In Democracy’s House: Rahul, Priyanka Gandhi Challenge Government's Silence on National Affairs

In a democracy, the Parliament is not merely a ceremonial institution—it is the highest forum for public accountability, the grand panchayat of the nation. When elected representatives raise questions in the House, they do so not for personal gain but as a constitutional duty to represent the concerns of their constituents and the conscience of the country.

The recent interventions by Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra during the debate on Operation Sindoor were not only legitimate but necessary. Their questions—whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi ever contradicted Donald Trump’s repeated claims of brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, and why the war was halted abruptly despite strategic advantage—are rooted in the public’s right to know. These are not rhetorical provocations; they are demands for transparency in matters of national security and diplomacy.

Rahul Gandhi, quoting Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s own statement, pointed out that India informed Pakistan within 30 minutes of launching Operation Sindoor that it had targeted non-military sites and did not seek escalation. “These are not my words,” he said. “These are the words of India’s Defence Minister.” He further challenged the Prime Minister to publicly refute Trump’s claim: “If Narendra Modi has even 50% of Indira Gandhi’s courage, he should declare in the House that Trump is lying.”

Priyanka Gandhi, meanwhile, questioned why the ceasefire was announced by the US President and not by India’s own leadership. “Leadership is not just about taking credit,” she said. “It is also about taking responsibility.”

What is wrong in asking these questions? They are not insults—they are inquiries. And yet, instead of answers, the ruling party and its supporters resort to mockery, suggesting that the country is laughing at such questions. But who is laughing? Certainly not the families of those who died in the Pahalgam terror attack. Certainly not the citizens who expect accountability from their government. The laughter, if any, is hollow—an attempt to drown out the discomfort of truth.

This pattern of evasion is not new. Consider the stampede at the 2025 Maha Kumbh Mela. The official death toll was reported as 30, but independent investigations and hospital records suggest the number may be as high as 79. Why the discrepancy? Why the silence? Why were the victims’ families left to search for answers in morgues and news reports?

Or take the Make in India initiative. Launched with fanfare in 2014, it promised to transform India into a global manufacturing hub and create 100 million jobs by 2022. But by 2023, the manufacturing sector’s share in GDP remained stagnant at 16%, and job creation fell drastically short. Private investment declined, infrastructure lagged, and the scheme relied too heavily on foreign capital. Yet, there has been no official admission of failure—only rebranding and deflection.

Similarly, the promise to double farmers’ income by 2022 remains unfulfilled. A recent analysis shows that India has fallen short of the target by at least 25%. The farm sector’s contribution to income growth has declined, and the volatility in agricultural earnings continues to push young farmers away from the profession. The government constituted a committee, published a 14-volume report, and then quietly shelved the ambition. Where is the accountability?

Job creation, too, remains elusive. Between 2017 and 2021, India lost 24 million jobs. The unemployment rate among graduates under 25 is over 42%. The government’s own surveys show that 58% of the workforce is self-employed—often a euphemism for underemployment or distress employment. These are not just numbers; they are lives suspended in uncertainty.

So when Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi ask questions in Parliament, they are not being disruptive—they are being democratic. They are doing what every elected representative should do: demand answers, seek clarity, and uphold the dignity of the House. To dismiss their questions as laughable is to mock the very spirit of democracy. It is not the questioner who should be ridiculed—it is the refusal to answer that deserves scrutiny.

In the end, the strength of a democracy lies not in its ability to celebrate power, but in its willingness to confront it. Parliament is not a stage for applause—it is a forum for truth. And truth, as history has shown, is often uncomfortable. But it is also necessary.