No Peace, No Progress: The Collapse Of Consensus In India's Parliament

The recently concluded Monsoon Session of India’s Parliament, meant to be a cornerstone of democratic deliberation, ended in a haze of chaos and missed opportunities. Save for a brief discussion on Operation Sindoor, a moment of national pride, the session was marred by relentless disruptions, primarily driven by the opposition’s insistence on debating the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar and allegations of “vote chori” against the Election Commission and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

The government’s refusal to entertain these demands set the tone for a session that saw little meaningful dialogue, with bills passed in haste, often without debate, through voice votes.

This pattern of disruption, lack of consultation, and procedural strong-arming raises profound concerns about the health of India’s parliamentary democracy, undermining the institution’s stature and eroding public trust.

Historically, India’s Parliament has thrived on a delicate balance of confrontation and compromise. Disagreements between the government and opposition are not new; they are the lifeblood of a vibrant democracy.

Yet, in earlier times, peace brokers—senior leaders or neutral figures—would step in to bridge divides through informal or formal discussions. These mediators, often from the ruling party or coalition, would engage with opposition leaders to ensure the House functioned, even amidst disagreements. The current BJP-led NDA government, however, seems to have abandoned this tradition.

The absence of such conciliatory efforts has left the Parliament in a state of perpetual gridlock, with neither side willing to yield. This breakdown in dialogue is not just a failure of political will but a betrayal of the parliamentary ethos that values consensus over confrontation. The role of presiding officers, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh, has come under scrutiny for exacerbating this divide.

Traditionally, presiding officers are expected to maintain impartiality, ensuring that both the government and opposition have a fair chance to present their views.

However, their actions during the Monsoon Session suggest a tilt toward the ruling side. Rather than facilitating dialogue or mediating out-of-House discussions to break the deadlock, they have largely limited themselves to maintaining order, often admonishing the opposition for disruptions while allowing the government to push its legislative agenda unchallenged.

This raises a critical question: Is it not part of their duty to act as neutral arbiters, fostering truce and ensuring the House functions as a forum for all voices?

Their apparent reluctance to bridge the gap between the government and opposition has only deepened the dysfunction. A particularly alarming trend is the government’s practice of passing bills with minimal debate, often through voice votes.

During the Monsoon Session, at least 12 bills were passed in the Lok Sabha and 15 in the Rajya Sabha, many without substantive discussion. Key legislation, including the Income Tax Bill, 2025, the Indian Ports Bill, 2025, and the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, sailed through amid opposition protests, with voice votes drowning out calls for deliberation.

This approach sidesteps the rigorous scrutiny that complex legislation demands, undermining the democratic process. The lack of debate not only weakens the quality of laws but also alienates the opposition, reinforcing their resolve to disrupt proceedings in protest.

The opposition, however, is not blameless. Their disruptive tactics—storming the Well of the House, raising slogans, and staging walkouts—have handed the government an excuse to bypass debate.

By refusing to engage constructively, even when offered opportunities to discuss issues like Operation Sindoor, the opposition has played into the government’s hands. Their focus on the SIR issue, while legitimate given concerns about voter disenfranchisement, has often been expressed through chaos rather than cogent arguments.

This cycle of disruption and counter-disruption creates a vicious loop, where neither side prioritises the nation’s legislative needs over political point-scoring. Perhaps the most troubling practice is the government’s tendency to introduce controversial bills at the last moment, leaving little time for scrutiny or consultation.

The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, tabled by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, exemplifies this. Introduced late in the session, it proposes the removal of the prime minister, chief ministers, or ministers detained for 30 days on serious charges, without requiring a conviction.

Alongside the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, it sparked outrage for its potential to destabilise opposition-led governments. Opposition leaders, including those from the Congress, Trinamool Congress, and AIMIM, labelled it an assault on federalism and due process.

Yet, with minimal notice and no debate, these bills were swiftly referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, a move that critics argue is a tactic to delay scrutiny while projecting action. This pattern of last-minute introductions—seen previously with bills like the Waqf Amendment Bill—reflects a disregard for parliamentary norms and the opposition’s right to deliberate.

These developments collectively demean the stature of Parliament, an institution meant to embody the will of the people, not just the government or the opposition.

When bills are rushed through without debate, when presiding officers fail to mediate, and when the tradition of peace-brokering is abandoned, the Parliament ceases to be a forum for inclusive governance.

The public, watching this spectacle of dysfunction, loses trust in an institution meant to represent their aspirations. The expectation that Parliament serves all Indians—not just the ruling party or the opposition—is being eroded, replaced by a perception of it as a battleground for political supremacy.

To restore Parliament’s dignity, both sides must act. The government must revive the tradition of consultation, engaging opposition leaders proactively and allowing adequate time for legislative scrutiny. Presiding officers should take on the mantle of mediators, facilitating dialogue outside the House to prevent deadlocks.

The Opposition, meanwhile, must channel its grievances into constructive debate rather than disruptive protests. Only through mutual respect and adherence to parliamentary norms can the institution reclaim its role as the heart of India’s democracy.

INDIA Bloc Protests Wearing 'Minta Devi 124 Not Out' T-shirts In Parliament: Here's What Opposition's Witty Take At EC Means

The Monsoon Session’s failures serve as a stark warning: without urgent course correction, the disturbing trend of disruption and no-consultation risks becoming the new normal, to the detriment of the nation and its people.

Sayantan Ghosh teaches journalism at St. Xavier’s College (Autonomous), Kolkata, and is the author of The Aam Aadmi Party: The Untold Story of a Political Uprising and Its Undoing. He is on X as @sayantan_gh.