Vijay Hashia
The monsoon session of Parliament was once again marred by pandemonium, largely centered on the motion put forth by Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi for a vote of no confidence. This no confidence motion was the second one faced by Modi Government in its nine year tenure, the first being in 2018. However, both motions were defeated. The earlier debate is remembered for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi embracing the PM after delivering a speech in which he questioned the government and Modi’s silence on the rising crimes against minorities and women, as well as the government’s contentious role in the Rafale deal and the impact of demonetization. The second time, the session was characterized again by continuous uproar and disruptions for several days, driven by opposition’s insistence on a statement from the PM on Manipur violence.
Ideological disparities between the Congress and the BJP extend beyond corruption and governance, encompassing economic policies, secularism, social welfare, and the intersection of religion with politics. Prime Minister Modi’s association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and his promotion of Hindu nationalism (Hindutva) have given rise to opposition apprehensions about safeguarding India’s secular fabric and protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. These ideological differences significantly contribute to the opposition’s critique of Modi’s government.
But the criticism directed at PM Modi’s government has predominantly taken a personal form, rather than being rooted in policy agendas, often employing open insinuations. Recent instance of this include Randeep Surjewala’s use of ‘Asura’. Earlier Sonia Gandhi’s reference to ‘Maut Ka Saudagar,’ Mani Shankar Aiyar’s ‘Neech kisam Ka Aadami,’ Priyanka Gandhi’s ‘Neech Rajniti,’ Praniti Shinde’s a ‘Dengue Mosquito,’ and Subodh Kant Sahay’s comparison of the Prime Minister to Hitler. Sheikh Hussain even went so far as to say that the Prime Minister would meet demise akin to that of a dog.
These personal insinuations in the realm of political discourse are attempts to besmirch the stature of the opposition. The choice of language and narratives often prompts discerning observers to critically assess the intentions behind these utterances. Debates, discourses and press briefs/conferences must focus on matters of policy, governance and leadership decisions rather than ad- hominem attacks which can dilute the constructive elements of the discourse and hinder substantive debates on issues of national and international importance.
Narendra Modi’s rise to power as India’s Prime Minister in 2014 was defined by economic progress, sound governance, and an administration free from corruption. His image as an unblemished leader known for efficient governance resonated with a substantial portion of the electorate. This appeal was particularly potent among those disenchanted with previous governments, including the Congress-led UPA (United Progressive Alliance), which grappled with allegations of open corruption, nepotism, dynastic politics, and policy paralysis.
The heightened animosity surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tenure can be attributed to a range of factors, differentiating him from his predecessors in terms of opposition criticism, can be elucidated from the following points:
Issues such as demonetization in 2016, the implementation of GST, unemployment and job creation under the ‘Make in India’, initiative amendment to Art 370 and 35A, triple talaq, are some major sore points that initiative a palpable stinging sensation within the opposition’s critique. Additionally, the farmers’ issues and subsequent agrarian protests, limitations on freedom of expression, religious and societal tensions resulting from divisive rhetoric and autonomy concerns of key institutions like the RBI, CBI, CEC, ED and judiciary have all come under scathing attack from the opposition.
Notably, instances like the Balakot air strikes, clouded by allegations of being driven by political motives rather than bolstering national security, and the Pulwama attack, characterized by lapses in security protocols and intelligence oversights, have given rise to allegations by the opposition against Government. Skepticism surrounding the official narratives regarding these events has found vocal expression, with certain quarters asserting that hyper-nationalism and military measures have been employed as a strategy of diversion and gaining political mileage by Modi Government.
Apart from this, the Government’s handling of cross-border tensions with Pakistan and China, response to environmental and climate change concerns, as well as the perceived inadequacy of social welfare schemes like Swachch Bharat Abhiyan and Ujjwala Yojana, etc have contributed to the opposition’s discontent. Furthermore, the lack of meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including State Governments prior to major policy implementations has been criticized. The increasing centralization of power, diminishing the role of State Governments, and the handling of the pandemic has also been opposition’s roar of discontent.
In contrast to all vitriol, ideological differences and diverse challenges, Prime Minister Modi’s leadership style is often characterized by strong communication skills, charisma and a charismatic persona, commitment to democratic values, economic reforms and development, social welfare programmes, security and foreign relations, environmental initiatives, health care and welfare programmes have been steadfast. These have caused opponents to see him as an authoritarian.
While criticism is essential for accountability, it is equally important to recognize that governance is a complex endeavor with no one-size-fits-all solution. The opposition’s skepticism and demand for transparency are valid, but they should also acknowledge the positive outcomes and effective governance that have emerged under Prime Minister Modi’s leadership.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
