It was a debate on the demands for grants for the Social Justice Department. As the Assembly convened, the treasury benches and the opposition engaged in a war of words. It all began when one of the TVK legislators said that the opposition DMK had not done enough for the welfare of Dalits in the

It was a debate on the demands for grants for the Social Justice Department. As the Assembly convened, the treasury benches and the opposition engaged in a war of words. It all began when one of the TVK legislators said that the opposition DMK had not done enough for the welfare of Dalits in the

It was a debate on the demands for grants for the Social Justice Department. As the Assembly convened, the treasury benches and the opposition engaged in a war of words. It all began when one of the TVK legislators said that the opposition DMK had not done enough for the welfare of Dalits in the

It was a debate on the demands for grants for the Social Justice Department. As the Assembly convened, the treasury benches and the opposition engaged in a war of words. It all began when one of the TVK legislators said that the opposition DMK had not done enough for the welfare of Dalits in the state when in power. The DMK legislators intervened and replied, while TVK ministers also weighed in, accusing the opposition DMK of failing Dalits and minorities.

Soon, the House turned into a hall of heated exchanges and accusations, with members on both the treasury benches and the opposition shouting at each other. Intervening in the debate, DMDK leader Premalatha Vijayakanth said members of the House spend several hours preparing their speeches, but often do not get enough time to speak. Describing the proceedings of the House as increasingly resembling a “fight club”, she questioned whether the House was still functioning as the forum it was intended to be—a place where the problems of ordinary people are debated and solutions are found.

Premalatha Vijayakanth’s speech in the Tamil Nadu Assembly may have been laced with humour, but the point she raised was anything but amusing. Her intervention deserves attention precisely because it goes beyond the usual treasury-versus-opposition rhetoric. It raises a larger question about what happens when political theatre begins to overshadow the business of governance. Legislative assemblies are inevitably political arenas. Arguments are unavoidable. Governments must be questioned, ministers must be challenged and opposition parties must have the freedom to expose failures. A completely quiet Assembly would hardly be a sign of a healthy democracy.

But there is a difference between robust debate and political disruption. Premalatha’s criticism was that valuable legislative time is increasingly being consumed by personal exchanges and confrontations. She pointed specifically to the disturbances surrounding Public Works Department (PWD) Minister Aadhav Arjuna, saying that commotion tends to erupt when he begins speaking. She also said she had met Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar to express concern about the manner in which proceedings were unfolding.

Her statement and the observations of the Assembly Speaker raise yet another question: Are legislators becoming more interested in winning the day’s political exchange than in winning the argument on policy?

Television and social media appear to have changed the incentives in politics. A sharp one-liner, an angry confrontation or an accusation directed at a political opponent can travel across social media within minutes. Detailed discussions on water management, school education, industrial policy or public health have not generated the same attention over the past month, during which Assembly proceedings have been telecast live. Of course, there have been few concrete discussions on policy inside the House during these 25 days.

The Assembly is becoming a stage at precisely the moment when Tamil Nadu faces increasingly complex policy challenges. The state needs serious discussions on employment, investment, agriculture, urban infrastructure, climate change, education and the future of its manufacturing economy. Those subjects require time. But that doesn’t mean that the treasury benches should focus on merely countering the opposition’s charges or questions. The treasury benches have to listen rather than treat criticism as an attack on the government.

Premalatha’s remarks about the limited opportunities for legislators to speak are also worth examining. According to her, of the 15 members who were given an opportunity to speak during one discussion, only two were able to complete their speeches because of interruptions.

Tamil Nadu has a proud legislative tradition. Its Assembly has witnessed some of the state’s most important political debates, including fierce ideological contests. Strong oratory and sharp political argument have historically been part of its culture. The Assembly need not be less political, but its members will have to make its politics more substantive.

Premalatha Vijayakanth’s intervention should be seen in that context. Whether one agrees with her political position or not, her message is difficult to disagree. “The Assembly should be a place where governments are held accountable, not merely a place where political opponents trade insults,” she pointed out.

The MLAs have not been elected just to engage in a permanent political quarrel. They have been elected by the people to argue, question, legislate—and ultimately, to govern. If Premalatha’s “fight club” remark forces the political class to look in the mirror, it may turn out to be one of the more useful speeches delivered in the House this session.