The recent statements of former Union Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde and Trinamool Congress spokesperson Riju Dutta offer a revealing glimpse into a disturbing aspect of contemporary politics – the willingness of individuals to suspend personal judgment and repeat party narratives, only to distance themselves from them later.
Though separated by time, political context, and consequence, the two cases share a common thread. Both men have claimed that they were acting under pressure from their respective parties when they made statements that they now acknowledge were either unfair or untrue.
The pressure defence
Riju Dutta’s apology to BJP leader and West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari was unambiguous. He admitted that many of his earlier remarks were made under pressure and even cited concerns for the safety of his family.
Whether one agrees with his political choices or not, Dutta at least accepted responsibility for his words and publicly apologised for them.
Shinde’s recent remarks are of a different order altogether. As the Union Home Minister during the UPA government, he had publicly spoken about ‘saffron terror’ and associated Hindu organisations with terrorism.
Years later, he has suggested that he was under pressure from the party leadership and that there was no truth in what he had said.
The admission is significant. Yet it remains incomplete. Shinde acknowledged the pressure. He acknowledged the lack of evidence. What he did not do was apologise.
Failure of public responsibility
Political spokespersons are expected to defend party positions. Cabinet ministers, however, carry a far greater responsibility.
When a spokesperson parrots a party line, the damage may be limited to political rhetoric. When a home minister speaks, the words carry the authority of the State. Investigative agencies, law-enforcement bodies, and the public often treat such statements as signals of official policy and direction.
This is why the Shinde episode raises questions that go far beyond partisan politics. If a serving home minister knew that a particular narrative lacked a factual basis but still propagated it because of political pressure, that reflects a serious failure of public responsibility. The first duty of a minister is not to the party but to the Constitution and the truth.
The cost of political narratives
Political narratives are not harmless slogans. They shape public opinion, influence investigations and affect the lives of real people.
When labels such as ‘saffron terror’, ‘urban naxal’, ‘anti-national’ or similar political tags are casually deployed, individuals can find themselves subjected to public suspicion, legal scrutiny and social stigma. If such labels are later disowned by those who promoted them, the damage is not automatically undone.
This is precisely why public figures must exercise restraint before making allegations that carry serious implications.
Conscience after retirement
There is a recurring pattern in politics. Leaders often discover their conscience after leaving office, losing influence or entering the twilight of their careers.
Revelations that would have been meaningful when they were in positions of authority emerge years later, when the consequences are largely historical.
Such admissions may satisfy personal conscience, but they do little for public accountability. If a statement was wrong then, it was wrong then, not merely now.
Beyond party loyalty
Political parties require discipline. Democracies require integrity. The health of a democracy depends upon public representatives having the courage to question their own side when facts do not support the preferred narrative.
Blind loyalty may be useful to political organisations, but it is a dangerous quality in those entrusted with public office.
The parallel between Riju Dutta and Sushil Kumar Shinde ultimately serves as a reminder that saying ‘I was under pressure’ cannot become a universal alibi.
Citizens expect more from those who speak in the name of political parties and even more from those who wield the authority of government. Party narratives may change with time. Truth should not.
