Parliamentary proceedings faced significant disruption as persistent opposition protests prevented the commencement of scheduled discussions on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor during the Monsoon Session. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla was compelled to adjourn the house until 2 PM, marking the third adjournment within a single day due to continued disturbances from opposition members.

The disruptions occurred despite a prior agreement reached on July 25 between the government and opposition parties to conduct comprehensive 16-hour discussions on both the Pahalgam terror incident and Operation Sindoor across both houses of Parliament. The opposition had initially consented to this extended debate format to thoroughly examine the government's response to the April 22 attack that resulted in 26 civilian casualties.

A distinguished roster of speakers had been prepared for the parliamentary debate, featuring prominent political figures from various parties. The speaker list included Defense Minister Rajnath Singh, External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar, along with MPs Baijayant Panda, Tejaswi Surya, Sanjay Jaiswal, Anurag Thakur, and Kamaljeet Sehrawat from the ruling party. Opposition representation included Telugu Desam Party members Lavu Srikrishna and Harish Balyogi, Samajwadi Party representatives Ramashankar Rajbhar and Chhotelal, and All India Trinamool Congress MPs Kalyan Banerjee and Sayoni Ghosh.

The Congress party had organized its own sequence of speakers, with Gaurav Gogoi designated to initiate the parliamentary discussion. He was scheduled to be followed by Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Deependra Hooda, Praneeti Shinde, Saptagiri Ulaka, and Bijendra Ola. Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi was planned to participate in the debate during the following day's proceedings.

However, a notable absence from the Congress speaker lineup emerged when Shashi Tharoor declined to participate in the Operation Sindoor discussion. According to party sources, the senior Congress MP received requests from both the Leader of Opposition's office and the party's deputy leader in the Lok Sabha to contribute to the debate. Tharoor reportedly cited fundamental disagreements with the party's current critical position on the military operation as his reason for non-participation.

The Thiruvananthapuram MP has consistently maintained that Operation Sindoor represented a successful military mission, a stance that conflicts with the Congress party's more critical assessment of the operation. When informed that participation would require him to align with the party's critical perspective on the operation, Tharoor chose to abstain from the parliamentary debate entirely rather than compromise his established position.

This internal party discord highlights the complex political dynamics surrounding Operation Sindoor, with even Congress members holding divergent views on the military action's effectiveness and execution. Tharoor's decision to skip the debate rather than modify his public stance demonstrates the depth of disagreement within the party regarding the operation's assessment.

Opposition leaders, particularly Rahul Gandhi, have been vocal critics of the government's handling of both the Pahalgam attack and subsequent military response. Their criticism has focused on alleged intelligence failures that may have contributed to the civilian casualties and broader questions about India's regional security strategy.

The opposition has also raised concerns about international diplomatic implications, particularly regarding statements made by US President Donald Trump claiming to have mediated between India and Pakistan. The government has categorically denied these mediation claims, but opposition parties continue to question the administration's diplomatic coordination and communication strategies.

The planned parliamentary discussion was intended to provide a comprehensive examination of the security lapses that enabled the Pahalgam attack and evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of Operation Sindoor as a response. The debate format was designed to allow extensive scrutiny of government policies and decision-making processes related to national security and counter-terrorism operations.

The continued disruptions in Parliament reflect deeper political tensions between the ruling party and opposition regarding transparency and accountability in national security matters. Opposition parties have consistently demanded more detailed explanations of government actions and decision-making processes, while the ruling party has defended its security policies and operational responses.

The inability to commence these critical discussions due to procedural disruptions raises questions about Parliament's capacity to address urgent national security issues effectively. The agreed-upon 16-hour debate format was specifically designed to provide adequate time for thorough examination of these sensitive topics, but persistent protests have prevented even the initial proceedings from beginning.

Parliamentary observers note that such disruptions, while part of democratic discourse, can impede important policy discussions and public accountability mechanisms. The challenge lies in balancing legitimate opposition concerns with the need for constructive dialogue on national security matters that affect the entire country's well-being and regional stability.