This decreased to 73 days for both houses in 2011, according to the PRS document on the changing trends in the working of parliament over the past 60 years. The one man who has been primarily responsible for disrupting the Parliamentary proceeding is the patriarch of the BJP L K Advani. After the BJP lost the 2009 Lok Sabha election, for which Advani was projected as the prime ministerial candidate of BJP, he resorted to the tactics of disrupting the proceedings of the house.

In fact disruption had acquired such a major dimension and the number of sittings of both houses of the Indian parliament had gone down drastically to such a level that none other than but the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had expressed concern over the efficacy of the pillar of democracy that celebrated the 60th year of its existence in 2010..

It is not that Parliamentary proceedings were not disrupted during the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties, precisely during the Congress rule. The house had many opposition stalwarts like Rajnarayan, Madhu Limaye, Ram Manohar Lohia, Piloo Modi, A K Gopalan, Hiren Mukherjee, Nath Pai and others but they did not believe in the politics of disrupting the proceeding of the house to give a bad name to the prime minister. Ironically the BJP used disruption as the tool to malign the image of the prime minister and denigrate him in public eyes.

Veteran politicians and political commentators have noted that debates during the 1950s and 1960s used to be livelier and parliamentary disruption was not used for expressing dissent or opposition. It is corroborated by official statistics that the proportion of time lost to disruption has been increasing. The loss of time, just below 10 per cent during the 10th Lok Sabha (1991-1996), reached a record high of 40 per cent during the 15th Lok Sabha (2009-2014). By this time the BJP has emerged as the main opposition party.
Parliamentary disruptions have been defended by the opposition; as a means to counter arrogance of the ruling dispensation (referring to the “tyranny of the majority") and as a means to highlight matters of public interest.

It is worth mentioning that in January 2011, the senior BJP leader and then Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley had said, “Parliament’s job is to conduct discussions. But many a time, Parliament is used by the government to ignore issues and in such situations, obstruction of Parliament is in the favour of democracy. Therefore, parliamentary obstruction is not undemocratic.”

Now, when both houses of Parliament are witnessing disruptions, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been showing his anger. Only yesterday he criticised the opposition for disrupting the house proceeding, tearing papers and making "derogatory" remarks on the way bills have been passed, as he also accused them of insulting the legislature and the Constitution.

This posture certainly does not behove to his stature. Being the leader of the house he should have behaved more in a rationale manner. The idea of introspection is alien to Modi, which is why it would be naïve to expect that he would do some amount of introspection as to why the opposition was not allowing the house to function.

Modi’s anger is more for public consumption and to bolster the moral of his cadres and partymen. He is not worried at all of the disruption. It is a fact ever since he became prime minister, he has not allowed the house to discharge its duties in a rational manner. He has been unresponsive to the opposition voice. True speaking he has no moral right to accuse the opposition of disrupting the house.

Let us confine ourselves to two issues. First, the passage of the three farm bills by the Parliament. Since the matter was of immense importance he could have had the matter debated thread bare in the house. But he ignored the opposition. His action in true sense reflects his contempt for the opposition and his arrogance. He has denigrated the prestige of the house. Second is the use of Pegasus to spy on the people who are opposed to him. Though he has been non committal in accepting that he ordered spying, his passive attitude to this heinous crime makes it imperative that he had hired the Pegasus in 2017 during his visit to Israel. In the prevailing situation it is his responsibility to come clean and clear the air. If he is not involved in the crime then why he is scared of ordering a probe. The philosophy of Hindutva to which he claims to adhere tells that a person must have high quality of moral conviction.

For last ten days the opposition has been raising the issue of having the crime investigated. It is ostrich like attitude that has been responsible for the disruption of the house proceeding. He has no moral right to blame the opposition. In fact the Congress, TMC and other opposition parties have been following in the footsteps of Advani. Deputy Leader of Congress in the Rajya Sabha Anand Sharma earlier this week (on July 27) said, “It is not correct to say that we are being obstructionist. The Opposition is doing its duty and the Prime Minister is being undemocratic.”

The TMC leader Derek O'Brien tweeted, "In the first 10 days, Modi-Shah rushed through and passed 12 Bills at an average time of UNDER SEVEN MINUTES per Bill. Passing legislation or making papri chaat!" Modi through his action has been denying the members to discuss the bills. This is purely an immoral act. The opposition has stalled Parliament's proceedings demanding a discussion on the Pegasus snooping row, but ironically instead of conceding its demand Modi government has been dismissing as inconsequential issue. There is nothing new in this observation. A person facing the accusation of committing crime always comes out with the defence that he is innocent and has not committed the crime. It is only for the judiciary to decide whether he is innocent.

As on earlier occasions, once again Prime Minister Narendra Modi had asserted that his government will leave no stone unturned to fulfil its commitment to people. Bills do not belong to the government but are aimed at people's welfare. The people of the country are witness to his theatrics, how he has been fooling by uttering nice words. In fact he is worried at the sharp decline of his charisma and smearing of his image. He is also worried for the reason that he has deprived the people of constructive and rich debates in the Parliament. Usually the people of the country look towards the house proceedings with keen interest and high hopes.

His accusing the opposition also manifests his desperation to hold to the power. The fact of the matter is the socio-political situation has gone beyond his control. Though he has turned the media subservient to him and they are using their all might to project his good image, the people of the country have come to see the real face of Modi hidden behind the façade of being a puritan.

Modi accuses the opposition of disrupting the Parliament. Will he underline before the countrymen what step has he initiated to check this decline. The fact is during his rule there has been substansive decline in the effectiveness of Parliament as an institution of accountability and oversight. He and his government turned the instruments that Parliament can use for accountability —motions on the floor, oversight powers, the committee system—dysfunctional. The economic issues which in a normal course ought o have been discussed on the floor of the house in the greater interest of the country and its people were finalised behind the closed doors of the corporate houses. This eroded the power of Parliament. Much of economic decision making is now increasingly governed by corporate treaties. The most severe damage that Modi inflicted on the Parliament is it has been restructuring its regulatory framework with more powers being delegated to non-elected institutions. This has diminished the importance of Parliament. He has also given the executive more powers.

If at all Modi has been sincere in running the Parliament, he must declare the installation of Pegasus spyware as illegal and unconstitutional and disclose all materials and documents about the authorisation and orders on the use of Pegasus. He should also put in place a judicial oversight mechanism to deal with any complaints on illegal breaches of privacy and hacking and punish all government officials responsible for such breaches. Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta has rightly pointed out in his petition to the Supreme Court that he has strong reasons to believe that he has been subjected to a deeply intrusive surveillance and hacking by the Government of India or some other third party. His rights to privacy, the access to information and his freedom as a journalist have been violated.

If the farmers’ agitation has injected the sense for unity of purpose among the Opposition parties, the Pegasus controversy has strengthened the urge for a united offensive. Modi for his refusal to order a probe or concede the demand for a debate in Parliament has been responsible for lowering of the image of India and its democratic institution across the globe and denigrating the stature of the Parliament. He himself has turned an object of suspicion in the eyes of a common Indian. (IPA Service)