A forum for debate

Parliamentary debate is meant to be the lifeblood of democracy, a forum where diverse voices contend with ideas rather than each other. Yet in many nations, this principle has been eroded, replaced by the crude maxim that “might is right.” India, regrettably, is no exception. What should be reasoned deliberation has increasingly descended into shrill exchanges, marked less by substance than by vitriol. The spectacle is one of polarization at its worst, where debate is reduced to diversion and denunciation rather than constructive engagement. The responsibility for the functioning of Parliament rests squarely with the government of the day. Under the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, opposition pleas for discussion on pressing matters are often rejected outright. Motions are dismissed, and members who protest are admonished. Such tactics only heighten tensions, leading to slogan shouting, mass suspensions, and walkouts. Instead of fostering dialogue, these measures deepen the divide and weaken the institution itself.Prime Minister Narendra Modi and senior BJP leaders have not hesitated to employ sharp rhetoric, branding the opposition as “frustrated” or indulging in “drama.” The party’s campaign for a “Congress-mukt Bharat” (Congress-free India) has been interpreted by critics as an attempt to delegitimize opposition altogether, raising concerns of an authoritarian drift. These moves, far from strengthening democracy, risk undermining the constitutional freedoms that Parliament is meant to safeguard. The opposition, for its part, accuses the government of bypassing scrutiny by pushing legislation without consensus, using its majority to curtail debate. Mass suspensions of MPs have drawn widespread criticism, reinforcing the perception of intolerance toward dissent. Allegations of misuse of federal investigative agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation add to the climate of mistrust. Data indicating that a disproportionate number of probes target opposition politicians has fueled charges that these institutions are being weaponized to settle political scores. Critics also highlight the government’s increasingly centralized style of governance, with diminished consultation with allies and opposition parties. This approach, evident in previous majority terms, has further marginalized voices that should be integral to democratic deliberation. While the Prime Minister insists his government is open to discussion, he has also argued that Parliament should not be reduced to theatrics or post-election frustration. BJP leaders defend their stance as necessary for national development and anti-corruption efforts, accusing the opposition of engaging in “negative politics” and propaganda. The result is a political landscape defined by mutual recrimination rather than dialogue. The ruling party and the opposition appear locked in a cycle of accusation and counter-accusation, with little room for constructive debate. This polarization bodes ill for India’s democratic health. A Parliament that cannot function as a forum for reasoned discussion risks losing its legitimacy in the eyes of the public. It is time for both sides to step back from the brink. The government must recognize that consensus-building, however inconvenient, is essential to democratic maturity. The opposition, too, must resist the temptation of theatrics and focus on substantive critique. Only by toning down rhetoric, admitting mistakes, and engaging in genuine dialogue can Parliament reclaim its role as the guardian of democratic discourse. India’s future depends not on who shouts the loudest, but on who listens, reasons, and leads with responsibility.