The monsoon session of parliament that prematurely ended on Monday would be remembered for a long time though for all the wrong reasons. It started three weeks late for no justifiable reason, ended four days ahead of scheduled closure and from the beginning until the abrupt end just got agitated about just one issue – the Indo-US nuclear deal. Probably, it is unprecedented that  the two Houses of parliament did not get an opportunity to debate an issue that remained the running theme of one entire session. It was an unending saga of disorder and adjournments in both the Houses. Not once but five times the debate was scheduled but only to be deferred repeatedly.

In the normal course, the accusing finger for wasting one full session – in terms of time, money and resources invested on an outcome that is almost zero – would point at the Opposition that includes the BJP-led NDA and the pro-Left United National Progressive Alliance. Indeed, in particular the BJP has been prone to disrupting parliamentary proceedings at the slightest of pretexts available to it ever since it lost power to its rivals in the May, 2004 parliamentary elections. But it can hardly be denied that the treasury benches too have a responsibility, if not the primary responsibility, in ensuring smooth conduct of parliamentary proceedings. In the instant case, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh cannot escape his share of blame for the wasted session. His challenge to his Left partners on the eve of the monsoon session last month to either accept the nuclear deal or, if they so desired, withdraw support to his government had, to say the least, queered the pitch for the government in parliament.

No government that relies on support from friendly parties to demonstrate its majority support on the floor of parliament can realistically hope to have a smooth sailing through parliamentary proceedings if at any point in time that support is in question. Not surprisingly, the UPA government was hardly ready to hold a House debate on the issue in such a political context. The Opposition, however, cannot escape the charge of prolonging the dispute with its demand for debate that was politically motivated at exposing and widening the UPA-Left cracks. Its demand wasn’t sincere. Indeed, no one was sincere about seeking a debate on the issue and, therefore, ought to share the blame for being so cynical about their approach to an entire session of parliament.