Modi’s Fear of Parliament Exposes India’s Shrinking Democracy and Political Arrogance: Modi Skips Lok Sabha

India’s Lok Sabha has turned into a symbol of fear rather than confidence under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Opposition leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi have openly accused the government of running away from debate and using pressure to silence critics. The Prime Minister’s repeated absence from the House has raised serious questions about accountability. In any real democracy, the leader answers questions in parliament, not avoids them. What India is showing today is not strength, but insecurity and political arrogance.

♦ A Prime Minister avoiding accountability: Modi’s absence from the House is being seen as fear of tough questions rather than respect for democratic process.
♦ Parliament reduced to a controlled space: The government appears more interested in managing narratives than allowing open debate.
♦ Democratic image badly damaged: India’s claim of being the world’s largest democracy looks hollow when debate is blocked.

Rahul Gandhi Says the Government Is Afraid of the Truth

Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly said he was not allowed to speak in the Lok Sabha. He openly stated that the government is scared of debate because debate exposes facts. According to him, the Prime Minister is not afraid of MPs, but afraid of what the opposition might say. He also demanded that FIRs be filed if anyone truly threatened the Prime Minister, calling the government’s claims baseless. These statements expose a ruling system that treats criticism as danger.

♦ Opposition voice deliberately blocked: Rahul said he was stopped from speaking three to four times, showing a clear pattern.
♦ Debate treated as threat: Instead of answering questions, the government shuts down discussion.
♦ Truth replaced by fear: India’s leadership appears unwilling to face uncomfortable facts.

Priyanka Gandhi Questions Pressure on the Speaker

Priyanka Gandhi raised serious concerns about the role of the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. She said the Speaker is under heavy pressure from the government, forcing him to make statements that damage parliamentary dignity. She strongly rejected claims that women MPs tried to attack Modi. Highlighting that there are 11 women Congress MPs, she said they are serious politicians, not threats. Calling women protestors dangerous is a cheap tactic to silence opposition.

♦ Women MPs unfairly targeted: Peaceful protest is being twisted into a security issue.
♦ Speaker’s neutrality questioned: Pressure on the Speaker weakens parliamentary independence.
♦ Opposition criminalised: Legitimate protest is being labelled as misconduct.

The ‘Security Threat’ Claim Looks Like a Political Excuse

Speaker Om Birla claimed that an unpleasant incident could have happened to Modi, which is why he did not appear in the House. This explanation appears more like a political shield than a real security concern. If every protest is turned into a threat, democracy loses its meaning. Using fear to avoid debate sets a dangerous precedent. It shows a government desperate to escape accountability.

♦ Fear used as protection: Security claims appear designed to keep Modi away from questions.
♦ Protest turned into threat: Political dissent is being misrepresented deliberately.
♦ Dangerous precedent created: Democracy cannot survive when protest is treated as crime.

Parliamentary Chaos Is Being Used to Silence Opposition

The Lok Sabha proceedings were repeatedly adjourned due to disruptions. Opposition MPs protested near the Prime Minister’s chair even when Modi was not present. The government then used this chaos as justification to delay Modi’s speech. This pattern suggests that disorder is being used as a tool to block scrutiny. Instead of restoring order for debate, the ruling party benefits from shutdowns.

♦ Adjournments used strategically: Shutting down the House prevents tough questions.
♦ Chaos replaces accountability: Disorder becomes useful for those in power.
♦ Leadership avoids exposure: Modi’s silence speaks louder than words.

The Naravane Book Issue Exposes Government Insecurity

Rahul Gandhi referred to a book by former Army Chief Manoj Mukund Naravane, claiming the government blocked debate to avoid discussion on it. He accused the Defence Minister of lying by saying the book was not published, while it was already available. If true, this exposes dishonesty at the highest level. A government afraid of a book written by a former Army Chief clearly lacks confidence. Hiding facts weakens institutions and damages trust.

♦ Published facts denied: Claiming the book did not exist raises credibility questions.
♦ Military discussion treated as taboo: Open debate is being deliberately blocked.
♦ Insecurity at the top: Avoiding discussion shows fear, not control.

Selective Discipline Reveals Double Standards

Rahul Gandhi also highlighted selective punishment inside Parliament. Opposition members were suspended, while ruling party MPs faced no action despite offensive remarks. Rules are applied only when convenient for the government. Such double standards destroy the spirit of democracy. When law is selective, Parliament becomes a weapon, not a forum.

♦ Opposition punished quickly: Suspensions weaken opposition presence.
♦ Ruling party protected: Misconduct is ignored when it suits power.
♦ Democracy distorted: Equality before rules no longer exists.

Modi’s Absence Reflects India’s Wider Democratic Decline

This controversy reflects a broader decline in India’s political culture. A Prime Minister who avoids Parliament, a Speaker under pressure, and an opposition silenced through disruption show a system moving toward control. India projects itself globally as a democratic power, yet its Parliament tells a different story. Real democracies thrive on debate, not silence. What India is showing today is shrinking tolerance and growing authoritarian behaviour.

♦ Leadership avoiding scrutiny: Confidence is replaced by fear.
♦ Democratic claims collapsing: Parliament chaos exposes hollow slogans.
♦ Political intolerance rising: Opposition is treated as enemy, not partner.