22

Jan

Devaluing political vocabulary- the RSS-BJP way

image

A close-up of a person with glasses Description automatically generatedOn 14 January 2024, Mohan Bhagwat, the chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), made a provocative statement in Indore, claiming that India achieved "its true independence" on 22 January 2024, the day the Ram Mandir was consecrated in Ayodhya. Bhagwat’s statement was controversial, as it seemed to suggest that India's independence, achieved in 1947, was incomplete until the Ram Mandir was built and consecrated. The very next day, 15 January 2024, Rahul Gandhi, opposition leader and former Congress president, strongly criticized Bhagwat’s comment during the inauguration of the new Congress headquarters, ‘Indira Bhavan’, in New Delhi. Gandhi stated that in any other country, such a comment would be considered treason, and the RSS chief would be arrested and tried.

Gandhi’s remarks sparked a fierce backlash from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Party leaders launched a campaign of criticism against the opposition leader, accusing him of undermining the Indian state. Former Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, in particular, led the charge, questioning Gandhi’s understanding of the Indian state and its constitutional identity. Prasad, a seasoned BJP spokesperson with an RSS background, insinuated that Gandhi’s statement was deeply flawed. “Do you genuinely understand the meaning of the ‘Indian state’?” Prasad asked, emphasizing that the Indian state encompasses various institutions, including the President, Parliament, the judiciary, and the media. He also condemned Gandhi for attacking Bhagwat and the RSS, calling them a nationalist organization that had contributed significantly to society and spread patriotism.

 

Column at a Glance
On January 14, 2024, Mohan Bhagwat, chief of the RSS, controversially claimed that India achieved "true independence" with the consecration of the Ram Mandir on January 22, 2024, implying that the nation’s 1947 independence was incomplete. This statement drew sharp criticism from opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, who labeled it treasonous and sparked a backlash from the ruling BJP.
Wednesday Wisdom
By Satish Misra
 BJP leaders, including Ravi Shankar Prasad and J.P. Nadda, defended Bhagwat, accusing Gandhi of undermining the Indian state and collaborating with anti-national forces. The exchange highlights a troubling trend in Indian politics, where the BJP conflates the state with its ideology, marginalizing dissent and labeling opposition voices as "anti-national." This rhetoric threatens democratic principles, as it fosters division and undermines the role of media and civil society, essential for a healthy democracy. The article warns that continued suppression of dissent could lead to a toxic political environment in India.

 

Prasad’s comments reflected the BJP's consistent rhetoric regarding the RSS, portraying it as a force of national unity and patriotism. However, he went a step further, accusing the Congress of collaborating with anti-India forces, including George Soros, whose financial activities have often been targeted by the BJP. Prasad's remarks were not isolated; BJP President J.P. Nadda also responded on 15 January, claiming that Gandhi’s statement revealed the Congress party’s true intentions to weaken India. Nadda accused Congress of consistently supporting forces that were allegedly hostile to India’s integrity. BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia continued this line of attack, calling Gandhi’s leadership irresponsible and immature, further accusing him of being influenced by harmful external forces.

This exchange is indicative of a much larger issue at play: the growing tendency to blur the line between the nation and the state in Indian politics. The RSS and BJP, in their defence of Bhagwat’s controversial statement, seem to conflate the idea of the nation with that of the state. In a democratic system, the state is a construct created by the people to manage the affairs of the nation. The nation, composed of its citizens, holds sovereignty, and it is the citizens’ responsibility to elect a government that serves their collective interests. The state is meant to function in the best interests of the people, ensuring security, justice, equality, and economic prosperity.

The BJP, however, appears to have adopted a view that equates the state’s interests directly with the ruling party's ideology. This interpretation leads to the marginalization of opposition voices, which are often dismissed or labelled as "anti-national" when they differ from the government or its affiliated organizations. Such rhetoric is dangerous, as it undermines the very democratic fabric of India, where disagreement and debate are vital to ensuring a healthy, functioning society. By labelling opponents as “anti-national” or “traitors,” the BJP seeks to delegitimize dissent, a move that erodes the democratic ethos that India was built upon.

Moreover, the BJP’s use of dehumanizing language in political discourse further contributes to the degradation of public debate. Terms like “Urban Naxal,” “Tukde Tukde gang,” and “pressitutes” have become staples in BJP’s arsenal to discredit opposition and critics. These terms not only demonize individuals and groups but also foster an environment of division and hostility. The use of such language in political discussions sets a dangerous precedent and contributes to the growing polarization in Indian politics.

For instance, the term "Urban Naxal" has been used to label activists, intellectuals, and critics of the government as sympathizers of violent extremism. While one may disagree with the methods of Naxalite insurgents, it is crucial to remember that they, too, are citizens of India, entitled to their rights and subject to the law. Labelling people as “Urban Naxals” or “anti-national” serves only to vilify them without addressing the root causes of dissent. Similarly, calling journalists “presstitutes” not only insults individuals working in the media but also undermines the role of independent journalism in holding the state accountable.

The BJP’s rhetoric also highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the media and civil society in a democracy. The media, as the fourth estate, plays a crucial role in keeping the government in check, ensuring transparency, and voicing the concerns of the people. By attacking journalists and media outlets that criticize the government, the BJP risks eroding the very mechanisms that ensure the proper functioning of the state.

The RSS-BJP’s approach to governance, which favours force and suppression of dissent, stands in stark contrast to the principles of democracy, where pluralism and debate are essential. The Indian state is meant to represent the interests of all its citizens, regardless of their political or ideological affiliations. However, by using abusive language and marginalizing opposition voices, the BJP and RSS have undermined this principle, creating an environment where political discourse has become toxic and divisive.

In conclusion, the comments made by Mohan Bhagwat and the subsequent reactions from BJP leaders reflect a troubling trend in Indian politics. The BJP’s attempts to delegitimize opposition through divisive language and threats of force have severely undermined the democratic principles that India stands for. The distinction between the state and the nation must be understood clearly, and the state must function as a servant of the people, not a tool for political manipulation. If the current trajectory continues, the country risks descending into a state where dissent is stifled, and political discourse is reduced to name-calling and vilification.

**************

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed