As someone in the eighth year of his parliamentary career, I have witnessed how quickly the political ecosystem begins to decay when the ruling party withdraws from its constitutional responsibilities and chooses avoidance over engagement. From television studios to everyday conversations on the street, the health of democratic culture deteriorates when those in power close the doors to dialogue.
The long arc of India’s parliamentary tradition — from the Constituent Assembly to the present —carries one clear lesson: The responsibility to build bridges, initiate conversations, and sustain consensus lies foremost with the ruling party. The Opposition must critique, question, and challenge the government. That friction strengthens democratic outcomes. But it is the government, armed with the people’s mandate and the instruments of the state, that must take the first step towards dialogue. Shunning the Opposition is not a display of strength — it is a departure from the grammar of Indian democracy.
Our founding generation understood this deeply. The Constituent Assembly was not a monolithic body. It was a tapestry of ideologies and personalities, yet the debates were marked by remarkable civility. The members recognised that the Constitution could not be the victory of one group over another; it had to reflect the diversity and aspirations of an entire nation.
India’s parliamentary system, modelled on the Westminster tradition but uniquely adapted to Indian pluralism, envisions dialogue as central to its functioning. The ruling party may set the agenda, but it also bears the moral and political obligation to hear, understand, and respond to dissenting voices. The Opposition may agitate or protest, but the responsibility to keep the conversation alive always lies with the government of the day.
Yet, in recent years, we have witnessed a troubling erosion of this democratic culture. Parliament sessions are shrinking without justification, and even the limited sittings are marked by repeated adjournments and disruptions. Stringent bills are introduced and passed with minimal discussion; some have cleared the House in under an hour. This withering of debate is not accidental. It is the direct consequence of a political choice to sideline rather than engage with the Opposition.
This marks a sharp departure from earlier norms. Governments of every hue — Congress, BJP in the earlier eras, the United Front, Janata, various coalitions — recognised the value of dialogue. Even in moments of intense rivalry, crucial pieces of legislation were shaped by committee scrutiny, bipartisan deliberation, and extended debate. There was a basic understanding that in a country as vast and diverse as India, legitimacy stems not from numbers alone but from consensus-building. India, after all, is a coalition of ideas.
Today, however, the rhetoric of majoritarianism threatens this ethic. When dissenters are branded obstructionists or “anti-national”, the democratic fabric begins to tear. History offers a stark warning: During the Emergency, when dissent was crushed and Parliament reduced to an echo chamber, the result was not stability but a deep institutional crisis and a backlash that redefined Indian politics. The context today is different, but the underlying truth remains the same — democracies wither when governments stop listening.
It bears repeating: the Opposition is not an enemy of the state. It is a constitutional institution representing millions of citizens. Ignoring the Opposition is, in effect, ignoring the people who elected them. While the Opposition, too, must uphold the responsibilities of constructive criticism and meaningful participation, its lapses cannot justify the ruling party’s withdrawal from dialogue.
Engaging with the Opposition strengthens the government — it broadens support, sharpens policy, anticipates criticism, and builds national ownership of decisions. It is a mark of confidence, not weakness. Yet today, we witness the paradox of a government with an overwhelming majority suffering from profound insecurity.
Parliament was never meant to be a mere extension of the executive. It was envisioned as a forum where the nation could argue with dignity, disagree without hostility, and converge without coercion.
India stands at a crossroads. The deliberative core of its democracy is weakening not because ideas are absent but because dissent is being treated as a threat. The country expects the government to lead conversations, not shut them down. It expects Parliament to be a house of dialogue, not a stage for majoritarian assertion.
If Indian democracy is to remain alive as more than just the periodic act of voting, the ruling party must revive the spirit of respect, humility, and honest engagement. Having observed Parliament from within and from the public gallery for many years, I say with conviction: When governments isolate the Opposition, democracies decline. When they engage, democracies renew themselves.
The choice before us is stark — between a politics of domination and a politics of dialogue. Democracy in India is not just a system — it is a shared national ethic. And it is time for the ruling party to lead by honouring that ethic once again.
The writer MP, Rajya Sabha, Rashtriya Janata Dal
Democracy in India is not just a system — it is a shared national ethic. And it is time for the ruling party to lead by honouring that ethic once again. 
Share
