What are the deeper reasons behind frequent confrontations between opposition members and security personnel in the Indian Parliament?

Frequent confrontations between opposition members and security personnel in the Indian Parliament have become a notable feature in recent years. These incidents are not just about immediate disagreements but reflect deeper structural and political issues within the functioning of the Indian parliamentary system.

• Decline of Parliamentary Debate: There is a growing perception that meaningful debates and discussions are being curtailed. When opposition voices feel stifled, they resort to protests, leading to physical confrontations in the House.
• Centralisation of Power: Increasing centralisation of decision-making by the ruling party often sidelines opposition parties. This makes opposition members feel their concerns are not being heard, prompting them to take disruptive actions.
• Frequent Use of Disruptions as a Tactic: Both ruling and opposition parties have, over the years, normalised disruptions as a tool to highlight issues or register dissent, rather than relying solely on debate and discussion.
• Role of the Speaker/Chairperson: The impartiality of the presiding officer is sometimes questioned, with allegations that they favour the ruling party. This perception can provoke opposition members to protest more aggressively.
• Increased Security Presence: When marshals or security personnel are deployed in the well of the House, it is often seen as an attempt to suppress legitimate dissent, escalating confrontations further.
• Media and Public Attention: High-profile protests in Parliament attract media coverage, which parties use to showcase their stance to the public, sometimes leading to more dramatic confrontations.
• Diminishing Space for Opposition: The opposition often alleges that important bills are being passed without adequate discussion or consultation, making them feel excluded from the legislative process.