P. Chidambaram, in his first appearance as home minister, was calm and confidence-inspiring. He laid out the bills being contemplated by the government to shore up investigation and prosecution, and assured the House that “all aspects of intelligence” were under his observation. Leader of the Opposition L.K. Advani responded first, saying that the opposition would fully back “all stern action” against terrorism, of which he said Pakistan was the epicentre. He called for answers to questions he found troubling about carrying out cleaner rescues during the siege. This, it may be argued, should always be the way of it in Parliament, progress towards a consensus with a sharp exchange of views and queries. It has not always been so, and on Thursday the gravity of the occasion and the opposition’s offer of cooperation were honoured too by the external affairs minister’s attempt to articulate inclusively the national mood. Pranab Mukherjee spoke candidly about Pakistan’s involvement but was emphatic about the need for restraint, and for international backing. The coming days will require immensely skilful and calibrated diplomacy, easier achieved if the minister has cross-partisan backing from Parliament.

Thursday’s session was surpassingly well conducted. Speakers were heard out, with minimal interference. As several MPs pointed out, this was not to let the government off the hook in any way — the hard questions are still ahead. Remarkably, there were barely any quibbles or interruptions, and the entire affair was conducted in a spirit of common cause and responsible stewardship. This is not to disparage the usual cut-and-thrust —

Parliamentary proceedings are not a ceremonial, and the hammering out of contending views is the very stuff of politics — but for them to be conducted in a manner that lets all views be expressed and heard with the seriousness they deserve.

For instance, Mohammed Salim of the CPM had the House’s attention when he pointed to the international context in which the attack occurred. Certainly, the deep political disagreements were not blunted, even in this seemingly cordial exchange — the opposition made the perceived failings of the government pretty clear. But on this sombre occasion, Parliament gave us a demonstration of public reason in action. If only they did it more often.