The BJP has spent years making parivarvaad one of its most potent political weapons against the Congress. Prime Minister Narendra Modi repeatedly attacks dynastic politics, entitlement and the tendency of political families to treat public life as hereditary property.
Fair enough. But there is an uncomfortable question the BJP cannot duck: Does its anti-dynasty principle apply only to the Congress?
The Parvesh Verma episode in Delhi has brought that question sharply into focus.
A video from a road inspection in Tilak Nagar shows Delhi PWD Minister and BJP leader Parvesh Verma appearing to pull down a man’s mobile phone and slap him during a confrontation over road work. The incident has triggered a political controversy, with complaints reportedly filed by both sides. Verma has defended his reaction by alleging that AAP workers abused his family. The police are examining the competing complaints.
Whatever the provocation, the central issue remains simple: a minister cannot be seen using physical force against a citizen and expect the matter to disappear under political privilege.
This is particularly uncomfortable for the BJP because Parvesh Verma is not an ordinary political figure. He is the son of former Delhi Chief Minister Sahib Singh Verma. His political lineage is a matter of public record. That, by itself, is neither a crime nor proof of entitlement. Political families exist in every party. The problem begins when a party that routinely lectures the country about dynastic entitlement appears reluctant to apply the same standards within its own ranks.
That is where the BJP’s credibility is being tested.
The Congress cannot be condemned for dynastic politics on Monday and dynastic privilege quietly tolerated within the BJP on Tuesday. The principle cannot change according to which party the surname belongs to.
And this is not merely about parivarvaad. It is about the far more fundamental question of how a public representative is expected to behave.
Citizens have every right to question the quality of a public road. Ministers have every right to answer allegations, reject political provocation and defend themselves against abuse. But public office brings restraint with it. A minister is not an ordinary citizen in a street quarrel. The authority of the office itself demands a higher standard of conduct.
The BJP leadership therefore faces a credibility test of its own making.
Prime Minister Modi cannot repeatedly tell the nation that political entitlement and family privilege have no place in public life while remaining conspicuously silent when a prominent BJP leader from a political family becomes embroiled in an incident of this nature.
And Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s role cannot be ignored either. Delhi Police comes under the Union Home Ministry. If the allegations involve an alleged assault, the law must take its course without fear or favour. The fact that the accused is a minister should neither prejudge guilt nor provide immunity from scrutiny.
The BJP does not need to fear criticism from its own side. It needs to fear inconsistency.
If parivarvaad is wrong, it is wrong irrespective of whether the surname is Gandhi, Verma or any other politically established family. If arrogance in public office is unacceptable, it is unacceptable irrespective of party colour. And if the law is supreme, it must remain supreme even when the person under scrutiny sits in the ruling establishment.
The BJP has built much of its political argument around the promise of a different political culture.
That promise comes with a simple obligation: apply the same yardstick at home that you use against your opponents.
Otherwise, parivarvaad stops being a principle and becomes merely a political weapon.
