Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi stirred controversy during his US visit when he suggested that the minorities were facing an “existential threat” in India. In a pointed reference to a Sikh gentleman, he said, the fight was about whether he as a Sikh would be allowed to wear a turban, and a kara (bracelet) and would be able to visit a Gurdwara. There are no takers for Rahul’s “doomsday assumptions” about minorities in India in general and Punjab in particular.
Congress and Rahul Gandhi should be thankful to some of the BJP workers/leaders like Tarvinder Singh Wadhwa and Ravneet Singh Bittu for their uncalled-for statements in reaction to what Rahul said. While Wadhwa warned Gandhi with a threat that he could meet the same fate as that of his grandmother, who was assassinated by her own security guards, Bittu described Rahul as a “biggest terrorist”. Wadhwa deserves to face the law for his blatant threat to Rahul.
Bittu also went overboard by describing Rahul as the “biggest terrorist”.
Bittu owes his very “existence” in politics to Rahul, who specially picked him up, first to be the Punjab Youth Congress president and then made him contest Lok Sabha elections, once from Anandpur Sahib and twice from Ludhiana. He would have fought a third time from Ludhiana on a Congress ticket had he not deserted the party to join the BJP and may have probably won again, as he lost to the Congress candidate Amarinder Singh Raja Warring from here.
Wadhwa and Bittu have actually bailed out Rahul as the debate has now shifted to their threats and accusations instead of what Rahul said in the US, which would have been difficult for him to defend.
Even as LoP, Rahul doesn’t shy away from accusing the PM
Rahul holds the constitutional position of Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Indian parliament). He and the Congress as well as most of the opposition parties have been alleging that there is an “atmosphere of fear, hatred and violence” against the minorities in the country. Obviously, when they say that, their target is Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party whom they accuse of spreading “hatred and violence”.
Spreading a false generalisation
There may be isolated and exceptional incidents of targeted victimisation of members of minority communities, but to suggest that this was a widespread phenomenon is far from the truth. There has not been a single reported case of racial targeting in which someone was targeted or harmed just for his faith or identity. Sometimes, even a routine altercation, argument or fight assumes a communal tone if the two parties belong to two different religions.
Not surprisingly no mainstream political leader from any of the minority communities in India agreed with or endorsed what Rahul said in the United States. That should itself explain the “veracity and authenticity” of what he claimed was happening in India.
If there have been isolated incidents of targeting of the members of the minority community, there have been incidents of targeting of the majority community as well. One of the biggest examples is the displacement of the members of the Hindu community from Kashmir Valley just for their faith. Rahul has never spoken for them, although he claims himself to be a Kashmiri Pandit.
In most of Arab countries, offering prayers in public places or on roads is prohibited, while it is a common practice in India. Take any major city, roads and main markets in many places get blocked as devotees offer collective prayers on Fridays. And in most of the cases, these prayers are offered in the areas dominated by the majority community. There is never any resistance or objection to such gatherings.
Gurpatwant Singh Pannu of the Sikhs for Justice latched on to what Rahul alleged about Sikhs in India as it suited his propaganda of Sikhs being the victims of hatred and violence in India.
There has not been a single case of any incident of the victimization of any member of the Sikh community across India. Sikhs are held in great respect and affection across India. That is why Rahul’s statement did not find any resonance from the community anywhere in India, including Punjab.
Congress has no option, but to defend Rahul
Congress obviously has to “officially” defend what Rahul said, as it fits into its narrative of an “atmosphere of fear, hatred and violence”, but a section of Congress leadership does not approve of such a “sweeping statement” he made in the US. These leaders agree in private that Rahul may have targeted the Modi government, but its implications are for the entire country. The statement comes from the Leader of the Opposition “about India” not about “the Government of India”. There is a huge difference between the two.
The democratic institutions in India are too strong to be shaken, left aside uprooted, by anyone. Successive governments and the Prime Ministers have continuously worked to strengthen them further right from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi. Ms Indira Gandhi’s Emergency period was an aberration. In fact, she made amends by withdrawing the Emergency and going for elections, which she lost badly, thus further strengthening and vindicating the power of democracy.
Rahul Gandhi will do well to draw a line between targeting the “government of India” and “India as a nation”. As the Leader of the Opposition, he is duty-bound to expose, criticise and correct the government’s policies. But his criticism must be reasonable and must resonate with the public. Just because he believes that there is an “atmosphere of fear, hatred and violence” in the country, does not mean it is so. It is not even remotely so.
Ideally one should not even malign his/her political opponents. But given the atmosphere of hostile political polarization prevailing in the country, it is no-holds barred. But the opposition leaders, Rahul in particular, must be careful in drawing a line between “the Government of India” and “India as a nation”.
Follow us
