MS Shanker
Rahul Gandhi, the Congress Opposition leader in the Lok Sabha, has once again stirred controversy with his incendiary rhetoric, this time challenging not just the ruling BJP but the very fabric of the Indian state. His remarks about “fighting the state” cross the boundaries of democratic dissent and enter the perilous territory of sedition. It is time for the judiciary to step in and hold such irresponsible voices accountable before they provoke further instability.
Gandhi’s latest tirade, targeting RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s comments on the independence movement, has sparked outrage. Bhagwat’s assertion that India attained true independence with the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya is a debatable perspective, but Gandhi’s response has escalated matters beyond reason. While he has every right to critique Bhagwat, the BJP, or even Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his declaration of a “fight against the state” is deeply troubling. Such a statement not only undermines the sovereignty of the nation but also borders on treason.
The Congress and its allies, like the CPI, have attempted to downplay Gandhi’s words, framing them as a reaction to the BJP’s alleged capture of constitutional institutions. However, this defense falls flat. Political frustration does not justify language that threatens the integrity of the state. If Rahul Gandhi’s words are not a direct call to anarchy, then what else qualifies?
This is not the first time Gandhi and his party have flirted with anti-national sentiments. Who can forget the infamous slogans of “Bharat tere tukde honge” chanted on the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University campus, a hub for leftist and often subversive ideologies masquerading as intellectual freedom? The Congress’s tacit endorsement of such sentiments in the past reveals a disturbing pattern of rhetoric that questions India’s unity and sovereignty.
Gandhi’s provocative language comes in the wake of his failed Bharat Jodo Yatra, which aimed to unite the country but ended in electoral humiliation. Despite months of marching and grandstanding, the Indian electorate handed the Congress a resounding defeat in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, where the party failed to secure even 100 of the 543 seats. This frustration has fuelled his latest outburst, reflecting the desperation of a leader unable to accept the reality of his political irrelevance.
What makes Gandhi’s remarks even more dangerous is the context in which they are made. In neighbouring Bangladesh, we have witnessed how unchecked rhetoric and calls for anarchy can spiral into chaos, threatening stability and governance. India cannot afford to tread a similar path. Irresponsible statements by prominent leaders like Gandhi have the potential to incite unrest, undermine public trust in democratic institutions, and destabilize the nation.
The judiciary must act decisively to address this situation. Gandhi’s words are not mere political hyperbole; they are a challenge to the rule of law and the Constitution. By declaring a “fight against the state,” he has crossed a line that no citizen, let alone a leader of his stature, should be allowed to cross. The legal framework of this nation provides sufficient grounds to investigate such statements under charges of sedition or treason.
Democracy thrives on dissent and debate, but it cannot survive calls for anarchy. Rahul Gandhi’s repeated provocations threaten the very principles he claims to uphold. The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, must intervene and restrain such reckless rhetoric. Holding Gandhi accountable is not just a matter of legal necessity but also a message that the sovereignty and unity of India are non-negotiable.
If left unchecked, such statements could embolden others to follow suit, plunging the nation into unnecessary turmoil. The time for half-measures is over. The judiciary must take a firm stand and remind every citizen, regardless of their political affiliations, that the stability and integrity of India are paramount.
Rahul Gandhi must face the consequences of his words. If his statement is not treated as treason, what precedent are we setting for the future? The judiciary must act now to safeguard the nation from those who, under the guise of political opposition, threaten its very foundation.
