Since the winter session of Parliament began earlier this month, the word “drama” has been used a lot by both the BJP and the Congress. In his speech before the session started, the Prime Minister said that Parliament is a place for real work, not drama, and that anyone who wants to create drama should do it somewhere else. Responding to this, Congress President and Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge, said the Prime Minister was the one doing “dramatics” instead of talking about the real issues. He accused the government of disrespecting Parliament and its traditions for the last 11 years. Kharge said the BJP should stop this “diversionary drama” and discuss the problems of the people. There was also a strange incident involving a dog. Congress MP Renuka Chowdhury brought a dog to Parliament, and a BJP MP objected, saying she didn’t have the right documents. It’s hard to say which side looked worse in this situation, but one thing is clear: Parliament and its members have reached a new low. Still, it’s important to understand the background of this dog incident and how things unfolded.
The commotion began when Chaudhary’s car entered the Parliament complex with a dog inside. According to Chaudhary, she had picked up a stray dog and was taking it to a veterinarian. One version of the story is that her driver was supposed to take the dog to the vet after dropping her off at Parliament. Another version is that she rescued a stray dog on her way to Parliament and was taking it directly to the veterinarian. Yet another version suggests that the dog in the car was Chaudhary’s own pet and was brought to Parliament merely for dramatic effect, and the drama continued. When the ruling party accused Chaudhary of creating a drama, she retorted that the government “doesn’t like animals.” She didn’t stop there, adding: “What’s their problem? It’s so small, will it bite? The people sitting in Parliament bite, not the dogs.” She also stated that there is no law against rescuing a dog from the street. “Wow government,” she tweeted.
In fact, when she was threatened with a privilege motion, she mimicked a dog’s bark while speaking to the media, saying: “Woof, woof.” Not willing to let the matter drop, the BJP said that Chaudhary was making a mockery of Parliament and creating a “spectacle,” and demanded action against the “guilty” MP. Let’s go back to 2018. That’s when Prime Minister Narendra Modi mocked Chowdhury’s loud laughter in Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, Renuka had laughed loudly at a comment by Modi, after which the Chairman asked her to maintain decorum. The Prime Minister then said that she shouldn’t be stopped: “After the Ramayana serial, we have had the good fortune of hearing such laughter only today.” Although the Prime Minister did not name any character from the Ramayana, it was clear that the reference was to Surpanakha, Ravana’s sister. But Chowdhury is no helpless damsel. She too has made pointed remarks. Remember Harsimrat Badal of the Akali Dal, who was a Union Minister at the time. A few years ago, Chowdhury allegedly called her “garbage.” She also told her to “go to hell,” and dismissed Badal’s comments as “political drama.”
Whether it’s the dog incident, the Surpanakha reference, or the “garbage” comment, the fundamental fact remains that the decorum and dignity of Parliament have deteriorated, or rather, have been severely damaged, and this cannot be blamed on any one party or one MP; it is a collective failure. Equally unprecedented is the fact that slogans are raised in support of a particular leader inside the House. To understand this, consider that whenever the Prime Minister enters the Lok Sabha during the BJP’s rule, “Modi, Modi” slogans reverberate. Surprisingly, there are no instructions or interventions from the Speaker to stop this. It seems that if it were possible, the Speaker too would join in this pro-Modi sloganeering.
Coming to the core issues, both the ruling party and the opposition have made a mockery of an institution that was once held in the highest esteem.
It was a constitutional sanctuary where discussion, debate, and disagreement on issues were considered natural. Today, it has been reduced to disruptions and subsequent adjournments. Often, the entire session is wasted because opposition MPs do not want the House to function. The situation has reached a point where, while it was previously assumed that Parliament would function, smooth proceedings have now become a pipe dream. The statistics confirm this. For example, in the monsoon session held between July 21 and August 21, 2025, two-thirds of the scheduled time was lost to disruptions. This also impacted Question Hour, with the Lok Sabha functioning for only 23% and the Rajya Sabha for a mere 6% of the allotted time. Several bills were also passed without discussion.
The only positive aspect was the Budget Session, where the Lok Sabha’s productivity was 111% and the Rajya Sabha’s 112%—and Question Hour also proceeded relatively better. The same trend was observed in the 2024 Budget Session, but these are rare exceptions to the disorderly conduct of recent years. The decline in productivity is a structural and multi-party problem and is not limited to the BJP. Examples from the past also exist: the 15th Lok Sabha during UPA-2 performed the worst. More than 40 percent of the scheduled time was lost, while the 13th and 14th Lok Sabhas had productivity rates of 91% and 87%, respectively. The cost of running Parliament is enormous: estimated at Rs 2.5 lakh per minute, which translates to approximately Rs 6 crore per day and Rs 600 crore per year. So who pays for this? And shouldn’t the MPs, who are elected to raise public issues, be held accountable? Shouldn’t they be penalized for the wasted man-hours?
An example was set by BJP’s Baijayant ‘Jay’ Panda, who a decade ago said he would return his salary proportionate to the “lost/wasted time” in the winter session, as that session was the least productive of the ten sessions since 2014. This is a rational and necessary step: for every man-hour lost to disruptions, MPs should be penalized, i.e., their salaries should be deducted accordingly. When their salaries are cut, they will understand the meaning of discipline; in other words, salary cuts will mean the restoration of working hours.
