Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has voiced strong criticism against the persistent disruptions that have plagued parliamentary proceedings, asserting that while political parties possess the constitutional right to protest outside the House, the sanctity of Parliament should be reserved for reasoned debate, scrutiny, and argument.
The Chenab Times has learned that Tharoor, speaking at an interaction during the India International Model United Nations (IIMUN), emphasized the necessity of restoring a clear distinction between street protests and parliamentary business.
He articulated his position by stating, “Street work should be done on the street, and parliamentary work should be done in Parliament. Do not bring street work into Parliament.” Tharoor elaborated that demonstrations, dharnas, slogan-shouting, and protests are legitimate forms of democratic expression when conducted within the constitutional framework.
However, he argued that Parliament serves a distinct and more significant purpose. “The temple of our democracy is a place where you go for prayer in the form of argument, debate, and reasoned thinking,” Tharoor remarked, likening parliamentary engagement to a form of democratic prayer.
Tharoor further contended that such disruptions are particularly detrimental to opposition parties, as they rely more heavily on parliamentary platforms to question ministers, articulate concerns of their constituencies, and scrutinize legislation effectively. “It is actually we, the Opposition, who benefit the most from Parliament,” he stated, highlighting mechanisms like Question Hour and Zero Hour that empower opposition Members of Parliament to hold ministers accountable and raise critical issues.
According to Tharoor, the repeated washing out of parliamentary proceedings inadvertently deprives the opposition of its most potent tools. “We are cheating ourselves of both the Question Hour principle and the constituency matters or any matters of national importance we wanted to raise,” he explained, underscoring the self-inflicted damage of such disruptions.
The Member of Parliament also cautioned that disruptions could yield consequences extending beyond immediate political confrontations. He recalled an instance where a High Court judge questioned the judiciary’s ability to ascertain legislative intent behind a law when meaningful parliamentary debate had been absent prior to its passage.
Invoking the observation of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee that the opposition might possess the arguments while the government commands the votes, Tharoor stated, “The Opposition must have its say even if the government will have its way.” For him, the fundamental role of Parliament is not to ensure the opposition wins every argument, but to guarantee that its arguments are duly heard and formally recorded.
Tharoor also drew a salient distinction between protests occurring outside Parliament and disruptions taking place within it. He affirmed that demonstrations outside the Prime Minister’s residence could be considered legitimate, provided they do not obstruct security arrangements or the functioning of the government. “That’s part of democracy,” he asserted.
Democracy, he added, cannot be confined to a single vote cast every five years. “The stuff of democracy happens between elections,” Tharoor concluded, emphasizing the continuous and multifaceted nature of democratic engagement beyond electoral cycles.
The Chenab Times News Desk