On a day when India stood at the cusp of a renewed strategic and economic moment with the United States—marked by US President Donald Trump formally announcing a trade agreement after a late-night call with Prime Minister Narendra Modi—the spectacle inside Parliament told a very different story. After earlier floating tariff threats of 50 percent and then 25 percent, Trump eventually climbed down to an 18 percent threshold—a move that brought cautious relief to many Indians, tempered by an awareness of his well-known unpredictability. Instead of confining themselves to a substantive debate on the President’s Address, the Union Budget, and the government’s policy priorities, the Congress-led Opposition chose disruption over discourse and paralysis over participation. The result was a second consecutive day of a stalled Budget Session, at a time when the nation expected its lawmakers to rise to the moment, not sink into political theatrics. Parliament is not a protest ground. It is the highest forum of democratic deliberation. The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are not street agitators; they are constitutional office-bearers entrusted with the responsibility of scrutinising the government through reasoned argument, not orchestrated ruckus. When slogans replace substance and disorder drowns debate, it is not the government that is embarrassed—it is the institution itself. What makes the disruption particularly troubling is the selective outrage being displayed. The same party that once presided over years of strategic drift on national security now accuses the Modi government of hesitancy and failure. Questions about border management and military response deserve serious, structured discussion. They do not deserve to be reduced to political weapons hurled across the aisle. National security is not a partisan tool; it is a shared responsibility. The Congress leadership’s moral posturing also sits uneasily with its own record. From opaque international engagements in the past to policy decisions that were often shielded from parliamentary scrutiny, the party has rarely been a champion of transparency when in power. To now don the mantle of democratic guardianship, while preventing Parliament from functioning, borders on political irony.
It is in this context that the Speaker’s decision to suspend unruly members must be seen—not as authoritarian overreach, but as an attempt to restore order and preserve the dignity of the House. Parliamentary rules exist for a reason. Rule 349 of the Lok Sabha, often invoked in such debates, clearly lays down standards of conduct expected of Members of Parliament. Clause (i) explicitly states that “a member shall not read any book, newspaper or letter except in connection with the business of the House.” The intent is simple: to prevent the chamber from becoming a stage for unverified claims, selective quotations, or material not officially tabled for discussion. Former Lok Sabha Secretary General P.D.T. Achary has explained that while MPs are generally permitted to cite newspaper or magazine reports, they must be able to stand by the authenticity of the information. Debates—especially on broad themes like the President’s Address or the Union Budget—allow for a wide range of issues to be raised. But that freedom comes with an obligation to maintain decorum and credibility. Freedom of speech in Parliament is not a license for chaos. The contrast with past parliamentary giants is stark. Leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani were fierce critics of governments they opposed, but they were also fierce defenders of parliamentary traditions. Their speeches cut deep, but they did not cut down the institution itself. The current brand of Opposition politics, driven more by disruption than debate, risks eroding the very platform it claims to protect. Beyond the walls of Parliament, the country is watching a larger geopolitical realignment unfold. The renewed warmth in India–US relations, symbolised by the Trump-Modi trade announcement, carries implications for global trade, strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific, and India’s position in a world increasingly shaped by great-power competition. These are precisely the issues that deserve rigorous, informed discussion on the floor of the House. Instead, the nation was treated to scenes of sloganeering and stalemate. Democracy thrives on disagreement, but it survives on dialogue. An Opposition that sees its role solely as obstruction forfeits its moral authority to question the government. The Budget Session is not a battleground for political point-scoring; it is a forum to shape the economic and strategic future of the country. In choosing disruption over debate, the Congress-led Opposition did not weaken the government. It weakened Parliament. And in doing so, it weakened the very democratic fabric it claims to defend.
