The disappearing art of decorum: Indian democracy needs the ‘Geneva’ moment

In a democracy, the opposition is not an enemy; it is a partner in the governance of the nation-Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Differences of opinion are the lifeblood of a democracy, but they should never be allowed to degenerate into bitterness-P V Narasimha Rao

The sacred halls of the Indian Parliament, once described as the ‘Temple of Democracy,’ are currently echoing with sounds that would leave our founding fathers in dismay. With the unfolding of the 2026 Budget Session, the spectacle of relentless disruptions, personal vitriol and suspensions, has become the new normal. We find ourselves in an era where political rivalry has mutated into personal enmity, and the floor of the House, meant for enlightening debates, has transformed into a theatre of the absurd.

The anatomy of a hug: Lessons from 1994:

To understand what we have lost, one must look at the accompanying photograph—a rare, grainy relic of a time when the “national interest” was not just a campaign slogan but a lived reality. The image captures a profound moment of warmth between two ideological titans: Then Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao and Leader of the Opposition Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

The context is legendary. In 1994, India faced a diplomatic crisis at the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) in Geneva. Pakistan had moved a resolution to censure India over Kashmir—a move that could have triggered international sanctions. In an overflowing show of staggering statesmanship, Rao did the unthinkable-he chose his fiercest political rival, Vajpayee, to lead the Indian delegation.

Vajpayee did not see this as a trap or an opportunity to embarrass the government but as a moral duty to the nation. Alongside Salman Khurshid and Farooq Abdullah, he fought a pitched diplomatic battle, successfully forcing Pakistan to withdraw the resolution.

Erosion of parliamentary culture:

Contrast that image with the current Budget session. Today, we see leaders calling each other “traitors” in the corridors, paper-throwing at the Speaker’s chair, and a complete breakdown of communication. The responsibility for this decline is shared.

A responsible ruling party must realise that a brute majority is not a mandate to silence the Opposition. Democracy thrives on the three “Ds”: Debate, dissent and decision. When the government bypasses scrutiny or uses the rulebook primarily as a shield against uncomfortable questions, it weakens the institutional fabric.

Conversely, a responsible opposition must understand that their role is to hold the government accountable, not to make the House non-functional. Strategy should involve out-arguing the government with facts, not out-shouting them with slogans. When the Opposition chooses persistent disruption over participation, they forfeit their primary tool—the power of the word.

The human cost of political bitterness:

The casualty of this tribalism is the Indian citizen. Parliament is the only place where the complex problems of over a billion people—from agrarian distress to the nuances of the Union Budget—are supposed to be dissected. When the Budget is passed amidst a din without a single clause being debated, taxpayers are deprived of their right to financial accountability.

The “towering personalities” of the past, like Rao, Vajpayee, Indrajit Gupta, or Sushma Swaraj, were fierce debaters. They could tear into a policy for hours yet share a meal in the Central Hall minutes later. They understood that while parties are temporary, the Republic is permanent.

A roadmap for the future:

Restoring decency in our debates requires more than just new rules; it requires a shift in political temperament.

Institutionalise dialogue: There must be formal, non-partisan spaces where leaders of the Treasury and Opposition benches meet regularly to iron out differences before the bell rings.

Productive and constructive protest: If the Opposition must protest, it should be done in a manner that does not stall the legislative business.

Respect for the Chair: The Speaker’s office must not only be impartial but must be seen to be impartial to maintain the sanctity of the proceedings.

The youth of India, watching these sessions on their screens, are learning the language of democracy from their MPs. If we continue to present a spectacle of chaos, we risk raising a generation that views democracy as a dysfunctional shouting match rather than a noble pursuit of the common good.

Conclusion:

As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, our politicians must look back at the Rao-Vajpayee hug. It reminds us that disagreement is not a sign of weakness, and cooperation with a rival is not a sign of surrender.

It is time to bring back the “Geneva Spirit” to New Delhi. We need leaders who are large-hearted enough to embrace their critics and wise enough to know that the strength of a democracy is measured by the quality of its arguments, not the volume of its noise.

(The writer is a former OSD to former Union Civil Aviation Minister)