The Lok Sabha passed the Motion of Thanks on President Droupadi Murmu's address Wednesday without Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivering his customary response—marking the first such occurrence since 2004 and raising questions about parliamentary convention during Modi's third term.
The procedural breakdown followed three days of opposition protests after Speaker Om Birla denied Congress leader Rahul Gandhi permission to reference an unpublished excerpt from former Army Chief MM Naravane's memoir concerning political decisions during the 2020 India-China border tensions at Galwan Valley. According to Scroll.in, Speaker Birla rejected proposed amendments through voice vote before reading the Motion of Thanks, which passed without the Prime Minister's traditional closing remarks.
The last comparable incident occurred in 2004, when the BJP blocked then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from replying to the Motion of Thanks—a parliamentary reversal that opposition members noted with particular emphasis given the BJP's historical criticism of such disruptions.
Congress General Secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra sharpened the political rhetoric Wednesday, suggesting on social media that Modi avoided Parliament because he was "scared of Epstein files," referencing unsubstantiated claims circulating in opposition circles. Gandhi challenged the Prime Minister to "attend Parliament and face questions" rather than "running away from debate."
Speaker Birla defended the decision to skip Modi's reply, stating he had advised the Prime Minister against attending Wednesday's session to prevent potential "mishaps," referencing how opposition members had approached the Prime Minister's chair during earlier proceedings. The Speaker's characterization suggests procedural concerns about parliamentary decorum overrode the convention of prime ministerial response.
In India, as across the subcontinent, scale and diversity make simple narratives impossible—and fascinating. The breakdown reveals tensions beneath the surface of Modi's historic third term, which began with reduced parliamentary majority after June 2024 elections. The BJP now governs through the National Democratic Alliance coalition rather than single-party dominance, fundamentally altering the dynamics of parliamentary management.
The opposition's choice to frame the episode around the Epstein controversy—despite no substantiated connection—reflects the increasingly polarized nature of Indian political discourse, where innuendo and social media narratives compete with substantive policy debate. The Epstein references appear designed for viral circulation rather than serious parliamentary inquiry.
Constitutional experts note that while the Prime Minister's reply to the Motion of Thanks carries significant political weight, it remains a convention rather than a constitutional requirement. The motion's passage without reply is procedurally valid but politically significant, suggesting the government calculated that avoiding confrontation served its interests better than defending its record through traditional parliamentary debate.
The Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's broader complaint about being denied the right to cite the Naravane memoir points to ongoing disputes about what constitutes permissible debate in Parliament, particularly regarding national security and civil-military relations. The Speaker's authority to restrict such references has become a recurring friction point between the treasury and opposition benches.
Political analysts observe that Modi's absence from the reply marks a departure from his usual combative parliamentary style. The Prime Minister has historically used such occasions to challenge opposition narratives and frame government achievements. His choice to skip Wednesday's session—whether on procedural grounds or political calculation—hands the opposition a symbolic victory in parliamentary theater, even as the Motion of Thanks passed without difficulty.
