KHARGE STATEMENT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT POLITICAL DECORUM: LALIT GARG

KHARGE STATEMENT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT POLITICAL DECORUM: LALIT GARG

27-OCT-ENG 9

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA---------------------------A recent statement by Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge has once again ignited a serious debate regarding linguistic decorum in Indian politics. A remark he made during an event in Patna, held to mark the birth anniversary of Dr. Shrikrishna Singh, has caused a stir within political circles.

On October 25, 2026, an event was held in Patna to commemorate the 139th birth anniversary of Bihar’s first Chief Minister, Dr. Shrikrishna Singh. In response to a comment from the crowd, Kharge remarked, "Even Modi’s father will go." This statement drew sharp criticism from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders, who described it as an affront to the dignity of the office of the Prime Minister. While the Congress party attempted to explain the remark within an ideological context, the controversy shows no signs of subsiding. The individual who made the initial comment later claimed that their full statement had not been heard; nevertheless, this episode raises a fundamental question: is this the appropriate way to express opposition toward someone occupying the nation’s highest political office?

This is not the first time that the language used by the top leadership of the Congress party has come under scrutiny. During the 2007 Gujarat Assembly elections, then-Congress President Sonia Gandhi referred to Narendra Modi as a "merchant of death" (*maut ka saudagar*). In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, Mani Shankar Aiyar’s remarks regarding a "tea seller" (*chaiwala*) sparked a major political controversy. In subsequent years, Rahul Gandhi’s slogan, "the watchman is a thief" (*chowkidar chor hai*), shifted the political discourse toward personal accusations. Other leaders, including Priyanka Gandhi, have also launched sharp attacks on various occasions. While each of these statements may have had its own specific political context, their public impact raises a broader question: should the criticism of a political leader be confined strictly to their performance and actions? In a democracy, it is the constitutional duty of the opposition to raise rigorous questions regarding government policies, unemployment, inflation, social harmony, democratic institutions, and administrative decisions. Problems arise when policy disagreements are conflated with personal insults, and when sarcasm—rather than reasoned argument—becomes the primary tool for political influence. While it would be unfair to categorize every statement made by a leader in the same light, the frequency of such controversies necessitates a critical examination of the tone and quality of political discourse. For the Congress, a significant challenge lies in how effectively it can frame a discourse around issues that directly impact the lives of the public.

On the other hand, the personality of Narendra Modi and his global engagement are key facets of Indian politics. His foreign visits, dialogues with world leaders, India’s participation on international platforms, and efforts to strengthen economic and strategic partnerships are all linked to the nation’s global role. His supporters view these activities as a boost to India’s reputation and influence. At the same time, an impartial assessment of any Prime Minister’s tenure should not be based solely on their international image; it must also account for domestic policies, economic outcomes, social inclusion, and their overall record of governance.

The language used in politics influences societal behavior. When top leaders lose their composure in public forums, it risks fostering greater bitterness among their supporters and political workers. The Election Commission of India, through its Model Code of Conduct, also mandates the use of decorous language. Social media further amplifies this trend, where a brief, isolated snippet of a statement can come to dominate the entire discourse. Humiliating a political rival is one thing; defeating their arguments is quite another—in a democracy, the latter is far more significant.

Ultimately, whether it is the Congress or the BJP, a party’s true political strength should not be defined by the aggression of its rhetoric, but rather by its ideas, policies, commitment to public service, and the trust it earns from the people. While criticizing Prime Minister Modi is a democratic right, such criticism must be grounded in facts and sound reasoning. Similarly, whether it is Congress President Kharge or other leaders from the ruling side, it is expected that they do not turn disagreement into an insult. In politics, maintaining decorum in one’s choice of words is not merely a formal courtesy; it is the very soul of democracy.