Numbed by numbers

When Parliament ceases to be a space for structured disagreement and becomes a mere conduit for executive will, democracy suffers not from noise- but from silence. The recent passage of bills in the absence of opposition parties, with little to no debate, marks a troubling departure from the spirit of parliamentary deliberation. It is not just a procedural lapse; it is a constitutional concern. The government of the day bears the primary responsibility for ensuring that Parliament functions as intended – as a forum where divergent views are heard, contested, and refined. Yet, what has unfolded in recent sessions is a pattern of disregard for this responsibility. The ruling party’s open contempt for the opposition – expressed not just in rhetoric but in its refusal to engage- undermines the very conventions that sustain democratic governance. A recent example is the SIR in Bihar which underscores the problem. Faced with serious allegations and matters that many citizens regard as requiring parliamentary scrutiny, the government has repeatedly refused to engage in debate, citing pending court proceedings. While the judiciary’s role must be respected, the invocation of litigation as a blanket justification for shunning parliamentary debate is disingenuous when used routinely. Rather, it masks a deeper strategy- selective silence. The same party denied even admitting a motion on Manipur-no legal injunction existed-even as ethnic violence raged across the border state over 20 months. The consequences of such an attitude are predictable and regrettable. Denied their platform inside the chamber, members of the opposition INDIA bloc have been compelled to take their protests and scrutiny to the streets and other fora outside Parliament. That is both understandable and unfortunate. It is understandable because when democratic institutions fail to provide space for contestation, political actors will inevitably seek alternative venues. It is unfortunate because it signifies a breakdown in the normal functioning of democratic mechanisms-a breakdown that weakens public faith in those institutions and in the political class more broadly. The erosion of deliberative space signals not just a breakdown in decorum, but a retreat from the very idea of representative responsibility. Parliament is not merely a venue for passing laws; it is where the nation’s conscience is meant to be voiced and contested. Debate is not a privilege granted by the ruling party – it is a constitutional obligation. Whether the issue at hand favors the government or exposes its failings, the duty to engage remains unchanged. The opposition is not an adversary to be silenced; it is an essential counterweight in a system designed to prevent the concentration of power. Its role is to demand answers, scrutinize decisions, and represent those who did not vote for the ruling party – a role that must be respected, not ridiculed. A political party, no matter how dominant, cannot place itself above the institution it serves. Holding the numbers in the House does not justify casting aside the rules that protect our democracy. The government must remember that its legitimacy flows from constitutional norms, not electoral arithmetic alone. To treat Parliament as a rubber stamp is to betray the very principles that give governance its moral and legal authority. India’s democracy deserves better- not just from its opposition, but from its government. The restoration of meaningful debate is not a matter of political strategy; it is a matter of national priority.