The just-ended monsoon session had several firsts. Here was an entire session in which the prime minister and his second-in-command, home minister Amit Shah, remained absent. They finally made a ceremonial appearance just before parliament was adjourned sine die, for ‘Vande Mataram’ played in full.All questions relating to the home ministry were handled by the junior ministers. Since 2014, Modi had rarely followed parliamentary traditions such as attending the question hour or debates on important issues in the House. But it is something new for Shah to keep away from parliament for an entire session.Why did the two boycott parliament proceedings? Against what? Does it have a precedent? There have been occasions when the prime minister was prevented by the opposition from speaking. But, this time, the refusal to join the house proceedings appears to have been to avoid pointed questions by the opposition on the police excesses against the youth protesters at Jantar Mantar.For ten days, Rijiju told parliament and the press that the home minister would come and reply to all questions. But he never came. On August 11, the list of business mentioned Shah himself would move a Bill to rename Kerala. But that did not happen.Ironically, this happened when the NDA has reached almost two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha. After a series of splits in the Aam Aadmi Party, Trinamool Congress and Shiv Sena came hopes of support from the Akali Dal and, possibly, Sharad Pawar. The Modi regime appeared confident at last that its contentious Bills such as for delimitation, the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill (a.k.a. the PM-CM removal Bill), the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill and maybe even a proposal to push simultaneous polls across the country. It may have hoped that a considerably weakened opposition would fail to stop its onward march towards permanent and decisive authoritarian power. §But the whole plan collapsed when the two refused to attend the session. We do not know why this flip-flop happened. Was it the vainglory of the second man that superseded the more vital objective of more absolute power?There were indications at the time that the DMK was amenable to a proposal from Shah for a “proportional increase” in each state’s share of seats in parliament under the delimitation Bill. But lack of a response from the Union prompted the DMK to opt for maintaining the status quo. It also proposed maintaining a 543-member Lok Sabha for the next 30 years. Without DMK’s cooperation, it is impossible for Modi and Shah to pass the delimitation Bill. Other authoritarian programmes like the PM-CM disqualification Bill and simultaneous elections also got blocked due to Shah’s wrangling with the opposition over procedure. Once it was too late to make a U-turn, frantic efforts were made to win the war of perception. Illustration: Pariplab ChakrabortyAmit Shah offered to come to the House and “make everything clear”, provided the opposition did not ask questions. But their position was clear, as Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi said: “Please tell us who shot those students [in Delhi]? Who blinded one of the students? Who gave the order to beat the students with lathis embedded with nails?” The point he has been raising is simple: Both Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force are under the Union home ministry. Therefore, did Shah give the order to shoot protesters? “If he did, he should resign because he is culpable and if he did not he should resign because he is incompetent,” Gandhi has repeatedly said. Shah retorted with attempts to turn the tables on them, saying the opposition was “running away” from battle. In a letter to the Speaker, he offered a bargain. But Opposition stood its ground: Shah must explain how the youth were fired upon.A day before the session ended, Amit Shah told reporters that he was ready to reply to the opposition but they were for not allowing him by putting conditions. Ultimately, he never showed up for the session after July 20. He did come to parliament complex every day, but not to the House.Seeking a prior assurance from the members on how should they act and what they speak is an altogether new development. This is like turning the House into a theatre where scripted dialogues are uttered. Already the BJP under Modi has introduced a system where members’ duty at internal meetings — even the parliamentary party meetings — are confined to others listening to the homilies of the leader. Was it a bid to replicate the practice in the House?No doubt, opposition also must also share responsibility for allowing 14 Bills to be passed without legislative scrutiny. This allowed important legislation like the retrospectively-applied Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, which expempts mining companies from paying their dues (royalties), to gain passage. Lok Sabha passed the Bill on August 12, and the Rajya Sabha on August 13, leaving only the presidential assent pending.The opposition woke up to the trap when states like Jharkhand began protesting, for it depends on royalities on mining a substantial share of revenue. Also, this was not the only Bill in which affected persons have expressed grievances. §The Modi-Shah duo, like their fellow spin dictators, are past masters at political bargaining. In this regard, the monsoon session provided the right lessons, especially to the uninitiated. In the political dialogue used in the pre-Modi days, different parties placed their views for discussion, normally after declaring their views in political resolutions or election manifestos. It is not so under Modi. The party does not follow any durable policy as its policies on crucial issues change as per the requirements of the moment. In negotiations, the party’s strategy is to reveal the least possible details about proposals. The rest is left vague and revealed only when absolutely necessary. Take the question of delimitation. During the bargain with DMK, Shah tried to obfuscate the proposal by arguing “no one will lose seats” in the 850-member future House. True. No one would lose seats but some states would double their tally. This would give undue importance to the Hindi hinterland, where the opposition to the BJP’s dominance is weak. When objections were raised, Shah changed the line. He said that “every state will get more” members in the House. This, too, was correct, but some would get more seats. Caught in the deceit, he finally agreed to “proportional increase”. Fed up, the DMK reverted to its earlier position of no change in the Lok Sabha strength of 543 for 30 years. The same pattern was replicated in Shah’s boycott of proceedings. At the fag end of the session, he sent word through Rijiju that he would attend the proceedings provided opposition remained silent. When opposition did not show interest, he changed the line and said they should not “disturb” him. In his press meet at parliament house, he revised it a little and said the opposition could ask him any questions. He was even prepared to extend the duration of the session. Such calculated prevarication makes it extremely difficult for the opposition to engage in negotiations. The The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, also followed a similar path. First the government refused any changes and then agreed to refer the whole thing to a parliamentary panel.Also read: A Committee on FCRA is Not a ConcessionAuthoritarians traditionally view parliament as a hurdle or a necessary evil but never as a forum for debate, discussion and consensus. They come with pre-fixed decisions and try to impose them on the nation. They flout established norms or use official functions, even those meant for Independence Day or Republic Day, to engage in petty politicking. They regularly flout healthy norms, such as not making policy announcements while parliament is in session.Firefighting by the beleaguered Modi establishment has entered its fifth week after it suffered humiliation at the hands of youth agitators. Initially, there was sort of a division of labour among the top few. While Modi fully engaged in political fixing, Shah got busy with toning up government, including parliamentary matters.All others in the party work for the two leaders as and when they are required. This arrangement is an important change in the working of the establishment. You cannot, of course, ignore Shah’s rise within Delhi’s power hierarchy. Modi seems to have ceded an almost equal role to him. Shah now handles assigned roles almost independently, but after taking the boss into confidence.There is a big lacuna in this arrangement. There is no one to look supervise economic, financial, cultural or developmental matters for the nation. These are left to the discretion of ministers, who are increasingly influenced by power brokers and commercial interests. Hence you hear of frequent policy shifts to satisfy the lobby groups, including foreign interests.In an age of fractured mandates, personality cults and transactional alliances, P. Raman brings clarity to India’s shifting political equations. With Realpolitik, the veteran journalist peers beneath the slogans and spin to reveal the power plays, spectacle, crises and insecurities driving India’s politics.