Parliament is for parleys

The Speaker intervened but never used to interrupt. Often interventions came not as an order but as lighter smiling moments. So did the members correct themselves with a smile or a laughter.
It has been a week of hungama. The opposition has the upper hand and the government even could not either assuage the opposition or satisfy it. The prime minister could even not reply in the Lok Sabha to the motion of thanks and the Leader of the Opposition seems to have overrun the House as Speaker Om Birla did his best to resist him. Ultimately leading to a no-trust motion notice being filed against the Speaker.
The pattern of the debate was on predictable lines. The ruling party members giving the credits of the achievements of the budget to the prime minister extolled it. And from LoP to almost all opposition members were devastating in their criticism. Rahul Gandhi, whether one likes or dislikes him is at the centre-stage for his scathing, sharp renderings. He tears into the budget with less stats.
Congress leader P Chidambaram without using a harsh word delves into the stats, baring what the budget has not done and should have focused on. A former finance and commerce minister he knows where to hit. No less punching were TMC’s Abhishek Banerjee, Kalyan Banerjee, DMK’s Tiruchi Shiva, RJD’s Manoj Ojha, Shiv Sena’s (UT) Priyanka Chaturvedi, Akhilesh Ydav (SP), Rajiv Shukla (Congress) and many others from the Opposition..
It leads us to recall the Nehruvian days, when the best criticism used to be from his own Congress colleagues or communist, Jan Sangh and Socialist party members. Young Turks like Chandrashekhar and Mohan Dharia used to on the headlines every day.
Sadly, the Anti-Defection Act and its draconian powers have turned par-ties in mini-despots and taken the spirit away. Parliament is for free talks – parleys -as per the Constitution and several laws enacted, some called the Feroze Gandhi acts ensured that for speaking in the House, a member is fully protect-ed. Unlike what is happening now of trying to harass the voice of the critical members enshrined by the LoP, who is repeatedly threatened with either with expulsions or privilege notices or acrimonious disruptions.
Rahul Gandhi
Rahul Gandhi’s Budget speech was less about tax slabs or expenditure and more about national sovereignty, global leverage and strategic assets. His most quoted lines — especially calling the trade deal a sellout of “Bharat Mata” and warning that US deals could shape India’s energy and industrial future — reflect a political strategy of reframing the Budget debate into a larger national narrative.
In essence: Rahul Gandhi turned the Budget debate into a broader narrative battle — accusing the government of weakness in global negotiations, inadequate economic strategy, and prioritising political or party interests over India’s long-term autonomy. His blunt language and sustained critique made his speech one of the most dramatic moments of the session, even as the treasury benches pushed back hard.
Overall, Gandhi’s remarks blended economic criticism with strategic and geopolitical themes — using metaphors like martial arts (grip, choke, tap) to argue that the government has ceded leverage rather than defended India’s interests. Though highly charged, the speech sparked debate on how Budget deliberations relate to India’s global positioning.
Gandhi’s speech was controversial on the floor. Members from the treasury benches repeatedly objected to his assertions, calling them exaggerated and unsubstantiated. At times the House degenerated into sloganeering and interruptions, reflecting deep political divisions over his line of attack.
Rahul Gandhi insisted that the India–US interim trade deal indicates India is negotiating from weakness. He claimed the government has “surrendered” the country’s economic and strategic interests by giving away critical control over data, digital trade rules and tariffs without adequate reciprocity — warning this could compromise India’s autonomy. His language was striking: “Are you not ashamed of selling India?” and that farmers and domestic industries like textiles would be harmed by the trade terms.
But choking the members voice and numerous expunctions of comments in the houses are setting new records.
The ruling combine used to display its magnanimity. Still parliamentarians recall how Pt Jawaharlal Nehru showered praises on a young MP, Atal Behari Vapjpayee for his scathing but analytical criticism of his government and himself. Abusive words were never used in the sanctum sanctorum or the democracy, that has become a proactice now.
The Speaker intervened but never used to interrupt. Often interventions came not as an order but as lighter smiling moments. So did the members correct themselves with a smile or a laughter.
The people of India want to have those glorious days back.
Speaker in the dock – Does Not Let Speak
The customary debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Ad-dress was held in the Lok Sabha on February 4, 2026. As Speaker, Om Birla is constitutionally and procedurally bound to conduct this discussion in line with Article 87(2) of the Constitution and Rule 20(1) of the Lok Sabha’s rules of procedure.
That rule is unambiguous. It states that the Prime Minister or any other minister has the right — and effectively the obligation — to reply on behalf of the government at the conclusion of the debate, regardless of whether they par-ticipated earlier. The intent is clear: the government must answer Parliament.
Accordingly, the Speaker was duty-bound to ensure that Narendra Modi or a designated minister responded to the discussion. Instead, on Febru-ary 6, Birla informed the House that he had advised the Prime Minister not to attend, citing intelligence inputs suggesting that Congress members might cre-ate an “unprecedented situation” near the Prime Minister’s seat.
This explanation raised troubling questions. By attributing blame to the Opposition and shielding the government from its responsibility to reply, the Speaker appeared to abandon the neutrality that the office demands. Even if security concerns were genuine, the rules provide a simple solution: any minis-ter could have answered. The government’s silence was not unavoidable — it was permitted.
Such a decision weakens the authority of the Chair and undermines both constitutional spirit and parliamentary convention. When the presiding officer enables the executive to evade accountability, the very purpose of de-bate is defeated. One is reminded of Mahatma Gandhi’s admonition that public office must never be used in ways that diminish the dignity of the nation. This episode does not stand alone. It follows a series of actions that Op-position parties say have consistently tilted the playing field.
In 2023, editorials in The Hindu and The Indian Express criticised decisions in both Houses to expunge portions of speeches by Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi that referred to allegations surrounding the Ada-ni Group. The deletions, critics argued, curtailed the Opposition’s ability to question the government on matters of public importance. Parliament, after all, exists precisely for such scrutiny.
There were other instances. When BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri used open-ly communal language against Danish Ali on the floor of the House, the re-sponse from the Chair was widely seen as mild and inadequate. A warning of future action hardly addressed the gravity of what had already occurred.
Then came the symbolism. Upon his re-election as Speaker in July 2024, Birla bowed before the Prime Minister as he was escorted to the Chair. The gesture drew criticism for conveying deference to the executive. Gandhi publicly remarked that the Speaker is the highest authority inside the House and should bow to no one.
Taken together, these episodes have created the impression of a Chair less assertive in defending parliamentary independence and more accommodat-ing of the government’s convenience. Now, with reports that a BJP member plans to move a substantive mo-tion seeking to disqualify Gandhi and bar him from contesting elections, the stakes are even higher. The credibility of the Speaker’s office will depend on whether rules are applied impartially — not selectively.
At its core, the issue is simple: Parliament functions only when the gov-ernment answers to it. When that accountability weakens, democracy itself be-gins to fray.