A curious formula now passes for democratic concern in sections of our political and commentariat classes: Disrupt Parliament, prevent Question Hour, shout down ministers, reject offers of debate and then publish solemn articles lamenting that Parliament did not debate.Critics have cited the Monsoon Session’s numbers: The Lok Sabha functioned for 15 per cent of its scheduled time and the Rajya Sabha for 33 per cent. Question Hour operated for barely 1 per cent of its allotted time in the Lok Sabha and 12 per cent in the Rajya Sabha.AdvertisementBut these numbers cannot be separated from their cause. The same analysis records that the session was marked by repeated disruptions and adjournments. The Opposition’s arithmetic is therefore deeply cynical: First ensure that Parliament cannot function, and then use the resulting loss of time as evidence against the government.Also Read | Politics has descended into a crusade of mutual demonisation, and Parliament has followedThe Constitution gives the Opposition every right to question, criticise, protest, move amendments and vote against the government. It does not give the Opposition a remote control with which it may switch Parliament off whenever its political demands are not accepted. The government has listened, negotiated, amended legislation and accommodated legitimate concerns. What it will not do is surrender the people’s mandate to an Opposition that paralyses Parliament and then cites that paralysis as proof of authoritarianism.Nothing exposes the hollowness of the present campaign more clearly than the Opposition’s own response when it was offered the parliamentary debate it claimed to want. On the Jantar Mantar protests, Union Home Minister Amit Shah offered a detailed discussion in Parliament. He offered to begin the debate at 3 pm that day and continue it until 3 pm the following day. He committed to responding to the questions raised.AdvertisementThe Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, rejected the offer, declaring that the Opposition was not interested in the Home Minister’s “lecture”. A leader genuinely denied a debate seizes a 24-hour offer. He does not dismiss it as a lecture. One cannot refuse a full parliamentary discussion and then complain that Parliament has been silenced.The contradiction becomes even more striking when seen against Rahul Gandhi’s own parliamentary record. During the 17th Lok Sabha, he recorded just 51 per cent attendance, participated in eight debates against a national average of 46.7, asked 99 questions against an average of 210, and introduced no Private Member’s Bill.Yet he now declares that the government has “destroyed our democracy”. He goes to the UK, Germany and the US and complains about the lack of democracy in India. But he doesn’t have the gall to attend Parliament and seek accountability. Neither he nor the Congress party are defenders of democracy. They excel in political theatre bordering on parody.The allegation that the government refuses to listen is equally detached from the record. When concerns were raised regarding the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, the government referred the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed examination. Remarkably, sections of the Opposition opposed even the JPC referral and demanded that the Bill be withdrawn altogether.This reveals the real problem. For some Opposition parties, consultation no longer means that the government should listen. It means that the government must surrender. Debate is considered meaningless unless the minister accepts the Opposition’s conclusions in advance.The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill provides another instructive example. The Lok Sabha debated it for nearly 11 hours, with 48 MPs participating. The Rajya Sabha discussed it for more than six-and-a-half hours, with 35 members taking part. This was not a law being “rammed through”.The government also engaged directly with Sonam Wangchuk during his hunger strike. Following discussions, he subsequently ended his 26-day fast. Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally appealed to him to follow medical advice and prayed for his recovery.Consider the democratic sequence: A protest was held; civil-society concerns were heard; Union ministers engaged with the protester; written assurances were provided; the Prime Minister responded; Parliament conducted an extensive debate; and legislation was strengthened. It is difficult to imagine a more democratic chain of engagement and accountability.you may likeParliament belongs neither to the government nor to the Opposition. It belongs to the people of India. The mandate they have delivered is not a decorative certificate that may be suspended whenever defeated parties choose disruption over argument.Slogans outside the House cannot substitute for arguments inside it. Those who cannot defeat a government through debate or the ballot cannot be permitted to defeat Parliament through noise.The writer is Union Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Minister of Minority Affairs