The AL lawmakers vehemently protested the ruling which left the August 21 incident -- a matter of grave concern not only to the party but the nation as well undebated with the importance it deserved. The AL lawmakers felt, for understandable psychological reasons, that they had been pushed on to the edge. We are at a loss to understand why a detailed discussion on the burning issue was not allowed under rule 62. The Speaker stated that a discussion on an adjournment motion could have influenced the investigation into the blasts. If that be the case, then how he could permit the same debate under the general discussion?

The end-result was far from desirable. The ruling alliance, whose job was to remove the irritants that the opposition perceives as insurmountable obstacles on their way to joining the JS, have only managed to make things worse. Despite all that has been said and written, there has been no noticeable change in the mindset of the Treasury Bench. The opposition has once more been denied the space that it needs to play its due role. How else could one explain the fact that a discussion on an important issue was not permitted on a very narrow interpretation of rules of procedure.

The JS is the platform for clarifying issues of public concern, and not for blurring them. Controversies have arisen over the August 21 grenade attack, and an all party discussion on the issue could only serve the cause of rule of law better.