A cockroach that flies in from Germany, delivers a lecture on Indian democracy and constitutional institutions, and then reportedly leaves the country is hardly the messiah of Indian democracy he imagines himself to be. Dhruv Rathee may have opinions to offer, but why should Bharat take lectures on its constitutional functioning from someone whose own circumstances, citizenship status and reasons for travelling abroad deserve clarity before anyone jumps to conclusions?
His recent interview, in which he sought to justify the Cockroach Janta Party’s street protest demanding the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), was a spectacle of allegations masquerading as arguments. The interviewer, meanwhile, appeared content to provide a platform rather than subject those allegations to rigorous questioning.
Dhruv’s central charge is that the CEC faltered in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. He even sought to fault the Supreme Court for permitting the Modi government to proceed with elections in West Bengal. Apparently, when electoral outcomes do not suit the Opposition, the Election Commission becomes suspect and the judiciary becomes an accomplice!
https://youtube.com/shorts/mZOwxICtxvI?si=exmqYlJg-zjFCQo9
Since when did disagreeing with an electoral exercise become sufficient grounds for demanding the resignation of a constitutional authority? If there are specific violations, let the evidence be produced, the procedures examined and the competent authorities approached. A street rally cannot substitute for proof, and a television interview cannot turn an allegation into a verdict.
Dhruv reportedly claimed that 70,000 votes were retained after verification but the concerned voters could not exercise their franchise. That is a serious allegation deserving factual scrutiny. Which voters? What was the precise nature of the verification? Were they eligible electors whose names were wrongly excluded? What remedies were available, and what did the Election Commission say? These are the questions a serious interviewer should have asked.
But the larger electoral picture cannot be wished away. The BJP’s sweeping victory in West Bengal cannot simply be dismissed by invoking an unverified number. Voters had their own reasons for rejecting the Trinamool Congress government led by Mamata Banerjee, including dissatisfaction with its governance and alleged appeasement politics. If the Opposition believes the electoral process was compromised, it must establish that case with evidence rather than expect every defeat to be explained away as institutional sabotage.
And why did the interviewer not ask another inconvenient question? If the Trinamool Congress enjoyed such unquestionable public confidence, why did a significant number of its elected representatives subsequently leave the party? Political defections do not, by themselves, prove electoral malpractice, but they certainly complicate the Opposition’s convenient narrative of an entirely manufactured mandate.
The Congress’s institutional hypocrisy
The most astonishing part of this manufactured outrage is the claim that the Modi government has destroyed every constitutional institution. Really? Is the Congress, which ruled Bharat for decades, entitled to present itself as the guardian of institutional independence without answering for its own record?
But there is a larger political desperation behind this orchestrated outrage. Having ruled Bharat for decades, the Congress appears increasingly confronted by the prospect that its return to power at the Centre is becoming ever more difficult. The dynastic dream of Sonia Gandhi seeing her son, Rahul Gandhi, occupy the Prime Minister’s gaddi remains unfulfilled, despite years of political manoeuvring. With the BJP repeatedly frustrating that ambition at the ballot box, the Congress has an obvious political incentive to portray the Modi government not merely as an opponent to be defeated electorally, but as a regime whose legitimacy and institutions must be relentlessly questioned. The demand for regime change, therefore, deserves to be examined against this larger political context: is the objective to strengthen Indian democracy, or to discredit a democratically elected government that the Congress has struggled to dislodge?
This is where Dhruv Rathee enters the picture. His intervention, amplifying allegations against the Election Commission and the Supreme Court, fits neatly into the Opposition’s broader narrative of institutional collapse. Whether he is consciously advancing the Congress’s political agenda is a separate question that cannot be answered without evidence. But the political utility of such interventions is unmistakable: if electoral defeats can be portrayed as proof of a compromised system, the Opposition can shift attention from its own leadership crisis, organisational weaknesses and inability to persuade voters. Regime change through the ballot box is the legitimate objective of every opposition party; attempting to delegitimise the institutions administering that democratic process without substantiating the charges is another matter altogether.
This does not mean that any institution should be beyond scrutiny. Quite the contrary: constitutional bodies must be accountable, transparent and independent. But accountability is not the same as political intimidation, and criticism is not a licence to delegitimise institutions whenever their decisions prove inconvenient.
Finally, Dhruv, who cares?
If Dhruv has credible evidence of wrongdoing, he should present it. If he believes the CEC has violated the law, he should explain precisely how. If he accuses the Modi government of destroying constitutional institutions, he must substantiate the charge rather than recycle Opposition rhetoric.
And if he chooses to leave Bharat, that decision alone proves neither guilt nor fear of arrest. Claims about foreign funding or motives for his departure likewise require evidence. Nationality is no substitute for an argument, and neither is a dramatic television appearance.
Bharat’s democracy is not so fragile that every foreign-based commentator can pronounce it dead after an unfavourable electoral result. Nor is the public obliged to accept political sermons without asking for facts.
Dhruv is entitled to his opinion. India’s voters are entitled to question it. And the interviewer’s obligation was to challenge his assertions, not merely provide him an uninterrupted microphone.
The real test of democratic commitment is not how loudly one accuses the government. It is whether one applies the same standards to every political party, every constitutional institution, and every inconvenient fact.
Until then, Dhruv, spare India the sermon. Bring the evidence first.
