While we do not have "conscience votes" in Indian legislatures, that is one factor amongst a few related issues that results in the fact that recorded votes are generally not a rule. Most votes on matters in Parliament tend to be a voice vote, with divisions rarely called - and the deterioration/further partisan positioning of speakers and presiding offices resulting in even fewer acceptance of division requests recently. The Indian Parliament is definitely one of the more striking examples amongst national parliaments for that.
https://prsindia.org/articles-by-prs-team/parliament-voting-ayes-vs-noes-and-road-from-manual-to-electronic-recording
That said, I wouldn't say that MP behaviour, interventions in the house do not form a component worth studying in order to understand their behaviour. Even looking at the range of interventions they make provides a useful sense of the issues they do raise in parliamentary questions, interventions (and who they join together in such interventions and on what topics, including constituency issues), as well as the private members bills that many MPs file, even though they know the chance of such bills being accepted for introduction, let alone later debate and enactment, are loaded against them. The PRS MPTrack tool for each MP is quite useful in that regard as an opening sense of that as Shiv mentioned. It does require more careful analysis and a recognition of the multi-tiered reasons that might motivate an MP (asking a question on a stalled project is often a reasonable tactic for an MP belonging to/allied with the ruling coalition if they believe they have limited inroads to the executive branch ministry/agency concerned, whereas opposition MPs would perhaps be more inclined to try to bring a debate on an issue. And sometimes questions may be jointly asked by several MPs because they depend on common secretarial staff or party machinery). And MPs themselves do monitor the statistics released on their parliamentary activity and what the press may be saying on them as a result of that (again, the context can vary based on the political affiliation, political situation of the MP and the wider government-legislative relationship on that issue or person).
For most subject specific study, people use the initial data released by the houses of Parliament and compiled by PRS, and then go deeper into the text of the actual questions asked, answers received, transcript of house proceedings (because the summarisation often misses key important telltales, trends for lawmaker activity).
I would encourage you to speak to the teams at PRS, who can share what of their own datasets are available and the best way to understand lawmaker activity, trends based on that data. [happy to connect you if helpful, though some may already be on this list]
Raman.