Rahul Gandhi Is A Habitual Offender Where His Security Protocol Is Concerned
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2025-09-12 13:57:13
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
The controversy over Rahul Gandhi's foreign trips and his Z+ security has now broken into the open. The CRPF has formally recorded what has long been evident: Gandhi repeatedly undermines his own security by ignoring established protocols. The Congress, instead of addressing this, has chosen to turn it into another political charge against the government.
As Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi gets Z+-category protection. This level of protection is not ornamental. It is the most elaborate security cover available in India, entailing a full contingent of over a hundred personnel. It comes with codified obligations. The "Yellow Book" protocol lays down that protectees of this category must give advance notice - often two weeks - for any foreign trip, so security can be coordinated with host nations. Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly skipped this requirement, flying out without adequate intimation.
This is not a one-off slip. Security records show over a hundred such breaches since 2020. These include major foreign tours - to Europe, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia - where he either gave no notice or provided information too late for meaningful arrangements. Each such lapse left his security contingent scrambling and created exposure to potential risks, both for him and the personnel assigned to guard him.
The Congress narrative is that Rahul Gandhi's security has been "diluted" and that the government will be held responsible for any incident. But the facts do not bear this out. The security cover has not been cut back. The lapses come from the protectee's own conduct - moving into crowds against advice, disregarding cordons, and leaving the country without timely notice. These are violations documented, not invented.
The real issue is accountability. Security is not a personal entitlement to be bent at will. It is a national resource, paid for by the public, and managed through strict protocols. When those protocols are repeatedly ignored, it is not just self-indulgence - it is reckless misuse of State resources. The protectee cannot demand the full privileges of Z+ cover while treating the rules as optional.
Nor is this only a domestic matter. Foreign security arrangements depend on advance liaison with host governments. Sudden, uncoordinated travel by a Z+ protectee risks creating friction abroad and undermines India's credibility. For someone positioning himself as a statesman, this casual approach is not merely careless, it is diplomatically irresponsible.
The Congress line is designed to shift blame. It has sought to paint Rahul Gandhi as a victim, but it sidesteps the hard truth: a protectee who disregards his own security protocol cannot credibly accuse the government of negligence. The courts will look at records, not rhetoric. And the records show habitual breaches, formally noted and communicated.
At bottom, this is about the paradox of Indian opposition politics. Leaders want the full trappings of State protection, but without the discipline that comes with it. They rail against the establishment while drawing deeply on its apparatus. They ignore the rules yet expect impunity. This cannot stand.
Rahul Gandhi is free to travel where he wishes. But freedom has conditions when you carry Z+ security. If he chooses to treat those conditions lightly, he should accept the risk as his own, not dump the consequences on the agencies tasked with his protection. Security is not a prop for politics. It is a compact between State and protectee. Break it often enough, and the breach lies squarely at the door of the one under protection.
