Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram has launched a sharp critique against the Narendra Modi-led government, accusing it of deliberately stifling debate and discussion in Parliament. In a pointed opinion piece, Chidambaram argues that the current administration does not believe a vibrant and debate-rich Parliament strengthens democracy.
The Ironic Prelude to Winter Session
The Winter Session of Parliament beginning December 1, 2025, was set against a backdrop of what Chidambaram terms "ominous" and "provocative" remarks from Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In his customary pre-session address, PM Modi urged members, particularly targeting "one or two parties," to ensure Parliament is a place for "delivery, not drama." He suggested these parties were unable to digest their defeat in the recent Bihar elections and were bringing their frustrations into the parliamentary arena.
"There is plenty of space in the country to shout slogans," Modi stated, adding, "But here, we should emphasize policy, not slogans." He also took a veiled dig at leaders of state-specific parties, implying they used Parliament to vent anger due to anti-incumbency in their home states. Chidambaram describes this rhetoric as "classic double-speak," where the government publicly invites discussion but employs procedural rules to block it.
How Parliamentary Doors Are Being Closed
Chidambaram details the specific parliamentary instruments available to the Opposition for raising matters of public importance and how their use has dwindled under the Modi government.
The primary tools for the Opposition are:
- Adjournment Motion: Governed by Rule 57 in Lok Sabha, it allows discussion on a specific matter of recent occurrence involving the government's responsibility. It is often seen as a censure motion.
- Short Duration Discussion: Under Rule 193 (Lok Sabha) and Rule 176 (Rajya Sabha) for matters of urgent public importance.
- Calling Attention Notice: Under Rule 197 (Lok Sabha) and Rule 180 (Rajya Sabha), where a minister must respond to a member's query on an urgent issue.
The data presented by Chidambaram shows a clear trend of suppression. In the Modi government's first term, adjournment motions were opposed due to the perceived stigma. The second term saw growing intolerance, and now, in the third term beginning in 2024, even the windows for short-duration discussions and calling attention notices have been largely closed. The situation is noted to be particularly severe in the Rajya Sabha, though a change in its Chairman in September 2025 leaves room for observation.
A Blunt Assessment of Democratic Erosion
Chidambaram's conclusion is unequivocal. He asserts that the government is "implacably opposed to dialogue, discussion and debate." The declining numbers of debates allowed on urgent public matters, despite the government not holding a simple majority on its own in the third term, raises a critical question: Are we to believe no issue of urgent public importance arose that merited parliamentary discussion?
The essay frames this not merely as a political skirmish but as a fundamental issue for Indian democracy. The irony of PM Modi's call for less "drama" is highlighted, suggesting that what is labeled as drama is often the essential, albeit robust, debate that is the lifeblood of a parliamentary system. The piece serves as a stark warning about the centralization of procedural control and the marginalization of the opposition's voice in the highest forum of the world's largest democracy.
