Friends, last week Parliament was stalled for four consecutive days. The reason is a political standoff driven by the insistence of Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi. The House was scheduled to debate the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, followed by the Prime Minister’s reply- a long-standing parliamentary tradition.
The PM was to deliver his response on Thursday. However, even before he entered the House, the Congress leadership had formulated a strategy to prevent him from speaking. Priyanka Gandhi openly declared that if LoP was not allowed to speak, no one from the ruling party would be allowed to speak either.
What followed inside the House was unprecedented. For the first time in India’s Parliamentary history, Congresswomen MPs physically surrounded the PM’s seat-blocking access from both front and rear-so that he could not occupy his chair. The BJP has alleged that this amounted to a planned attack on the PM. Such conduct by the opposition has never been witnessed before. No opposition, however strong or weak in numbers has ever behaved in this manner. What is unfolding under Rahul Gandhi’s leadership has no parallel in parliamentary history.
Rahul Gandhi and his party repeatedly claim that he was not allowed to speak. This claim does not holds good. He was allotted a full 40 minutes to speak on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. Yet he did not utter even four words related to the President’s speech. His insistence was singular, he wanted to quote from an unpublished book by Ex Army Chief and was unwilling to speak on the Motion of Thanks. The Speaker ruled clearly that parliamentary rules do not allow such a reference.
This has led to widespread confusion and debate about parliamentary procedure. Any member of the Parliament-regardless of whether they are LoP or an ordinary MP- has the right to quote from published books, documents, magazines, or newspapers. However, the right is subject to two mandatory conditions:
- First, the source being quoted must be authenticated and formally placed on the table of the House. The MP must take responsibility for its contents, accepting accountability if any claim is proven false. This accountability can invite privilege motions, disciplinary action, or even loss of membership, depending upon Speaker’s decision.
- Second and more fundamental, the quotation must be directly relevant to the subject under discussion. If the House is debating the budget, one can not raise unrelated controversies. In this case, the House was debating the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address. Rahul Gandhi has no intention of addressing that subject at all.
Instead he arrived with a book he claimed was authored by an Ex Army Chief. The book, by his own admission, has not published. He claimed it was published abroad but refused to disclose how he obtained it. Moreover, past incidents-such as displaying a Constitution copy that turned out to contain blank pages-have already raised doubts about such theatrics.
Rahul Gandhi remained adamant that he would speak only from this book, irrespective of the topic being debated. Parliamentary business, however is not decided by individual insistence. The agenda is fixed by the Business Advisory Committee. Debate on the Motion of Thanks was scheduled until the 4th of the month, with all members-including LoP-given time to speak, followed by PM’s reply.
Two unprecedented developments occurred simultaneously. For the first time PM was prevented from replying to the President’s Address. And for the first time, a LoP openly refused to speak on the President’s Address. This makes it clear that disruption-was the intended objective. As parliamentary proceedings are broadcast live. Disruptions guarantees visibility. Several Congress MPs climbed onto tables and threw torn papers at the presiding officer leading to their suspension. Rahul Gandhi himself was not suspended.
In fact, the argument can be made that if any suspension was warranted, it should have applied solely to Rahul Gandhi. Once the Speaker delivers a ruling, it is binding to all members-regardless of position. Rahul Gandhi’s refusal to accept that authority lies at the heart of the deadlock.
Rahul Gandhi, and the Congress party wants that Parliament should pass a resolution declaring that whenever a member of the Gandhi family-particularly Rahul Gandhi-rises to speak, no parliamentary rules or traditions shall apply to him. He may speak on any subject, at any time, in any manner. He may quote from any document without authentication. Topic relevance should not matter. National security considerations should not apply.
Why? Because Rahul Gandhi considers himself entitled. In his world, laws, convention, and rules are meant for others. Numerous legal cases-ranging from questions about citizenship to financial investigations-have prolonged for years without any court order or judgment. If constitution laws does not restrain him, (even in cases where conviction occurred, relied arrived swiftly), why should parliament rules apply to him?
What is happening now is not new. From Rafale to Pegasus, from Hinderburg to other allegations, none of the issues raised by Rahul have survived judicial scrutiny or public judgment. The electorate repeatedly rejected his narratives. Yet he refuses to learn or reflect or recalibrate. Instead of engaging with voters, he seeks to diminish institutions. Unable to draw bigger line in politics, he tries to erase existing ones. In the process, he and his party continues to shrink
In fact the Congress leaders are openly expressing frustration, that the BJP continues to win while they continue to lose. But electoral defeat is decided by voters, not by disruption. Since 1984 Congress has not secured a full majority in the Lok Sabha-long before Narendra Modi entered national political scene.
Yet instead of introspection, Rahul Gandhi believes abusing Narendra Modi is his most effective political weapon. He uses language against the PM Modi that no LoP ever used against earlier PMs, despite their serious political differences.
Rahul Gandhi thinks as he belongs to the family of Nehru/Gandhi, he is above other political leaders and he is entitled to all privileges, and he compares himself directly to PM. In fact he is only one MP among many and a LoP whom even the full opposition does not unanimously accept. As long as this attitude persists, parliamentary paralysis will continue. Disruption will replace debate. And the Congress will continue to decline, because of its own choices.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
9th February 2026