History repeated itself — but, mercifully, not as tragedy. The security of Parliament was breached, once again, coinciding with the anniversary of the deadly attack on the institution in 2001. This time, however, citizens, not terrorists, were the intruders. Two sloganeering youths jumped into the chamber of the Lok Sabha from the vistors' gallery releasing smoke from a canister even as two others sprayed colour and shouted slogans outside the House. They were apprehended and assaulted by parliamentarians and have now had the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act slapped against them for their transgression. The obvious issue here is the violation of security protocols that made such an audacious protest possible in the first place. It has been reported that the visitor’s pass from one of the intruders had been issued by a parliamentarian from the Bharatiya Janata Party: this angle must be probed and lapses, if any, punished. The Opposition has alleged that some parliamentarians have suffered expulsion for far less. Security protocols need to be revisited as well. Apparently, one such stipulation — the deputation of security personnel in plain clothes in the front row of the visitors’ gallery — has been discontinued. The height of the gallery railing in the new edifice is not adequate either. Did the rush to inaugurate the new Parliament lead to compromises in the security and the design of the august House? The latest breach makes it apparent that the screening of visitors — they have increased manifold — must be made more robust.

This, however, does not mean that security imperatives should make Parliament inaccessible. Parliament, in spirit, remains the House of the people. There is perhaps a case to look at how similar structures abroad strike a fine balance between accessibility and security. This brings forth an attendant issue. The law must take its course while penalising the citizens who compromised the security of Parliament. But the people’s representatives must examine whether the grievances that the protesters raised are genuine or not. The reasons for a protest, even if the means of the protest are unacceptable, need to be looked at closely. That is the compact between a parliamentary democracy and the people. The sanctity of that compact must not be allowed to get drowned out by either the din of a security impairment or the rhetoric against dissent.