The Narendra Modi government’s decision to send Union Minister Jitendra Singh to personally reach out to Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi over the NEET paper leak issue has exposed an uncomfortable political reality: for sections of the Opposition, Parliament appears to be a battlefield to be stalled rather than a forum for debate.
If the government’s version of events is to be believed, it agreed in principle to a comprehensive discussion on the NEET controversy in Parliament. Jitendra Singh, accompanied by senior officials, reportedly conveyed the government’s willingness to debate the issue. Yet, within minutes, the Opposition’s position allegedly shifted from demanding a discussion to insisting that the government must first accept the demand for Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation.
That raises a legitimate question. If the government is willing to discuss an issue on the floor of Parliament, what exactly is the Opposition seeking? Accountability through debate, or political theatre outside Parliament?
A parliamentary democracy functions on the principle that contentious issues are debated inside the House. If every discussion is made conditional upon ministerial resignations before a debate even begins, Parliament risks becoming irrelevant.
Rahul Gandhi is not merely a political campaigner today; he is the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The office carries constitutional responsibility. It requires balancing political confrontation with institutional responsibility. Changing demands midway through negotiations may be politically expedient, but it does little to strengthen parliamentary traditions.
The timing of the disruption is also politically significant. The Winter Session is expected to consider several important legislative proposals, including constitutional and electoral reforms that require broad parliamentary support. Whether one agrees or disagrees with these Bills is immaterial. Parliament exists precisely to debate and decide such matters.
The Congress-led Opposition understands that legislative arithmetic has changed considerably since the last Lok Sabha. Political realignments in recent months have altered the numbers in both Houses. Several regional parties have demonstrated issue-based support or neutrality on key national legislations in the past. Smaller parties are increasingly unwilling to mechanically follow the Congress line on every parliamentary issue.
Consequently, the Congress and its allies face a difficult political reality. If Parliament functions normally and contentious Bills are debated and eventually passed through constitutionally mandated procedures, the Opposition’s ability to project itself as the principal political obstacle to the NDA’s agenda may diminish.
This perhaps explains why disruption has become the preferred parliamentary strategy. It is politically easier to stall proceedings than to participate in debates where numbers may not favour one’s position.
Several proposed reforms—including electoral reforms such as One Nation, One Election, delimitation-related proposals and amendments to existing laws governing institutions and governance mechanisms—have generated considerable political debate. The Opposition is entitled to oppose them vigorously. In fact, it is duty-bound to do so if it believes they are against the national interest.
But opposition cannot mean obstruction.
If the Congress believes a Bill is flawed, let it debate the government. If it believes ministers must resign, let it move appropriate motions in Parliament. If it believes constitutional amendments are dangerous, let it mobilise public opinion and persuade other political parties.
Walking out of Parliament or preventing it from functioning while simultaneously demanding accountability is a contradiction that increasingly appears political rather than principled.
The NDA government, for its part, has a constitutional obligation to ensure that parliamentary business is conducted. Governments are elected to govern, not to indefinitely negotiate whether Parliament should function. If the Opposition chooses disruption despite the government’s willingness to debate, responsibility for legislative delays must necessarily be placed where it belongs.
Ultimately, Members of Parliament are elected not to hold perpetual dharnas but to participate in debates, scrutinise legislation and represent the people inside the House.
The people of Bharat send their representatives to Parliament to speak—not to silence Parliament itself.
