Parliament is the heart of our democracy. It is where the government is held accountable, where the Opposition raises questions, where different political voices come together and most importantly, where the country expects its representatives to find solutions to the challenges before it.
As the latest session of Parliament concludes, I am left with a sense of concern. A total of 12 Bills were passed during the session. Yet, as the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, I cannot be satisfied merely by the number of Bills that have cleared Parliament. The quality of parliamentary discussion matters just as much as that is what Parliament is meant for.
The Opposition has a legitimate and important role in questioning the government and the government is equally bound to respond. That is the basic contract of parliamentary democracy. But for that contract to work, there has to be a willingness to both speak and listen.
This session presented us with a rather unusual situation. The government repeatedly said it was ready for a full-fledged, open and detailed discussion on the issues being raised by the Opposition. The Home Minister also wrote to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha reiterating the government’s willingness to participate in a comprehensive debate. Yet, the discussion could not take place in the manner that it should have.
I personally reached out to the Leader of the Opposition multiple times because I believe that dialogue must remain possible even when political differences are deep. As Parliamentary Affairs Minister, I see my role not merely as facilitating the government’s legislative agenda, but also as building bridges between the government and the Opposition.
In a democracy, disagreement is inevitable. Disruption, however, cannot become the only language of disagreement. There is an important distinction between raising an issue and preventing the House from discussing that issue. When the Opposition demands answers from the government, it is entirely within its rights to do so. But when the government comes to the House and says that it is prepared to answer those questions through a complete debate, the next step must be to allow that debate to happen. That is how accountability works.
This is particularly important because Parliament is not only about the government of the day or the Opposition of the day. It is also a school of democracy for every new Member of Parliament. As Parliamentary Affairs Minister, I genuinely feel for the first-time MPs who did not get enough opportunities during this session to participate in meaningful debates and discussions. New MPs come to Parliament with ideas, questions and the aspirations of the people who elected them. They should have the opportunity to learn the art of parliamentary debate… how to argue a point, how to listen to an opposing view, how to scrutinise legislation and ultimately, how to find common ground.
We should ask ourselves: what are we teaching the next generation of parliamentarians if the loudest voice becomes more important than the strongest argument? There were moments during this session when the House could have had substantive conversations on matters of enormous importance. The legislation concerning paper leaks, for instance, received proper discussion in both Houses. That demonstrated what Parliament can achieve when Members participate in the legislative process.
The lesson is not that there should be no protest. Protest is an essential part of democracy. The lesson is that protest and debate must be able to coexist. A placard can be used to register a disagreement, a slogan can be used to express anger but a debate can examine the issue, put questions on record, demand answers and produce a solution. That is why I believe the objective of every political party should ultimately be resolution.
We may disagree profoundly on an issue. We may disagree on the government’s policies, on the Opposition’s demands or on the manner in which an issue should be addressed. But once we enter Parliament, we have a larger responsibility. We are no longer speaking only for our political parties, we are speaking for the people of India.
People expect the government to answer difficult questions, they expect the Opposition to ask difficult questions, they expect Parliament to scrutinise legislation and they also expect their representatives to use the democratic institutions available to them rather than allow those institutions to become paralysed.
The government is not afraid of questions as they are part of democracy but criticism is part of democracy, even sharp criticism is part of democracy. But democracy also requires the courage to hear the answer. As we look towards the Winter Session, I hope there will be an opportunity for all of us to reflect on what Parliament should be. I hope we can move beyond the cycle of disruption and confrontation and rediscover the value of dialogue. The differences between political parties will not disappear nor should they as a healthy democracy needs competing ideas and strong disagreements. But disagreement should lead us towards discussion and discussion should lead us towards resolution. That is the Parliament India deserves.