Tv10 Punjab
Politics Desk
5 February
The Upper House of Parliament witnessed noisy scenes on Thursday as opposition members staged a walkout following a sharp exchange over speaking rights and parliamentary rules. The disruption began when the opposition raised concerns about an elected representative not being allowed to speak earlier in the Lower House. The issue quickly escalated into a broader debate on freedom of expression, parliamentary traditions, and the role of the ruling side.
During the discussion, the opposition leader attempted to read passages from an unpublished book written by a former military official. This move was stopped by the Chair, citing established rules that prevent debate in one House on the proceedings of the other. The decision led to strong objections from opposition members, who argued that the matter was of national importance and deserved discussion. Feeling their concerns were being ignored, the opposition decided to walk out of the House as a mark of protest.
The opposition maintained that their colleague wanted to speak in the interest of the country but was being deliberately prevented. They accused the government of being uncomfortable with questions and criticism, using sharp words to underline their frustration. According to them, blocking voices in Parliament weakens democracy and sets a dangerous precedent.
The government, however, rejected these claims and responded strongly. The leader of the House accused the opposition of being guided by arrogance and poor judgment. He suggested that the party leadership should allow independent thinking instead of being influenced by one individual. He also warned that a mix of ego and ignorance could harm democratic institutions.
The Chair defended the decision by referring to long-standing parliamentary practices, stating that discussions about the Lower House cannot be held in the Upper House. Meanwhile, the parliamentary affairs minister accused the opposition of intentionally disrupting the House to divert attention from important speeches and discussions.
The episode once again highlighted deep political divisions and raised questions about dialogue, discipline, and mutual respect within Parliament.