Attire row disrupts Rajya Sabha proceedings

A dispute over an alleged “lungi-wala” remark directed at CPI MP John Brittas triggered uproar in the Rajya Sabha, a privilege notice and a show of solidarity by Opposition MPs wearing traditional southern attire.

Brittas told the House on Wednesday that a fellow member had repeatedly used the expression while he was speaking during proceedings on August 10. He later identified the member outside the House as BJP MP Sushmita Dev. The alleged exchange occurred during discussion on the Taxation and Other Laws Bill, 2026.

Brittas, who represents Kerala, said the expression was derogatory and amounted to stereotyping people on the basis of regional identity and clothing. He said he was wearing a dhoti and stressed that traditional attire formed part of the country’s cultural diversity.

The CPI member said he was proud of being a Malayali and of the linguistic, cultural and social diversity represented in Parliament. He argued that disagreement between MPs was legitimate but personal references linked to clothing, language or region crossed an acceptable line.

Brittas had submitted a breach of privilege notice against Dev to Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan on Tuesday, a day before raising the issue prominently during proceedings. He said the expression had been used more than once and urged the House to take a view on whether such remarks were compatible with parliamentary standards.

Dev rejected the allegation that she had insulted traditional attire or intended to disparage people from Kerala or southern states. She also accused Brittas of making an objectionable remark towards her during the earlier exchange, saying he had referred to her as a “turncoat” as she passed him. The competing claims intensified the confrontation between the Treasury and Opposition benches.

Leader of the House J P Nadda urged the Chair to hear both sides before arriving at any decision. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said he had not personally heard the original exchange and suggested that the Chairman speak to the members concerned to establish what had happened.

Chairman Radhakrishnan cautioned MPs against discourteous or undignified comments and said members should avoid language capable of hurting the sentiments of colleagues. He emphasised respect for the country’s diverse cultures and identities and later asked the two MPs to meet him in his chamber.

The dispute disrupted the pre-lunch sitting as Opposition MPs demanded action and Treasury members insisted that Dev be allowed to present her version. The House was eventually adjourned amid the continuing uproar, interrupting scheduled business.

The controversy then moved beyond the chamber. Several Opposition MPs appeared outside Parliament wearing traditional attire associated with Kerala and other southern states. Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge joined the gesture by wearing a Kerala-style mundu, alongside Brittas and other MPs.

The demonstration transformed the disagreement from a dispute between two parliamentarians into a broader debate about regional representation and cultural sensitivity. Opposition members argued that clothing such as the mundu, dhoti and lungi has deep social and cultural roots and should not become shorthand for ridiculing people from particular parts of the country.

Brittas said the objection was not to the name of a garment itself but to the manner in which such terminology could be deployed to “other” people. His complaint centred on the context and tone in which he alleged the expression had been used rather than any suggestion that the word “lungi” was intrinsically offensive.

The issue also acquired a political dimension because Dev joined the BJP in 2026 after earlier spells with the Congress and Trinamool Congress. Parliament’s official membership records list her as a BJP Rajya Sabha member from West Bengal, while Brittas remains a CPI member representing Kerala.

The privilege notice places the dispute within Parliament’s institutional mechanism for examining allegations involving the rights, dignity and functioning of members. Any further action will depend on how the Chairman handles the complaint and whether the matter is referred for examination under the applicable parliamentary procedure.