There is something rotten in a democracy where the Union budget does not get a chance to be properly debated in parliament. The Lok Sabha cut short the first part of its budget session by a day and in the Rajya Sabha, the finance minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, was physically stopped from making a statement on the budget by the chief whip of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Mr S.S. Ahluwalia. In both the houses, the causes of disruption and adjournment were the same: the opposition wanted to discuss the violence in Nandigram in West Bengal. It is nobody’s case that the violence in Nandigram is unimportant. But law and order is a state subject and thus technically outside the purview of parliament. What is also critical in the context is the importance of the budget, the debate on it and the vote on it. This is not the first time that a discussion on the budget has been disrupted in parliament. This is perhaps the opposition’s odd way of acknowledging the importance of the budget. Last year, the “office of profit” came in handy to disturb the budget session. The year before, it was the “cash for questions” that became the rallying point for members of parliament. In all the shouting and table thumping that went on in parliament over Nandigram and the other issues, what was overlooked was the unique place the budget and the finance bill occupy in the running of a government. The finance bill is arguably the single most important instrument of governance. It is a shame that year after year such an important item does not get discussed by the elected representatives of the people.

To this must be added the way the elected representatives of the people behave in parliament. In the space of a few days, two cabinet ministers have been prevented from speaking because they came close to being assaulted by members. Such behaviour is unacceptable within the hallowed portals of parliament, which is an institution that has been created for the purposes of free discussion and debate. It is also an institution that is governed by certain conventions. It is becoming increasingly evident that these conventions are more honoured in the breach by MPs. Many members seem to be unaware of the distinction between a parliamentary debate and a street fight. The demographic size of a democracy has obviously nothing to do with the way democracy is practised, and the way democratic institutions function.