How long will the erosion of parliamentary decorum continue? When will we develop the maturity to make productive use of every single minute of Parliament? As India moves towards preparations for the 80th anniversary of its Independence, the Monsoon Session of Parliament concluded in an atmosphere of disappointment, frustration and neglect. This is not merely the failure of any one political party, the government or the opposition; rather, it raises a serious question about the state of our parliamentary culture. The 25-day session was marked more by disruptions, sloganeering, deadlock and adjournments than by meaningful political debate. The real question is not whether the ruling party or the opposition was right. The question is whether Parliament was able to fulfil its fundamental responsibilities—serious deliberation on issues concerning the people, holding the government accountable, and enacting laws in the national interest. The figures from this session speak for themselves. The productivity of the Lok Sabha remained barely 19 per cent, while the Rajya Sabha managed approximately 39 per cent. Not even a single day of Question Hour could be completed in the Lok Sabha. This is particularly worrying because Question Hour is regarded as the very soul of Parliament. If elected representatives are denied the opportunity to question the government and the government is unable to respond to those questions on the floor of the House, how can democratic accountability be ensured? The Lok Sabha functioned relatively well on July 28, while the Rajya Sabha too witnessed meaningful proceedings only on a few days. Much of the remaining time was lost to political confrontation.

Parliament is not merely a building made of bricks and mortar. It is the highest democratic forum representing the collective consciousness of India. The aspirations, problems and dreams of hundreds of millions of citizens reach this forum. Farmers, workers, students, women, traders, youth, the poor and the underprivileged—all expect their voices to become part of the national discourse through Parliament. Therefore, every minute of parliamentary time does not belong merely to an MP; it represents the time, money, trust and democratic rights of the people of India. Every minute wasted in Parliament is, in effect, a minute deducted from public faith in democracy. Unfortunately, disruptions in Parliament are no longer an exception; they are increasingly becoming a regular instrument of parliamentary politics. Raising issues is a democratic right, holding the government to account is the responsibility of the opposition, and dissent is a source of strength for democracy. But when dissent is expressed by repeatedly paralysing the House instead of being transformed into dialogue, it does not strengthen democracy. Protest, too, has to be conducted within the bounds of parliamentary decorum. If the opposition prevents the House from functioning in order to make its voice heard, and the ruling party responds by treating its numerical majority as sufficient reason to disregard the opposition, both sides together weaken the spirit of parliamentary democracy.

Several incidents during this session made this decline even more evident. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha did not deliver the traditional concluding address at the end of the session. The boycott by the Congress, Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress of the customary tea gathering with the Lok Sabha Speaker cannot be viewed merely as the cancellation of a social programme. It reflects the growing political bitterness within the House. Differences are natural in a democracy; deep personal animosity is harmful to democracy. Parliament should develop a culture in which political leaders can shake hands after a debate—not one in which differences deepen into permanent hostility. This Monsoon Session will also be remembered for issues such as the NEET-UG paper leak, the student agitation at Jantar Mantar, demands for the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, and allegations concerning the theft of donations at the Ram Temple. Following violence during the Jantar Mantar protest, the opposition was demanding an explanation from the Union Home Minister. When the Home Minister was prepared to respond in the final days of the session, the opposition's refusal to listen to his statement raised serious questions about parliamentary judgment. If the opposition disagreed with the government's response, the more effective democratic course would have been to hear it and then present a fact-based rebuttal. Refusing to hear an answer does not resolve a question; it merely leaves the question unanswered.

It is equally important to acknowledge that, despite the disruptions, Parliament did accomplish some significant work. The government referred the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, or FCRA Bill, to a Joint Parliamentary Committee amid opposition. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed by both Houses, with the objective of curbing unfair practices in examinations and ensuring stringent action against those responsible. Steps were also taken towards linking banking records with a new digital framework, tightening provisions relating to delayed registration of births and deaths, and introducing other legislative and administrative reforms. The decision to formally rename Kerala as Keralam was also part of the proceedings of this session. These achievements demonstrate that when Parliament functions, even a limited amount of time can produce important results. But the question remains: if Parliament can function, why does it have to be repeatedly disrupted? Have we forgotten that democracy means more than merely winning elections? The true meaning of democracy lies in respecting differing viewpoints, accepting dissent, maintaining continuous dialogue and ensuring people's participation in the decision-making process. The ruling party must understand that a majority gives it the authority to govern, but it does not absolve it of the responsibility to listen to the opposition. At the same time, the opposition must recognise that the right to protest does not mean the right to paralyse Parliament.

Our parliamentary tradition has witnessed many difficult periods in the past. There have been fierce debates, ideological conflicts and strong criticism of governments, yet there was an effort to preserve Parliament as a forum for dialogue. Today, we need to revive that tradition. Political parties must introspect and ask themselves: Can they go before the people and honestly say that they made full use of the parliamentary time available to raise their concerns? Can any MP proudly claim that he or she used every parliamentary opportunity in the larger national interest? It is easy to create an uproar in Parliament, but running Parliament effectively requires character, restraint and democratic maturity. Sloganeering requires political energy; meaningful debate requires preparation and study. Standing before a microphone requires political enthusiasm; drafting and passing sound legislation requires vision and foresight. Numbers may be enough to disrupt proceedings, but nation-building requires wisdom, patience and dialogue.

As India moves towards the 80th year of Independence, this is a moment for serious introspection. We have achieved remarkable progress in science, the economy, technology and our standing in the world. But have our political institutions matured at the same pace? Have we strengthened our parliamentary system enough to make the best possible use of every minute of parliamentary time? Have we given our disagreements enough dignity to ensure that protest can coexist with dialogue? Have we given the ruling establishment enough humility and the opposition enough wisdom to work together to strengthen democracy? The answers to these questions cannot be sought only within the walls of Parliament. Political party leaderships, Members of Parliament, parliamentary institutions and, ultimately, we as citizens must all reflect upon them. Citizens too must ask their representatives: How often did they attend Parliament? How many questions did they raise? How many debates did they participate in? And what meaningful contribution did they make to the nation?

Democracy does not become stronger merely by voting once every five years. It becomes stronger when citizens continuously hold their representatives accountable. Disruption is not a victory for any political party; it is a collective defeat for democracy. When Parliament functions, questions are asked. When questions are asked, the government is required to respond. When answers are provided, policies can be scrutinised. And when policies are scrutinised, meaningful laws can be enacted. That is the lifeblood of democracy.