The task ahead: Can the Rajya Sabha rise above the ruckus?

The election of Radhakrishnan as India’s Vice President comes at a politically sensitive juncture. He assumes office at a time when Indian democracy is both vibrant and embattled—brimming with electoral participation and citizen activism, yet deeply polarised and often reduced to partisan spectacle.

The challenge before him is to walk a tightrope: to act as a nonpartisan arbiter in the Rajya Sabha while being part of an executive whose political battles are relentless.

The Vice President’s role, while often described as ceremonial, carries real institutional weight. As Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Radhakrishnan inherits not merely a constitutional office but a moral responsibility: to restore credibility to an institution that once embodied sober reflection but now risks being dismissed as theatre.

A legacy of gravitas

The Rajya Sabha was conceived as the “Council of States,” a chamber of calm that could counterbalance the passions of the directly elected Lok Sabha. In its early decades, the Upper House lived up to this ideal.

Even during the turbulence of the 1980s, when the Lok Sabha often erupted into uproar, the Rajya Sabha retained dignity. Its debates were serious, data-driven, and often discomfiting to the most formidable figures of the day. Indira Gandhi, Pranab Mukherjee, or P V Narasimha Rao found themselves challenged by forensic arguments and uncomfortable facts.

Issues of grave consequence were debated with intensity but also with purpose. The Assam agitation, the National Security Bill, atrocities against Dalits, the Bhagalpur blinding, and racial discrimination abroad all witnessed probing interventions.

Elders brought erudition rather than invective; disagreements were fierce, but the House aimed at solutions rather than optics. That culture of reasoned engagement enhanced the stature not just of Parliament but of Indian democracy itself.

From debate to disruption

The contrast with today is sobering. Disruption has become routine. Slogan-shouting has replaced debate, and adjournments are weaponised rather than used sparingly.

The recent Monsoon Session of the Rajya Sabha functioned for only 34 percent of its scheduled time, with nearly half of Question Hour—the most crucial instrument of executive accountability—lost to pandemonium.

The reasons are structural and political. The rise of coalition politics in the 1990s gave regional parties a greater stake in using the Rajya Sabha as a bargaining platform. The proliferation of television coverage incentivised theatrics over substance.

And in an era of perpetual campaigning, opposition parties often treat Parliament as a stage for performance rather than problem-solving. But the cumulative effect has been corrosive: the Rajya Sabha risks forfeiting its unique identity as the house of wise men.

Radhakrishnan’s dual challenge

The responsibility before Radhakrishnan is therefore twofold. First, he must uphold neutrality as the presiding officer. A Chairman perceived as partisan loses the ability to command respect across the aisle. Second, he must encourage a culture of serious deliberation.

This requires firmness in enforcing discipline, but also accommodation in ensuring minority voices is heard. The Vice President does not wield executive authority, but he does wield the authority of example. If he can create space for structured debate on contentious issues—be it the Uniform Civil Code, federal revenue-sharing, economic reforms, or climate policy—he can re-anchor the Rajya Sabha in its intended role.

Discipline must not mean suppression, and dissent must not degenerate into disruption. The balance is delicate, but it is precisely this balance that defines statesmanship.

Institutional renewal

Restoring dignity to the Rajya Sabha also requires institutional innovation. Strengthening parliamentary committees is an urgent priority. These committees, insulated from the glare of cameras, have historically enabled cross-party consensus on technical matters.

Yet their influence has waned. Reviving them, ensuring they are adequately staffed with research support, cooperation from opposition and mandating follow-up on their recommendations can make lawmaking more substantive.

Similarly, the institution of private members’ bills—which once generated pathbreaking debates—deserves revival. Equitable time allocation for smaller parties is essential to reflect the diversity of India’s federal polity.

Even simple procedural innovations, such as advance scheduling of thematic debates or the use of expert testimonies, can enhance deliberation. None of this requires constitutional amendment—only political will, responsible opposition and a presiding officer committed to elevating the culture of the House.

Of course, the onus is not on Radhakrishnan alone. The ruling party must resist the temptation to bulldoze legislation without scrutiny, while the Congress-led INDIA bloc must demonstrate maturity. Will this happen?

Doubts are being raised as Rahul Gandhi sees Vote Chori even in cross voting in VP elections. Parliamentary opposition is vital to democracy, but turning every session into a spectacle of obstruction serves neither democracy nor the citizen. A more constructive opposition with full time politicians paired with a fair and firm Chairman only can together create a virtuous cycle of deliberation.

The Vice President as statesman

Beyond the walls of Parliament, the Vice President also carries symbolic weight. Constitutionally, he is the second-highest office in the Republic. Internationally, he represents India on dignified platforms—from summits of the Non-Aligned Movement to dialogues within the Commonwealth and the United Nations.

In a moment when global geopolitics is unsettled—India balancing ties with the United States, managing tensions with China, and championing the Global South—Radhakrishnan’s stature and neutrality will complement the government’s diplomacy.

Domestically, he embodies the continuity of constitutionalism amid the abrasiveness of electoral politics. If he can elevate the Vice Presidency above partisan skirmishes, he will remind Indians that institutions matter more than individuals, and that constitutional offices are meant to stabilise, not inflame.

A historic opportunity

The task ahead for Vice President Radhakrishnan is daunting but historic. The Rajya Sabha, conceived by the framers of the Constitution as the “House of Elders,” must not be reduced to an echo chamber of electoral politics.

If he can revive its role as a forum of reasoned debate, he will not only strengthen Parliament but also reaffirm the essence of democracy: the ability to disagree without descending into chaos.

Ultimately, the measure of his tenure will not be in headlines captured or controversies weathered, but in whether future generations look back and say: under his stewardship, the Rajya Sabha recovered its dignity. In that lies the promise of his office.

For India, a country of continental scale and complexity, democracy cannot be sustained by elections alone. It requires institutions that encourage reflection, scrutiny, and accommodation.

By upholding neutrality, strengthening deliberative democracy, and restoring the dignity of Parliament, Radhakrishnan can leave behind a legacy larger than himself—a legacy of reason triumphing over noise.

(The author is a former Chief Editor at The Hans India)