<p class="bodytext">The suspension of BJP MLC C T Ravi for a day, following his refusal to apologise for a remark that indirectly questioned the nationality of Congress member Naseer Ahmed, is a stark reminder of the abysmal depths to which legislative debate in Karnataka has sunk. Even after Ahmed expressed regret over his comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Ravi repeatedly defied the Chair. The episode is especially troubling because it is not an aberration. Barely a year ago, Ravi was at the centre of a far graver controversy over his alleged obscene remarks against minister Laxmi Hebbalkar, and that too on the floor of the House. However, the rot is not confined to one individual or party. The outburst by Shivalinge Gowda (Congress) in the Assembly—replete with abusive language, use of disrespectful singular pronouns, and personal attacks on family members—underscores how debates have degenerated into cheap, street-level exchanges. </p>.Good initiative to fix accident-prone roads.<p class="bodytext">Policy has been replaced by provocation, and argument by abuse. This slide marks a tragic departure from the Karnataka legislature’s finest traditions. The Assembly and Council once functioned as genuine temples of democracy, where command over the rulebook and adherence to fact and reason carried more weight than decibel levels. Leaders came prepared, often speaking for hours with scholarly precision, armed with data, documents and legal precedence. Wit, not vulgarity, was the preferred weapon; a cutting metaphor could expose a policy failure without diminishing personal dignity. Slurs were unthinkable, and linguistic discipline—including respectful forms of address—was integral to the institution’s culture. Debate was treated with the seriousness of a courtroom and the rigour of a university seminar. The contrast with today’s brawl-like proceedings points not merely to bad behaviour, but to a deeper erosion of institutional values.</p>.<p class="bodytext">There is an urgent necessity for the Karnataka legislature to reclaim the high standards of debate that were once its hallmark. This is no longer merely a question of decorum, but of democratic credibility. When debate gives way to communal insinuations, coarse language, and personalised hostility, the institution ceases to function as a forum for public reasoning. Allowing standards to sink to street-level rhetoric betrays a rich legacy and short-changes the electorate. Citizens are entitled to deliberation that advances policy, governance and public welfare. Restoring discipline and substance is therefore not as much about nostalgia and etiquette as about ensuring that the enormous cost of running the legislature is an investment in progress, and not an indulgence in political theatre. This is important especially at a time when faith in democratic institutions is under visible strain.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The suspension of BJP MLC C T Ravi for a day, following his refusal to apologise for a remark that indirectly questioned the nationality of Congress member Naseer Ahmed, is a stark reminder of the abysmal depths to which legislative debate in Karnataka has sunk. Even after Ahmed expressed regret over his comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Ravi repeatedly defied the Chair. The episode is especially troubling because it is not an aberration. Barely a year ago, Ravi was at the centre of a far graver controversy over his alleged obscene remarks against minister Laxmi Hebbalkar, and that too on the floor of the House. However, the rot is not confined to one individual or party. The outburst by Shivalinge Gowda (Congress) in the Assembly—replete with abusive language, use of disrespectful singular pronouns, and personal attacks on family members—underscores how debates have degenerated into cheap, street-level exchanges. </p>.Good initiative to fix accident-prone roads.<p class="bodytext">Policy has been replaced by provocation, and argument by abuse. This slide marks a tragic departure from the Karnataka legislature’s finest traditions. The Assembly and Council once functioned as genuine temples of democracy, where command over the rulebook and adherence to fact and reason carried more weight than decibel levels. Leaders came prepared, often speaking for hours with scholarly precision, armed with data, documents and legal precedence. Wit, not vulgarity, was the preferred weapon; a cutting metaphor could expose a policy failure without diminishing personal dignity. Slurs were unthinkable, and linguistic discipline—including respectful forms of address—was integral to the institution’s culture. Debate was treated with the seriousness of a courtroom and the rigour of a university seminar. The contrast with today’s brawl-like proceedings points not merely to bad behaviour, but to a deeper erosion of institutional values.</p>.<p class="bodytext">There is an urgent necessity for the Karnataka legislature to reclaim the high standards of debate that were once its hallmark. This is no longer merely a question of decorum, but of democratic credibility. When debate gives way to communal insinuations, coarse language, and personalised hostility, the institution ceases to function as a forum for public reasoning. Allowing standards to sink to street-level rhetoric betrays a rich legacy and short-changes the electorate. Citizens are entitled to deliberation that advances policy, governance and public welfare. Restoring discipline and substance is therefore not as much about nostalgia and etiquette as about ensuring that the enormous cost of running the legislature is an investment in progress, and not an indulgence in political theatre. This is important especially at a time when faith in democratic institutions is under visible strain.</p>
