Is the House Silent? Unpacking the 'Parliament-ophobia' Accusation

There's a curious turn of phrase echoing through the hallowed, if sometimes tumultuous, halls of Indian politics these days: "Parliament-ophobia." And it's not some obscure medical condition, but rather a biting accusation hurled by a prominent opposition figure, Derek O'Brien of the Trinamool Congress (TMC), directly at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government. He isn't just making noise; he's suggesting, quite starkly, that the very essence of parliamentary democracy is, well, ailing.

You see, O'Brien, a seasoned parliamentarian himself, laid out his case with a certain rhythm and passion. He argues, and quite convincingly for many, that the government seems — perhaps "seems" is too gentle a word here — to be actively avoiding the kind of rigorous, often messy, but utterly essential debate that Parliament is meant for. It’s as if, he suggests, they're developing a genuine aversion to the legislative crucible where ideas are forged, challenged, and ultimately refined. It's a bold claim, of course, but then again, politics often demands boldness.

Now, what’s the basis for such a strong allegation? O'Brien points to some rather stark numbers, which, honestly, give one pause. He highlighted a noticeable, perhaps even alarming, decline in the sheer number of parliamentary sittings under the current administration. Less time in session, less time for scrutiny — that's the natural conclusion, isn't it? But it's not just the quantity of sittings; it's the quality, or rather, the pace of legislation, that truly raises eyebrows.

Consider this: bills, crucial pieces of legislation that impact millions of lives, are apparently being rushed through Parliament at breakneck speed. O'Brien didn't mince words, citing instances where bills sailed through in an astonishing 10 to 15 minutes. Even, he stressed, in a mere three minutes. Can you truly scrutinize, debate, and amend a complex piece of law in such a blink-and-you-miss-it timeframe? It feels less like legislative process and more like, well, a rubber stamp. And he contrasts this sharply with the United Progressive Alliance (UPA-II) era, where, by his account, bills took a more considered average of 35 minutes to pass. Thirty-five minutes versus three? That’s a world of difference, if you think about it.

And for those who might think these are isolated incidents, O'Brien provided further detail. He spoke of the last session, where a staggering 39 bills — yes, thirty-nine — were passed in under a quarter of an hour each. That’s a statistic that simply begs the question: what kind of debate, what kind of critical engagement, could possibly have occurred in such a limited window? It's a genuine concern, and frankly, it feels like a disservice to the democratic ideal.

But the critique doesn't end there. The TMC leader also lambasted the government for, as he sees it, sidestepping Parliament altogether when it comes to major policy announcements. Instead of presenting new initiatives to the elected representatives, the preferred venues, he suggests, are increasingly media outlets, television interviews, or even — heaven forbid — social media platforms. It's a shift, you could say, from the deliberative chamber to the digital broadcast, and that has implications for accountability, doesn't it? If policies are announced outside Parliament, then Parliament's ability to immediately question and critique is severely hampered. That’s a serious issue for a democracy built on checks and balances.

O'Brien wasn't shy about bringing up specific legislative examples either, touching upon the Women's Reservation Bill and the Electoral Bond Bill. These, in his view, are cases where proper parliamentary engagement felt conspicuously absent. He isn't just complaining for the sake of it, in truth; he's articulating a deeper worry about the erosion of institutional norms. For him, and indeed for many who cherish democratic principles, the Parliament isn't just a building; it's a vital, living organism, and its health is paramount to the nation's well-being.

Ultimately, what O'Brien is calling for is a return to robust parliamentary scrutiny. It's about ensuring that legislation, before it becomes law, truly faces the heat of debate, the light of public scrutiny through its representatives. Because, honestly, without that, without a vibrant, functioning Parliament where diverse voices can be heard and challenged, then what are we left with? A democracy, perhaps, but one that might just be losing its essential voice, muffled by an alleged 'Parliament-ophobia'. And that, for any nation, is a truly unsettling prospect.