Political brinkmanship

Two developments in the ongoing session of Parliament have starkly illuminated the deepening fissures within India’s political establishment. The Opposition’s attempt to move a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, and the government’s retaliatory privilege motion against Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, together underscore the extent of mistrust and animosity that now defines parliamentary life. The Opposition’s grievances against Speaker Birla stem from what they describe as repeated obstruction of their right to debate matters of national importance. They allege that Birla curtailed Rahul Gandhi’s interventions on issues such as the India-S trade negotiations, thereby limiting Parliament’s oversight role in shaping foreign and economic policy. Equally contentious was the Speaker’s refusal to admit a debate on General M.M. Naravane’s book Four Stars of Destiny, which touches upon civil-military decision-making during the 2020 Chinese incursion. The Opposition argues that such decisions deserve parliamentary scrutiny, and that Birla’s rulings reflect a pattern of narrowing space for debate rather than isolated procedural choices. Their charge of “blatantly partisan conduct” against the Speaker is thus framed as a broader indictment of how parliamentary authority is exercised. The government’s response was swift and equally combative. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who has been described as the ruling party’s hatchet man, moved a privilege motion against Rahul Gandhi, accusing him of violating a tacit parliamentary understanding not to drag the Armed Forces into political controversy. Dubey objected to Gandhi’s reference to General Naravane in a February 11 speech, claiming it was a deliberate attempt to politicize the military. He went further, alleging Gandhi’s links with foreign foundations and “anti-India forces,” and demanded his disqualification from the Lok Sabha and a lifetime ban from contesting elections. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had earlier signaled such a move, accusing Gandhi of misleading the House on the India–US trade deal. Gandhi’s sharp criticism of the agreement-harging that it “sold the nation” and undermined farmers and the textile sector-as the immediate trigger.Taken together, these two motions-one against the Speaker, the other against the Leader of the Opposition-speak volumes about the breakdown of trust between government and opposition. They reflect not merely procedural skirmishes but a deeper animosity that threatens the very spirit of parliamentary democracy. Parliament, ideally the forum for reasoned debate and collective oversight, risks becoming a theatre of mutual recrimination where substantive issues are drowned out by partisan maneuvering. For citizens watching the proceedings live, the spectacle may evoke dismay rather than confidence. The Constitution envisions Parliament as a guardian of national interest, not a battleground for personal vendettas. If motions of this nature become routine instruments of political warfare, they risk trivializing the solemn responsibilities of both Speaker and Opposition. It is perhaps time for constitutional experts and concerned citizens to seek judicial clarity from the Supreme Court on how to safeguard parliamentary objectives from being reduced to the whims of elected members. It is unfortunate that such developments have only lowered the image of India’s parliamentary democracy when its image should have risen along with its global economic status. The current turbulence is not merely a clash of personalities; it is a warning sign for Indian democracy. When trust erodes within its highest institution, the future of the republic as a parliamentary democracy itself is at stake.