"In a world of kings and hedge knights, the law is not a shield for the innocent; it is a sword for the powerful"
This grim reality reminds us that when the powerful write the rules, those rules aren't meant to protect the weak. Instead, they become weapons used to strike them down.
In the story “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms”, the protagonist, Ser Duncan the Tall, is punished for hitting a prince, even though he did it to stop an innocent person from being tortured.
The law ignores his noble intent and treats his act as a crime against the entire royal family. He is forced into a "Trial of Seven," an ancient tradition where he must find six other knights to fight by his side.
It is a rigged system that favours the elite, who have the money, armour, and influence to win. As a poor knight with no social standing, Duncan is left effectively defenceless.
Today, within the halls of the Indian Parliament, this same regressive spirit has returned. The current session has devolved into a modern-day "Trial by Combat," where institutional rules are weaponized to shield the ruling party while the Opposition is stripped of its armour.
The parallels to Duncan’s trial are as stark as they are disturbing:
Just as a royal prince is immune to the laws that crush a commoner, a blatant double standard now dictates the floor of the House. The Leader of the Opposition (LoP), Rahul Gandhi, was systematically gagged and prevented from citing the memoirs of former Army Chief Gen. M.M. Naravane regarding the China border crisis, while members of the ruling party were granted total freedom to speak at length, quoting various books and launching "objectionable" attacks with total impunity.
In a move echoing the "assassination conspiracy" rhetoric used in Gujarat assembly election campaigns, the Speaker’s office recently floated a narrative that women MPs from the Opposition posed a physical threat to the Prime Minister.
However, the glaring absence of any police complaint (FIR) exposes this as political theatre rather than a genuine security concern. It appears to be a calculated drama designed solely to delegitimize dissent and justify silencing the Opposition.
It is hard to understand why the Speaker refuses to file a police report or start a criminal case against those involved, especially since he claims to have "confirmed intelligence" that opposition women MPs were planning to cause physical harm.
Instead, the Speaker’s rigid use of "technicalities" functions like a rigged battle. By refusing to let the LoP raise his concerns, the Chair has undermined the very essence of Parliament: debate. Instead of a fair argument where the government refutes claims with facts, the "knight" of the Opposition is effectively knocked off his horse before the contest can even begin.
By suspending eight Opposition MPs, the government strategically removed the LoP’s strongest supporters, making the fight even more lopsided.
This reached a low point when the "Motion of Thanks" was adopted without the Prime Minister ever having to answer questions, a major breach of parliamentary tradition. This allowed those in power to evade a direct debate while the powerless were penalized simply for demanding to be heard.
When the Speaker silences the Opposition while handing the ruling party a megaphone, Parliament ceases to be a forum for democracy. It becomes a stage for a rigged system where status matters more than truth, and the "identity of the actor" has officially replaced the "righteousness of the act."
