During one of his campaign speeches, Punjab Congress Committee president Amarinder Singh Raja Warring claimed that the Congress believes in inclusiveness. He apparently wanted to emphasise it with the example of former Union Home Minister Buta Singh.
He was addressing a gathering, which mostly belonged to the downtrodden sections of society. During the course of his speech, he referred to the veteran Congress leader’s caste and the complexion of his skin, besides the work he used to do prior to joining the Congress. Wanting to score a political point, he said the Congress made him the Union Home Minister.
The import of his message was clear that no matter from which background you come and no matter which caste you belong to, you will get full opportunities in the Congress without any discrimination on the basis of “caste, creed, colour or community.”
However, in a politically surcharged atmosphere, his critics and political opponents seized the opportunity to size him up. Leaders from the ruling Aam Aadmi Party, and opposition parties like Shiromani Akali Dal and the Bharatiya Janata Party took no time to say that he had “insulted” the former Union Home Minister just for his caste and the complexion of his skin. Warring, realising the possible implications, issued an unconditional apology and also tried to clarify that he had not said anything against Buta Singh or about his caste.
Being fair to the PCC president, he actually did not use any insulting words against Buta Singh. He only referred to his caste and the complexion of his skin, which though was unnecessary to mention. He appreciated Buta Singh in the same speech that he had risen to become the Home Minister and the Congress party had provided him the chance. He actually gave Buta Singh’s example to prove his claim that the Congress did not discriminate against anyone.
In politics and public space, it is the perception rather than the real intentions that count at the end. He has been put on the defensive and has been repeatedly trying to explain what he actually said and in what context. But that could not save him from being booked under the stringent law of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Kapurthala Police also took no time in registering the FIR, as a section of political leadership had raised the pitch against Warring, demanding that he be booked under the SC/ST Act. The police also have very limited options in such matters, as any complaint under this Act is normally taken cognisance of without any delay.
If such a statement had come from any ordinary person, nobody would have taken any note of it. But someone in public life holding an important position like that of the state president of the Congress, the principal opposition party, has stirred the hornet’s nest for himself and for the party. Once the perception gets built up, it is very difficult for anyone to clear it. Nobody cares what the person had actually said and in what context he had said it.
More so in the age of social media and instant recordings and multiple options to spread and circulate, such matters take no time to spread like wildfire and, as already mentioned, the perception they create.
The question is whether there would have been a similar reaction and the follow-up action if the PCC president had made such remarks against a different person. In all probability, in that case, it would not have even been noticed. Since there is a specific law concerning the issue, it got noticed and a case was registered against him.
Should the police resort to such lightning hurry to register the cases in such matters without proper inquiry and investigation? Law indeed is clear that there should be proper action in such matters and zero tolerance towards the offenders. For that, it is important to establish that prima facie an offence was made out. In Warring’s case, there was no such offence, as mere reference to anybody’s caste or complexion does not amount to an offence. Moreover, he referred to these two things in a positive and not in a negative context, without meaning any insult to the former Union Home Minister.
Yes, public figures must be cautious and sensitive on such matters as what they say and how they say such things. It is not Warring alone who referred to the caste of one of the former party veterans; each and every politician makes such mentions off and on to score some brownie points in one way or the other. Such matters, being highly sensitive and emotive, should normally be dealt with restraint instead of being played up. But in the competitive world of politics and point scoring, all parties resort to such things, be it Warring’s own party, the Congress, the AAP, the BJP, or SAD.
Warring should have been more careful about the choice of his words while quoting the example of Buta Singh to praise his party. He has already tendered an unconditional apology to the people. The matter should have ended there and then only. Raking up such issues and keeping these alive with an intention to make political capital out of it does not serve any purpose, much less for the people whose interests political parties claim to be serving.
Also Read: PPCC chief Warring booked for casteist remarks on Buta Singh
Follow us
