The opposition's decision to step up pressure on the government, including the physical protest outside Parliament, is a legitimate and necessary tactic to ensure accountability in a democracy. When a government repeatedly avoids a full debate on a crisis like the Manipur violence, it is the opposition's duty to escalate.
The Manipur issue involves serious allegations of state inaction and communal polarization. By demanding a comprehensive discussion with a prime ministerial response, the opposition is representing the concerns of citizens affected by the violence. The government's offer of a limited debate without a vote is seen as an attempt to sidestep scrutiny.
Clashes outside Parliament, while regrettable, reflect the frustration of lawmakers who feel that their constitutional role as representatives is being undermined. Peaceful protest, including sit-ins and marches, is a time-honored democratic practice. The opposition's actions are aimed at drawing public attention to issues the government prefers to ignore.
Moreover, the opposition is not just blocking business; it is raising substantive issues that affect millions. Inflation, unemployment, and communal violence are pressing concerns. By forcing the government to address these, the opposition fulfills its role as a check on executive power.
Critics may argue that disruption harms parliamentary productivity, but democracy requires robust debate. The current impasse is a result of the government's unwillingness to engage. The opposition's determination sends a strong message that it will not be silenced.
Ultimately, the public benefits from a vigorous opposition that holds the government to account. The clash outside Parliament is a symptom of a deeper problem: the erosion of parliamentary debate. The opposition's stance is a defense of that essential democratic space.