Parliament held hostage after Oppn abdicates its responsibility

The conduct of the Opposition in Parliament in recent sessions has been not merely disappointing but deeply disturbing. What we are witnessing is not robust dissent—the lifeblood of democracy—but a juvenile, obstructionist impulse that prioritises disruption over deliberation, theatrics over accountability, and political hatred over national interest. For an institution meant to embody the will and wisdom of the people, this degeneration should alarm every citizen, regardless of political affiliation.

In over four and a half decades of covering and observing Parliament and state legislatures from close quarters—covering debates when stalwarts across parties enriched the House with intellect, preparation, and restraint—I have never seen an Opposition so determined to operate with a pre-set political agenda, so unwilling to listen, and so convinced that only its voice must prevail. Disagreement was once principled; today it appears pathological.

The Opposition seems singularly uninterested in the everyday sufferings of the people or the genuine needs of its own constituents. The constitutional role of Parliamentarians—to scrutinise policy, demand explanations, suggest course corrections, and act as watchdogs over executive excess—has been replaced by a relentless quest for disruption. Pragmatism has given way to posturing; positive engagement to performative outrage.

The insistence that the Leader of the Opposition be allowed to speak—or else Parliament will be paralysed—is not democratic assertion but institutional blackmail. Maybe they need some schooling on Parliamentary practices and procedures. Shoot and scoot raise issues and run away when the government or the Prime Minister reply is not what they have been elected for. No individual, however senior, has the right to hold the House hostage.

Parliamentary rules provide mechanisms, procedures, and time for interventions. To override them through ruckus is to undermine the very institution the Opposition claims to defend. This is no way of protecting the Constitution. It was also highly disgusting to see an “honourable member” using the word “Yaar” for the panel speaker in the Lok Sabha and there has been no apology or remorse from Congress or opposition. This is nothing but a display of contempt for Parliament and parliamentary practices.

More troubling is the Opposition’s insistence on dragging sensitive matters of national security into the political arena, such as the Rechin La between Indian-administered Ladakh and the Chinese-administered Spanggur Lake basin issue, selectively citing excerpts from an unpublished book by former army chief General M M Naravane. The LoP got the location also wrong as he said it was Doklam. National security is not a talking point for instant political gratification. Mature democracies treat such matters with discretion, relying on institutional briefings and closed-door consultations. Public grandstanding on defence matters reflects not courage but diplomatic illiteracy.

I have read the ‘Caravan’ article that quoted from the former army chief’s book. The problem is not the quotation but the interpretative commentary surrounding it. The author’s conclusions appear heavily opinionated, with a tenuous link between the cited excerpts and the sweeping political inferences drawn.

Journalism demands rigour, balance, and proportionality—especially when national security is involved. Unfortunately, these standards are increasingly absent.

Such insistence by the Opposition inevitably raises apprehensions about hidden agendas. Why this desperation? Why this refusal to wait for official joint statements or clarifications from the governments involved, particularly on the India–US engagement? Raising questions is legitimate; prejudging outcomes and weaponising apprehensions is not.

Predictably, my rationalist friends may disagree with this view. But I am confident that nationalist-minded citizens—across party lines—will recognise the danger of this trend: the systematic erosion of institutional trust for short-term political gains.

The discourse surrounding the India–US deal further exposes the Opposition’s intellectual bankruptcy. Economic and strategic agreements are complex, layered, and technical. Yet leaders with little understanding of economics, agriculture, or international trade are offering sweeping judgments, dire warnings, and theatrical condemnations. This is not critique; it is caricature.

Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera’s statement that what happened in the Lok Sabha is merely a “trailer” and his justification of slogans like “Abhi PMO se bhagana baaki hai”, reveals the depth of animosity that now masquerades as political opposition. Such language is not merely condemnable—it normalises violent metaphors in public discourse. This is the moral hollowness of the so-called non-existent “Mohabbat ki Dukaan” narrative.

This hatred-driven politics marks a dangerous departure from democratic norms. Opposition is meant to challenge power, not delegitimise the state itself.

Defenders of the Congress often invoke the Bofors scandal as precedent, arguing that newspaper reports can and should destabilise governments and when that was allowed why not allow Rahul to quote excerpts from Narvane’s book. As someone who witnessed the Bofors story unfold firsthand, I must state unequivocally: the comparison is intellectually dishonest. Bofors was built on solid documentary evidence—bank records, contracts, and corroborated trails. I had the privilege of filing stories grounded in verifiable facts. What we see today is conjecture elevated to accusation without evidence.

Unfortunately, the present generation of political leaders and even journalists have little interest in studying history with an open mind. The habit of digging deep, verifying claims, and respecting nuance has been replaced by ideological echo chambers.

The Congress’s increasing intolerance to criticism further compounds its decline. Cheerleaders within the party have rendered it blind to reality. Any critique—even when backed by documented statements from leaders like Indira Gandhi at international forums—is met with hysterical reactions, including deflections to Godse. If historical accountability is the benchmark, why not also discuss Bhindranwale, who was once politically patronised by Congress led by Indira Gandhi, he turned a terrorist? I have personally seen him campaigning, seated atop buses during election tours in Delhi.

Ironically, the NDA government too has faltered by opting for frequent adjournments. Disruption should be confronted, not accommodated. The Opposition should be given ample opportunity to speak, question, and even overreach—because exposure often follows excess. Reports that the Opposition planned to physically gherao the Prime Minister in the Lok Sabha, if true, reveal the extent of institutional collapse. Perhaps the Prime Minister should have dared them to try, trusting Parliament and his MPs to uphold decorum. Democracy is not preserved by retreat. The Opposition’s decision to boycott the Prime Minister’s reply in the Rajya Sabha to the Motion of Thanks on the President’s address sends an unmistakable signal. They are not interested in answers; they are interested in optics. Not in accountability, but in agitation. Not in governance, but in grievance theatre.

This is a disturbing political trajectory. When opposition parties abandon reason, evidence, and institutional respect, they weaken democracy far more than any government ever could. Parliament deserves better. The people deserve better. And history will not be kind to those who mistake disruption for dissent.

(The author is former Chief Editor of The Hans India)