There is a thin line between protest and provocation, between compassion and calculated theatrics. The latest controversy involving Renuka Chowdhury once again raises a troubling question: has a section of the Congress leadership begun to treat parliamentary procedure as optional? The Rajya Sabha MP has been served a notice for alleged breach of privilege after bringing a rescued stray dog into the Parliament complex during the Winter Session on December 1. Following objections from some members, she is alleged to have remarked that “those sitting inside bite, dogs don’t” — a statement that, according to complainants, denigrates elected representatives. BJP MPs Brij Lal and Indu Bala Goswami moved a complaint under Rule 188 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States. The Chairman referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges, which has now sought her written response by February 23. Let us be clear. Compassion toward animals is not a crime. Nor is rescuing a stray dog. But Parliament is not a roadside shelter. It is a high-security constitutional institution governed by established procedures, protocols, and conventions. Whether one agrees with the political motivations of the complainants or not, the core issue is institutional sanctity. Security norms in Parliament are not ornamental guidelines — they exist for a reason. The troubling part is not merely the act, but the response. When questioned, the MP reportedly retorted with a dismissive “bhow bhow… what else should I say.” Such flippancy may earn applause in partisan circles, but it diminishes the gravitas expected of a member of the Upper House — often referred to as the “House of Elders.” For many observers, this episode is not an aberration but part of a pattern. Renuka Chowdhury has long cultivated a combative political persona. From her early days in Andhra Pradesh politics — where she built a reputation as a “fiery” leader — to her transition from the Telugu Desam Party to the Indian National Congress, controversy has often trailed her career.
Political aggression may energize cadres at rallies; it sits uneasily within the decorum of Parliament. More importantly, this incident unfolds at a time when the Congress party itself is navigating multiple procedural flashpoints. Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, has faced criticism from treasury benches for allegedly defying the Chair’s rulings and for comments relating to a purported unpublished book attributed to former Army Chief General Manoj Naravane (public discourse has referenced claims around his account of security matters). Separately, his remarks accusing the Modi government of compromising farmers’ interests in a US-India trade context have sparked heated exchanges inside and outside the House. In a robust democracy, opposition leaders must question the government. That is not only their right but their duty. However, dissent cannot morph into disregard for procedure. Parliamentary democracy functions not merely on numbers but on norms. The Speaker’s rulings, the Chairman’s directions, and the privilege framework are not partisan tools; they are institutional safeguards. The adage “Yatha raja, tatha praja” — as the leader, so the followers — is often invoked in political commentary. When top leaders repeatedly test procedural boundaries, it sends a signal down the ranks. The coarsening of debate on television studios, where party spokespersons shout down opponents and trivialize rules, mirrors what critics say is happening inside the House. None of this implies guilt before due process. The Committee of Privileges will examine the facts. The MP will have an opportunity to respond. That is how institutions must function — through process, not prejudice. But the larger point stands. Parliament is not a stage for viral moments. It is the arena where laws are debated, budgets scrutinized and executive actions held accountable. If lawmakers themselves appear casual about procedure — or worse, dismissive of it — they erode public faith in the very institution they are sworn to uphold. The Congress calls itself the grand old party of India. It has contributed towering parliamentarians and shaped legislative history. Precisely for that reason, it must hold its members to a higher standard. Fiery rhetoric may win headlines; disciplined conduct wins credibility. In the end, the issue is not about a stray dog. It is about whether privilege is treated as a constitutional safeguard — or reduced to a punchline.
