Prime Minister’s customary reply being abandoned after the Speaker warned of “unexpected” demonstrations.

This was not obstruction born of principle but disorder as leverage. The Opposition’s blunt message was either allow our leader to speak, or the House will not function. That is a dangerous inversion of parliamentary norms. Rights in legislatures are mediated by rules, not enforced by disruption. The right to speak is real; the right to paralyse is not. When an opposition treats the chamber as a bargaining chip, it weakens the very institution it claims to defend.

Gandhi’s own justification has been characteristically muddled. He suggested that he was prevented from quoting a former Army chief’s memoir because the government was reportedly scared. The Parliament is not a talk show, and speeches are not free-form provocations. There are conventions governing relevance, privilege and propriety especially when the armed forces are invoked. An opposition leader serious about accountability would master the rulebook before crying foul.

India’s opposition has ample material to corner the Modi government on. None of this requires megaphones or sit-ins at the Treasury benches. It requires preparation, patience and persuasion - qualities that Gandhi has promised for years but rarely displayed when the moment demands them.

The collateral damage is not trivial. The Motion of Thanks, a set-piece debate that allows Parliament to interrogate the government’s priorities, was reduced to a voice vote amid noise. This is not a victory for the Opposition.

Nor does the tactic flatter Gandhi’s claim to leadership. Authority in Parliament is earned by commanding attention, not by holding proceedings hostage. A party that once prided itself on institutional memory now seems content to outsource strategy to spectacle.

India’s voters expect an Opposition that can prosecute a case, not just protest its inability to do so. By making himself the condition for the House to function, Rahul Gandhi has shrunk the role he occupies. Parliament does not exist to guarantee airtime to any individual. It exists to test power through argument.

If Gandhi wishes to be heard, the path is to follow the rules, sharpen his critique and let the government answer. Until then, disruption will continue to masquerade as dissent and the Opposition’s loudest act will remain its least persuasive.