Debate at Dawn: Why a 40-Minute Parliamentary Session Falls Short of Democracy’s Demands

In the early hours of April 3, 2025, as the nation lay shrouded in silence, the Lok Sabha convened at 2 a.m. to discuss a matter of profound national significance: the imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur. In a session lasting a mere 40 minutes, our elected representatives rushed through a debate on a crisis that has spanned over 21 months—one marked by ethnic violence, loss of lives, and deep-seated insecurity. While the very act of engaging in debate at such an unconventional hour is a testament to our commitment to democratic accountability, the brevity of the discussion raises critical concerns. How can an issue of such gravity, with far-reaching consequences for law and order, governance, and the social fabric of a troubled state, be adequately deliberated in just 40 minutes?

A Rushed Process for a Weighty Issue

Manipur’s crisis is not a transient or minor issue; it has been brewing for nearly two years. The state has witnessed ethnic violence that claimed at least 200 lives, led to widespread displacement, and disrupted normalcy for thousands. Despite these sobering facts, the parliamentary session aimed at approving President’s Rule—a constitutional measure intended to restore order—was scheduled at a time when most citizens are fast asleep. While the timing underscores the urgency felt by the government to move forward with administrative action, it simultaneously undermines the very essence of democratic debate.

The factual details are clear and corroborated by multiple reputable sources: the debate did indeed commence at 2 a.m. and lasted approximately 40 minutes. This rushed process, arguably, leaves little room for in-depth examination of the complexities surrounding the crisis in Manipur. Critical questions remain inadequately explored—questions regarding the long-term implications of imposing President’s Rule, the accountability of the state government, and the strategies for fostering lasting peace and reconciliation among the affected communities. A matter of such magnitude deserves more than a hastily convened session; it requires a comprehensive, multi-faceted discussion where the full spectrum of expert opinions and constituent voices can be heard.

The Pillars of Parliamentary Debate

At the heart of any robust parliamentary democracy lies the principle of deliberation. Debate is not just a formality; it is the lifeblood that ensures decisions are made transparently and with due consideration. The very structure of our parliamentary system is built on the idea that policy decisions, particularly those that carry profound constitutional implications, must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Article 356 of the Indian Constitution mandates that President’s Rule must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months—a safeguard designed to prevent the arbitrary use of central power. In this context, the parliamentary debate serves as a critical check, compelling the government to justify its actions in an open forum.

However, when debate is truncated to just 40 minutes, the opportunity for thorough vetting of the issue diminishes significantly. Extended debate is essential to unpack the multifaceted nature of crises like the one in Manipur. Such deliberation allows legislators to present data, share insights from ground realities, and call upon independent experts to weigh in on the causes and potential solutions. It also provides a platform for opposition voices to articulate dissent, challenge prevailing narratives, and demand accountability. The very essence of a democratic legislature is lost when critical issues are hurriedly processed without the benefit of extended discussion.

The Risk of Rushed Decisions

When major decisions are made on short notice, there is an inherent risk that not all relevant facts or viewpoints will be adequately considered. In the case of Manipur, a 40-minute session can hardly capture the full scope of the crisis, which involves historical grievances, ethnic tensions, and the failure of local governance over an extended period. Rushed debates may lead to decisions that are reactive rather than reflective—measures that address the symptoms of a crisis without tackling its underlying causes. This can result in temporary fixes that may even exacerbate long-term problems, further undermining public trust in the democratic process.

Critics have rightly argued that such a condensed debate process may inadvertently lend credibility to an approach that prioritizes speed over substance. When issues of immense gravity are subjected to hasty deliberation, it creates an environment where executive power can be extended without sufficient legislative oversight. This is particularly dangerous in a democracy, where the balance of power between the government and Parliament is meant to prevent any single branch from dominating the decision-making process. A prolonged, thoughtful debate is essential to ensure that measures like President’s Rule are not used as tools for political expediency but as genuine instruments of restoring law and order.

A Call for Comprehensive Deliberation

Democratic institutions are founded on the belief that decisions affecting the nation should emerge from an inclusive, reflective process. Extensive debate allows for the emergence of consensus based on a wide range of perspectives, ensuring that the decisions taken are not only constitutionally sound but also socially acceptable. In the context of Manipur, this would have meant giving ample time to discuss not just the immediate administrative measures, but also the long-term strategies for peace-building and reconciliation. It would have allowed legislators to consider alternative approaches, such as targeted economic interventions, community dialogue initiatives, and measures to enhance local governance, which might contribute to a more sustainable resolution of the crisis.

Moreover, a longer debate would have provided a richer forum for accountability. Opposition members, like Shashi Tharoor, have used such platforms in the past to question government actions, highlight lapses in policy, and demand redress for the affected communities. Their contributions are not mere political theatrics; they serve as a critical counterbalance to the executive’s narrative, ensuring that all decisions are subjected to vigorous public scrutiny. When these voices are limited by a truncated debate, the resulting decisions risk being one-dimensional, lacking the depth and breadth required for sound policy-making.

Balancing Urgency and Deliberation

Admittedly, there are moments when urgent action is required, and extended debate might seem impractical. However, the gravity of the situation in Manipur calls for a careful balance between expediency and thoroughness. While the imposition of President’s Rule might indeed need to be enacted within a specific time frame, the parliamentary process should not sacrifice depth for the sake of meeting deadlines. Instead, the legislature should strive to create conditions where even urgent matters can be debated comprehensively—perhaps by allocating dedicated sessions or utilizing parliamentary committees to conduct in-depth reviews that supplement the main debate.

A Blueprint for Future Governance

The case of Manipur offers a valuable lesson for our parliamentary system. It serves as a reminder that while the mechanics of democracy often require quick decisions, the quality of those decisions depends on the process of deliberation. A robust democratic process is characterized not by the speed of decision-making, but by the depth of the discussion that precedes any major decision. As we move forward, it is imperative for Parliament to recognize that issues of great importance demand more than a fleeting 40-minute session in the dead of night—they demand sustained, comprehensive debate that engages all stakeholders and lays the foundation for policies that are both effective and enduring.

In conclusion, while the 40-minute debate on President’s Rule in Manipur may be factually accurate, its brevity is deeply troubling. Such a rushed process does a disservice to the democratic ideals that underpin our parliamentary system. It is a stark reminder that when the stakes are high, our decision-making processes must be as robust and thorough as the issues we face. Democracy is not merely about making decisions—it is about making informed, deliberate decisions that reflect the diverse voices of our society. Only then can we ensure that power is exercised responsibly, and that our democratic institutions remain resilient in the face of crises.

The midnight debate in Parliament, though a symbol of democratic engagement in itself, should be seen as a starting point—a call to expand and deepen our deliberative practices. Our nation deserves a process that not only meets constitutional deadlines but also upholds the spirit of thorough, transparent, and inclusive debate. In a democracy, every decision matters, and every voice must be given the time to be heard.