நல்லகண்ணு!!

ஒரு இயக்கமாகவே வாழந்து காண்பித்த ,  சரித்திர நாயகனின்  சகாப்தம் இது! 

மாபெரும் தலைவர்!  தோழர் !! இப்படி ஒரு,  தவப்புதல்வனை  இந்த நாடு, இனி காண இயலுமா  என்ற ஏக்கப் பெருமூச்சை தவிர்க்க இயலவில்லை! 

எளிய மக்களின் தோழன்! 

எப்பொழுதும் சமரசமில்லாத  நேர்மையின் அடையாளமாக வாழ்ந்து  காட்டிய மகான்! 

எட்டு தசாப்தங்களுக்கும் மேலாக, பொதுவுடைமைத் தத்துவத்தின் மீதும் கட்சியின் மீதும் அவர் கொண்டிருந்த விசுவாசம் துளியும் அசையாதது.

ஆடம்பரங்கள் நிறைந்த அரசியல் சூழலில், தன் கிழிந்த சட்டையைத் தானே தைத்து உடுத்திக் கொண்டும், வாடகை வீட்டிலேயே தன் வாழ்நாளைக் கழித்தும் அவர் காட்டிய எளிமை நம்மை நெகிழச் செய்கிறது.

அவருக்குக் கிடைத்த கோடிக்கணக்கான ரூபாய் நிதியையும், விருதுத் தொகைகளையும் ஒரு கணம் கூட யோசிக்காமல் மக்கள் நலனுக்காகவே திருப்பிக் கொடுத்த அந்தத் தியாகம், இன்றுள்ள தலை முறையினருக்கு ஒரு பெரும் பாடம்.

விவசாயிகளுக்காகவும், இயற்கை வளங்களைக் காக்கவும் அவர் நடத்திய போராட்டங்கள் எண்ணற்றவை! 

வெறும் அரசியல்  களம் மட்டுமல்ல; இந்த மண்ணின் மீதும் மக்கள் மீதும் அவர் கொண்டிருந்த ஆழமான காதல் அளப்பரியது.

சிகப்பு கொடியைத் தன் உயிர்மூச்சாகக் கருதிய அந்த உன்னத மனிதர்! 

ஒரு நேர்மையான தலைவர், தொண்டர்,  மனிதர்,  எப்படி வாழ வேண்டும்/ முடியும்  என்பதை பாடமாக நடத்திக் காட்டியவர்.

அவர் ஏற்ற  தழும்புகளும் தியாகங்களும்  அழிக்கவியலா சாட்சியங்கள்! 

அவரைச் சந்தித்த தலைவர்கள், அருமைத் தலைவர் நல்லகண்ணுவின் எளிமையும், நேர்மையும் குறித்து அத்தியாயம் அத்தியாயமாக எடுத்துரைத்தாலும், அட்சய பாத்திரம் போல எடுக்க எடுக்க வற்றாத உதாரணங்கள் வந்து கொண்டே இருக்கும்.  ஏனெனில், அவர் வாழ்ந்து முடித்த ஒவ்வொரு கணமும் 'சத்திய நிரூபணங்கள்'

தோழர் ரகு தனது பணி நிறைநிறைவுப் பாராட்டு விழாவில் சொன்னார்;  இந்த தவப்புதல்வனின் கால் படுமென்றால் , இன்னும் பலமுறை பணி ஓய்வு பெறுவேன் என.

நமது  ஒவ்வொரு அன்றாட செயலில் நேர்மையையும், அர்பணிப்பையும், தன்னல மறுப்பையும்  மிகச் சிறிய அளவில் நடைமுறைப்படுத்த வேண்டும் எனும் தீப் பொறியினை,  அவரை  சாதரண  வழிப் போக்கன் அளவில் பார்த்த எவருக்கும் கூட தோன்றுவது இயல்பு.  

அதுதான்  நேர்மையின் 

ஈர்ப்பு! 

வாழ்க நீ எம்மான்!

ஒரு ஆட்சி–மாதிரியாக, அவர் ஏற்ற கட்சிக் கொள்கைகள் உலகளவில்,  தோல்வியடைந்திருக்கலாம். ஒரு பொருளாதாரத் தீர்வாக பல இடங்களில் செயல்படாமல் போயிருக்கலாம்.

ஆனால்,

நேர்மையாக வாழ்வதற்கான கோட்பாடாக அது தோல்வியடையவில்லை.

அதைத்தான் நல்லகண்ணு போன்றவர்கள் வாழ்ந்து நிரூபித்தார்கள்.

அமைப்பு தோற்றது;

ஆனால் மனிதன் தோற்கவில்லை.

அரசியல் கணக்குகள் சரியில்லை;

ஆனால் நெஞ்சுக் கணக்குகள் தவறவில்லை.

இன்றைய அரசியல் சூழலில் பெரும்பாலானோர்

“ideology வேலை செய்யல என்று சொல்லிஅநாகரிகத்துக்கும், ஊழலுக்கும் அனுமதி வாங்கிக் கொள்கிறார்கள்.

ஆனால் நல்லகண்ணு, சொல்லாமல் சொன்னது இதுதான்:

“கோட்பாடு ஆட்சி செய்ய முடியாவிட்டாலும்,

அது என் வாழ்க்கையை ஆளலாம்.”

அதுதான் அவரை பெரிய தலைவராக அல்ல

பெரிய மனிதராக நிறுத்துகிறது.

சிவப்பு கொடி அரசியல் தோல்வியடைந்திருக்கலாம்.

ஆனால்

நேர்மையாக இருப்பதற்கான தடையாக அது ஒருபோதும் இருந்ததில்லை.

இந்த வாக்கியம் மட்டும் இன்று பேசப்பட்டால் போதும் —

பலர் அசௌகரியப்படுவார்கள்.

அதே தான் சத்தியத்தின் power

கனவான்களின் அராஜகம்!

Democracy at the Crossroads: Elected Authority vs Unelected Power

In contemporary democracies across the world, a silent but consequential conflict is unfolding. It is not merely a battle between political parties, ideologies, or personalities. Rather, it is a deeper struggle between elected authority and unelected power—between governments chosen by the people and institutions or elites that increasingly claim moral or intellectual supremacy over those choices.

This debate is often framed superficially as support for or opposition to leaders like Donald Trump. That framing misses the point. Whether one likes or dislikes Trump—or any elected leader—is a matter of political preference. The more fundamental question is this:

Who ultimately governs in a democracy—the voters, or self-appointed guardians of virtue and intellect?

The Sanctity of the Electoral Mandate

Elections are not ceremonial rituals. They are the very mechanism through which popular sovereignty is expressed. When a political leader or party contests an election with a clear agenda, wins, and assumes office, that agenda carries democratic legitimacy—even if it is controversial.

Disagreement with policies is natural. Opposition is healthy. But systematically obstructing a democratically elected government because its worldview is disliked undermines the very logic of elections. If every major policy choice is stalled, rewritten, or nullified by unelected actors, one must ask:

Why hold elections at all?

Policy disagreement should be resolved at the ballot box, not neutralized through administrative paralysis.

Judiciary: Guardian, Not Governor

The judiciary has a vital and indispensable role in any democracy. It exists to:

Uphold the constitution

Protect fundamental rights

Prevent clear abuses of power

However, when courts move from constitutional review into policy arbitration, a dangerous line is crossed. Courts are not designed to govern; they are designed to restrain excess. When judges begin to believe they know what is best for society—better than voters themselves—judicial review mutates into judicial supremacy.

The question is not whether courts should intervene, but where they should stop.

Constitutional violation? → Judicial intervention is justified.

Policy disagreement or ideological discomfort? → That belongs to politics, not the courtroom.

The Rise of Elite Moral Authority

Across the United States, Europe, and India, a recognizable pattern has emerged. An interconnected ecosystem—comprising sections of the judiciary, media, academia, NGOs, and intellectual elites—often operates with a shared ideological orientation. When electoral outcomes disrupt this worldview, resistance does not remain political; it becomes institutional.

This is where dissent transforms into something else.

Dissent is essential to democracy. But permanent opposition, reflexive contrarianism, and automatic hostility toward elected power are not democratic virtues. Opposition itself cannot be treated as moral righteousness. To oppose everything a government does, regardless of outcome or intent, is not vigilance—it is dogma.

The troubling feature of this phenomenon is that it frequently arrives wearing the mask of “justice,” “values,” and “democracy,” even as it subverts the electorate’s will.

Trump as a Symptom, Not the Cause

Donald Trump’s confrontational response to this ecosystem—often angry, blunt, and institutionally disruptive—is widely criticized. Yet his reaction resonates with many precisely because it exposes a real tension. His stance signals that elected governments are no longer willing to silently accept being governed from above by unelected authorities.

This is not unique to Trump. Similar tensions are visible in:

European governments pushing back against judicial overreach on immigration and national identity

India witnessing friction between executive authority and judicial intervention in administrative matters

These reactions are not necessarily signs of authoritarianism. They are often counter-reactions to perceived elite overreach.

The Real Danger: Institutional Breakdown

There is, however, a grave risk on both sides.

If unelected institutions consistently overstep their boundaries, elected governments may respond by weakening those institutions altogether. When that happens, the judiciary loses public trust—not because it defended the constitution, but because it appeared to govern.

The ultimate casualty in this cycle is not a party, a leader, or an ideology.

It is democratic balance.

Democracy survives not by moral grandstanding, but by respecting boundaries:

Governments must govern within constitutional limits.

Courts must adjudicate without governing.

Intellectuals must persuade, not impose.

Conclusion

The crisis facing modern democracies is not the rise of strong leaders or populist politics alone. It is the growing belief among unelected elites that they are wiser than voters and therefore entitled to override electoral outcomes.

When moral certainty replaces democratic humility, even the language of justice can become a tool of domination.

At its core, democracy demands a simple discipline:

Respect the people’s choice—even when you disagree with it.

Time Travel

சலிப்பான நிகழ்வுகள் சில,  சுவாரஸ்மானதாகவும்,  எதிர்பார்த்து சென்ற நிகழ்வுகள் 'கொட்டாவி' யாக முடிவதும் கூட  நடப்பதுவே!  

 It was a closed family function invitation

ஆனால், சுவாரஸ்யம் நிகழ்வில் இல்லை.

அதில் கலந்து கொண்ட, எனது ஒரு நன்பரின்  சந்திப்பில்தான்.

முப்பத்தைந்து ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன் தொடங்கிய நட்பு அது.

வாழ்க்கையின் அசுர வேகம், 

மூச்சை அடக்கி தெறித்தோட வைக்கும் பொழுது, நட்பை நினைத்து அசைபோட

நமக்கு அவகாசமிருக்காதல்லவா? இன்று அது கிடைத்தது.

எங்களின் நட்பும் அப்படித்தான. 

காலத்தின் ஓட்டத்தில், 

காலமும் சூழலும்

எங்களை எல்லாம்

மூலைக்கு ஒருவராகச் சிதறடித்துப் போட்டிருந்தன.

எத்தனையோ சுழல்கள்,

சடார்சடாரென மாறிய காட்சிகள்.

அவரவர் போக்கில்

அவரவருக்கான அனுபவங்கள்—

சிலரை மென்மைப்படுத்தி இருக்கும்;

சிலரை முற்றிலும் வேறொரு மனிதராக மாற்றியிருக்கும்.

ஆனாலும்,

நன்பர்கள் சந்திக்கும் பொழுது

விட்ட இடத்திலிருந்தே தொடங்குகிறார்கள்.

அந்தத் தருணம்

nostalgic…

thrilling…

curious…

என்று எல்லாம் சேர்ந்து

ஒரே உணர்வாக மாறுகிறது.

இவரைச் சந்தித்த போதும் அப்படித்தான்.

சில நிமிடங்கள்

2013-இல் சிக்கிக் கொண்டதுபோல் தோன்றினாலும்,

அந்த நினைவுகள் இனிமையான அசைவுகளாகவே இருந்தன.

இடையறாது பேசவும்,

தடையின்றி தொடரவும்

சற்று வெகுளித்தனம் வேண்டும்,

சற்று innocence வேண்டும்,

பாசாங்கில்லாத வாஞ்சை வேண்டும்,

சிறிதளவு உண்மையான அக்கறையும் வேண்டும்.

இப்படி மனிதர்கள் அமைவது அரிதுதான்.

ஆனால், அப்படிப்பட்வர்கள் இல்லாமலில்லை.

இந்தக் காலமும் கூட,

இன்னமும் எளிமையோடும்

பாசாங்கற்ற இயல்போடும் வாழ்பவர்களை

அவர்கள் போலவே தொடர உலகு அனுமதிக்கிறது என்பதே

ஒரு பாலைவனச் சோலை போன்ற உணர்வு.

இரண்டு மணிநேரம்!

அது நேரம் அல்ல—

ஒரு time travel.

ரிடையர் ஆனதை மறந்து,

பேரன்களையும் பேத்திகளையும் மறந்து,

நாங்கள் திரும்ப 90-களில் நின்றிருந்தோம்.

இருபது வருடங்களை

இரண்டு மணிநேரத்தில் கடப்பது

வேறொரு நிலை அனுபவம்.

அடுத்தமுறை சந்திக்கும் பொழுது,

விட்ட இடத்திலிருந்தே

மீண்டும் தொடரலாம்.

அழைக்கப்பட்ட நிகழ்வு முடிந்ததும்,

அவரவர் வாழ்க்கையின்

அடுத்த நாளின் அன்றாட கவலைகளோடு

பயணம் தொடரத்தான் போகிறது.

ஆனாலும், இந்தச் சிறு refreshment,

நட்பு வருடிய ஹிதம்,

சில நாட்களுக்கு

மனதில் தங்கி விடும்.

ரயில் நட்புகள் மறந்துபோகலாம்.

ஆனால் வாழ்க்கையே

ஒரு நீண்ட ரயில் பயணம்.

இந்த வகை நட்பு

இடை நிலையத்தோடு இறங்குவதில்லை.

மறக்கப்படுவதுமில்லை.

இறைவன் அனுமதிக்கும் காலம்வரை, அவரது காலம்

சந்தோஷத் தருணங்களால்

வாழ்வு ததும்பட்டும்.

Isha

 We suffer from many diseases today—not of the body, but of the mind.

One such condition is the compulsive urge to shout, “Stop corporate power!”

The same voices once screamed “Stop Tata! Stop Birla!” as if possessed.

Now the targets have changed: Ambani, Adani.

The noise remains the same. Only the names rotate.

This reflexive outrage isn’t accidental. It’s a worldview carefully manufactured by sections of the media and self-styled liberals.

Ask them basic, kindergarten-level questions: 

How much can one individual realistically invest?

How far can personal effort go?

Who funds large-scale experimentation?

Even if something succeeds, how is it taken to millions?

Silence.

That’s how effectively common sense has been anesthetized.

The latest punching bag is the Isha Foundation.

Its founder has been neatly boxed as a “corporate godman.”

“Aren’t there ancient temples? Why go to the Dhyanalinga for Mahashivaratri?”

This question doesn’t come from curiosity—it comes from intellectual conspiracy.

Only those wearing the costume of devotion ask it.

If you truly are a Shiva devotee, try this:

Can you gather even a hundred people—forget a thousand—in one place and make them chant “Om Namah Shivaya” together?

You can’t.

Yet through Isha, over 140 million people, online and offline, chanted AUM Namah Shivaya at exactly midnight yesterday, Indian time.

Instead of scoffing, try replicating it.

Gather just 1,000 people.

One open ground.

One night.

Then reality will introduce itself.

“Yes, but he has corporate money.”

Take one step forward yourself. Money will appear—from many directions.

And with it will come layers of chaos you didn’t budget for.

For a thousand people alone: Food, toilets, parking.

Police permissions.

Midnight sound regulations.

Crowd control that prevents even a single mishap.

Sustaining energy so no one feels drained or disengaged.

Add to that: Security for global dignitaries.

Volunteers who work without pay, credit, or expectation.

Feeling dizzy yet?

“I don’t know all that… but still, he’s corporate.”

Even my own favorite temple needs structure.

Order is not oppression.

Discipline is not arrogance.

On that count, Isha has delivered—flawlessly.

Please don’t rush to the tired accusation of “money arrogance.”

What you see is not control, but organic order rooted in devotion.

Yes, Mahashivaratri is about chanting the Panchakshara mantra.

I can do that alone on my terrace.

But solitary prayer and collective transcendence are not the same.

Standing for hours under the open sky, immersed in Shiva’s songs, surrounded by thousands whose minds slowly sync to the same frequency—

and then, at the stroke of midnight, when countless voices collapse into a single chant of His name—

That experience cannot be explained to those who’ve already decided to dismiss it.

Isha isn’t alone.

Nithyananda. Sri Sri.

Slander comes easily when the goal is clear.

And the goal is simple:

Erase Sanatana Dharma.

When someone achieves what we cannot, the dharmic response is not suspicion or fault-finding, but grace.

Sometimes, the most authentic service to Sanatana Dharma

is knowing when to step aside—and let devotion do its work.

2k kids

 A year ago, a relative of mine complained that her daughter was not willing to get married and asked me to “advise” her.

Being the girl’s Thatha, I was also—very modestly—interested in finding a suitable bridegroom. After all, old habits die hard. 😄

However, I am fully aware of the 2K kids’ approach towards life and their uncompromising respect for personal choice. So I wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about talking to her.

Since I couldn’t avoid it altogether, I kept it simple. I told her that it was entirely her choice whether she wanted to tie the knot or not, and that I had no right to compel her. I only added one small thought:

“Just think about life in your 40s and 50s—when parents may no longer be around and family circles become smaller.”

As expected, she brushed me aside instantly.

“I know better than you, Thatha. Everyboy is a rogue today!”

Conversation over.

Last month, she returned—this time with a request.

She has a love boy, and now I am expected to convince her mother, who is not willing to accept the alliance.

When I gently pointed out the contradiction, I told her calmly:

“That was my opinion then, and this is my stand now.”

She had no reply.

And that made me think.

When I look at these 2K kids, I feel both fear and amazement.

Fear—because of how confidently they take life-altering decisions.

Amazement—because of how lightly they carry them.

They seem to live life with ease, without unnecessary complications.

They don’t hold on to rigid stands or permanent positions.

What they believe today is valid for today.

If tomorrow brings a new understanding, they accept it without embarrassment or regret.

They don’t wrestle with life.

They simply flow with it.

Time does change—everyone knows that.

But has it really changed this fast?

Another day wasted....

 For four consecutive days, Parliament has remained stalled. The reason for this deadlock is not procedural complexity or legislative confusion, but a political standoff driven by the insistence of Rahul Gandhi. Parliamentary business has come to a standstill. The House was scheduled to debate the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, followed by the Prime Minister’s reply—a long-standing constitutional and parliamentary tradition.

The Prime Minister was to deliver his response on Thursday. However, even before he entered the House, the Congress leadership had formulated a strategy to prevent him from speaking. Priyanka Gandhi openly declared that if the Leader of the Opposition was not allowed to speak, no one from the ruling side would be allowed to speak either. This was not a spontaneous protest but a deliberate warning.

What followed inside the House was unprecedented. For the first time in India’s parliamentary history, Congress women MPs physically surrounded the Prime Minister’s seat—blocking access from both front and rear—so that he could neither reach nor occupy his chair. The Bharatiya Janata Party has alleged that this amounted to a planned attack on the Prime Minister. Whether that allegation is entirely accurate is debatable, but what cannot be disputed is that such conduct has never been witnessed in the Indian Parliament before.

No opposition, however strong or weak in numbers, has ever behaved in this manner. What is unfolding under Rahul Gandhi’s leadership has no parallel in parliamentary history.

Rahul Gandhi and his party repeatedly claim that he was not allowed to speak. This claim does not withstand scrutiny. He was allotted a full 40 minutes to speak on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. Yet he did not utter even four words related to the President’s speech. His insistence was singular: he wanted to quote from an unpublished book and was unwilling to speak on any other subject. The Speaker ruled clearly that parliamentary rules do not permit such a reference.

This has led to widespread confusion and debate about parliamentary procedure, especially since BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was allowed to display books. The rules are unambiguous. Any Member of Parliament—regardless of whether they are Leader of the Opposition or an ordinary MP—has the right to quote from books, documents, magazines, or newspapers. However, this right is subject to two mandatory conditions.

First, the source being quoted must be authenticated and formally placed on the table of the House. The MP must take responsibility for its contents, accepting accountability if any claim is proven false. This accountability can invite privilege motions, disciplinary action, or even loss of membership, depending on the Speaker’s decision.

Second, and more fundamental, the quotation must be directly relevant to the subject under discussion. If the House is debating the Budget, one cannot raise unrelated controversies. In this case, the House was debating the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address. Rahul Gandhi had no intention of addressing that subject at all.

Instead, he arrived with a book he claimed was authored by a former army general. The book, by his own admission, has not been published. He claimed it was published abroad but refused to disclose how he obtained it, responding with a cryptic smile when questioned. Logically, a foreign-published book cannot reach India within 24 hours. Moreover, past incidents—such as displaying a Constitution copy that turned out to contain blank pages—have already raised doubts about such theatrics.

Rahul Gandhi remained adamant that he would speak only from this alleged book, irrespective of the topic being debated. Parliamentary business, however, is not decided by individual insistence. The agenda is fixed by the Business Advisory Committee. Debate on the Motion of Thanks was scheduled until the 4th of the month, with all members—including the Leader of the Opposition—given time to speak, followed by the Prime Minister’s reply.

Two unprecedented developments occurred simultaneously. For the first time, a Prime Minister was prevented from replying to the President’s Address. And for the first time, a Leader of the Opposition openly refused to speak on the President’s Address at all. This makes it clear that disruption—not debate—was the intended objective.

Rahul Gandhi understood that parliamentary proceedings are broadcast live. Disruption guarantees visibility. Quiet speeches do not. In pursuit of spectacle, several Congress MPs climbed onto desks and threw torn papers at the presiding officer, leading to their suspension. Rahul Gandhi himself was not suspended.

In fact, the argument can be made that if any suspension was warranted, it should have applied solely to Rahul Gandhi. Once the Speaker delivers a ruling, it is binding on all members—regardless of position. Rahul Gandhi’s refusal to accept that authority lies at the heart of the deadlock.

The solution to this crisis, in the author’s view, is absurdly simple. Parliament should pass a resolution declaring that whenever a member of the Gandhi family—particularly Rahul Gandhi—rises to speak, no parliamentary rules or traditions shall apply to him. He may speak on any subject, at any time, in any manner. He may quote from any document without authentication. Topic relevance should not matter. National security considerations should not apply. No interruptions should be permitted.

Why? Because Rahul Gandhi considers himself entitled. In his worldview, laws, rules, and conventions are meant for others. Numerous legal cases—ranging from questions about citizenship to financial investigations—have lingered for years without resolution. High-profile controversies, including those that reached the Supreme Court, have produced little consequence. Even in cases where conviction occurred, relief arrived swiftly.

If constitutional law does not restrain him, why should parliamentary rules?

This recurring disruption has come at a cost. While Parliament remained stalled, major developments unfolded: the India-US trade deal announcement, the India-EU free trade agreement—described by European leaders themselves as the “mother of all deals”—and nationwide protests by youth over UGC guidelines. On these substantive issues, Rahul Gandhi has remained silent.

This is not new. From Rafale to Pegasus, from Hindenburg to other allegations, none of the issues raised by Rahul Gandhi have survived judicial scrutiny or public judgment. The electorate has repeatedly rejected his narratives. Yet he refuses to reflect or recalibrate.

Instead of engaging voters, he seeks to diminish institutions. Unable to draw a bigger line in politics, he tries to erase existing ones. In the process, he and his party continue to shrink.

In the Rajya Sabha, BJP President Jagat Prakash Nadda described Rahul Gandhi as an “immature child”—someone lacking understanding. The description resonates with the conduct on display. Rahul Gandhi himself claims he does not care about ridicule, even as members of his own party once coined mocking nicknames for him.

Congress leaders openly express frustration that the BJP continues to win while they continue to lose. But electoral defeat is decided by voters, not by disruption. The electorate removed Rahul Gandhi from Amethi in 2019, despite his position as Congress president at the time. Since 1984, Congress has not secured a full majority in the Lok Sabha—long before Narendra Modi entered national politics.

Yet instead of introspection, Rahul Gandhi believes that abusing Narendra Modi is his most effective political weapon. He uses language against the Prime Minister that no opposition leader ever used against Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, or Manmohan Singh—despite their serious policy failures.

This sense of entitlement explains why Rahul Gandhi compares himself directly to the Prime Minister, despite being only one MP among many and a Leader of the Opposition whom even the full opposition does not unanimously accept.

As long as this attitude persists, parliamentary paralysis will continue. Disruption will replace debate. And the Congress party will continue its steady decline—not because of conspiracies, but because of its own choices.

- Being Hindu  FP page.

A party which lost its identity

 They came hunting, but ended up being hunted themselves. This line seems to perfectly describe the current condition of the Congress party and Rahul Gandhi. Over the last eleven years, it has become increasingly difficult even to count how many times Rahul Gandhi has fallen into traps of his own making. Time and again, he has been caught in situations created by his own actions and statements.

In politics, defeat, failure, or even repeated setbacks are not unusual. Losing elections or suffering parliamentary defeats is part of democratic life. However, what Rahul Gandhi has been doing recently—especially during the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament over the last three days—goes far beyond normal political setbacks and enters the realm of serious institutional misconduct.

During the discussion on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address, several Members of Parliament spoke. As Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi was given priority and multiple opportunities—at least five or six times—to speak. Yet, on none of these occasions did he address the President’s Address itself. Instead, he attempted to speak about an unpublished book allegedly written by a former Chief of Army Staff, a book that has not yet been cleared by the Ministry of Defence.

Whenever material related to national security is to be published, it must undergo mandatory vetting by the Defence Ministry and the Home Ministry to ensure that sensitive information does not enter the public domain. This particular book has not received such clearance. Despite this, Rahul Gandhi wanted to raise so-called excerpts from this unpublished book inside Parliament.

On one occasion, Rahul Gandhi even claimed within the Parliament premises that he personally possessed a copy of this book. This immediately raises a serious legal question. If such a book exists without Defence Ministry clearance and has been circulated, then both the publisher and Rahul Gandhi himself could potentially be accused of violating the Official Secrets Act. Under Indian law, such violations can invite prosecution and punishment.

Ironically, history shows a clear contradiction in Congress’s own conduct. In the past, the Congress party itself had threatened legal action under the Official Secrets Act over the publication of books related to national security, including works on the 1962 India-China war. Today, leaders of the same party are attempting to rely on an unpublished, unverified manuscript dealing with sensitive defence matters.

This raises a deeper question about intent. The core objective behind such actions appears to be political rather than substantive. Rahul Gandhi, time and again, has demonstrated a willingness to align—directly or indirectly—with narratives that damage India’s national interest, as long as they serve one purpose: weakening Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s image, destabilizing his government, and creating an opportunity to remove him from power.

However, the situation escalated further with an incident inside the Parliament complex. Suspended Congress and opposition MPs were sitting near Makar Dwar, the main entrance of Parliament. As Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu was passing through, Rahul Gandhi reportedly addressed him with the words, “Hello, traitor brother,” while extending his hand.

Bittu refused to shake hands and responded strongly, stating that he could not shake hands with someone he considered anti-national. He reminded Rahul Gandhi of the role played by the Gandhi family during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the attack on the Golden Temple, questioning how a turban-wearing Sikh could be labeled a traitor. This exchange triggered a major political storm, with the BJP alleging that Rahul Gandhi had insulted the Sikh community as a whole.

What made the matter even more sensitive was the fact that Ravneet Singh Bittu was once a close associate of Rahul Gandhi within the Congress party before leaving to join the BJP and later becoming a Union Minister. Rahul Gandhi reportedly added that Bittu would “return one day,” to which Bittu later questioned why someone labeled a traitor would be welcomed back.

As Rahul Gandhi found himself cornered, Congress attempted to create a counter-narrative inside Parliament. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey presented multiple published books in the House—books detailing allegations against the Gandhi family, including works on the Mitrokhin Archive, the Bofors scandal, and other historical controversies. These books, written by various authors, including well-known journalists and scholars, are all published, publicly available, and part of the public domain.

Congress questioned why Nishikant Dubey was allowed to refer to books while Rahul Gandhi was stopped. The answer lies in basic parliamentary procedure. Parliament allows references to published material relevant to the subject under discussion. The discussion at hand was on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. An unpublished, unverified book allegedly containing sensitive national security information has no procedural relevance to that discussion.

Furthermore, Nishikant Dubey authenticated the books he cited by placing them on record, making himself accountable for any claims. Rahul Gandhi, on the other hand, refused to authenticate either the book or the newspaper clippings he attempted to cite. This fundamental procedural difference cannot be ignored.

The situation deteriorated further when Congress leaders announced that if the Leader of the Opposition was not allowed to speak, they would prevent members of the ruling party from speaking as well. As a result, when the Prime Minister arrived in the Lok Sabha at the scheduled time to reply to the debate on the President’s Address, aggressive protests by opposition MPs disrupted proceedings. The Presiding Officer was left with no option but to adjourn the House for the entire day.

This marked an unprecedented moment in India’s parliamentary history: a Prime Minister was prevented from delivering his reply in Parliament. The BJP has further highlighted that this reply was related to the President’s Address delivered by President Droupadi Murmu, who comes from a tribal background, framing the disruption as an insult to constitutional dignity as well.

Beyond individual incidents, this entire episode reflects a broader pattern. Congress repeatedly raises issues without fully understanding their implications, only to find that these issues ultimately turn against the party itself. By attempting to weaponize an unpublished book, Congress inadvertently opened the door to renewed scrutiny of numerous published works critical of the Gandhi family.

Rahul Gandhi’s conduct raises serious questions about parliamentary decorum and public responsibility. His language toward the Prime Minister, constitutional authorities, and fellow MPs reflects a disregard for institutional norms. His behavior suggests a sense of entitlement—the belief that rules, traditions, and accountability apply to everyone else, but not to him.

This behavior is rooted in frustration. Eleven years out of power is a long time for a party accustomed to ruling for decades. For the first time in independent India’s history, the Congress party has remained out of power for over a decade continuously. Deprived of authority, the party appears increasingly desperate, willing to cross any line to reclaim power.

History reinforces this pattern. Since 1989, the Indian electorate has repeatedly rejected Congress’s claim to a natural right to rule. Even when Congress formed governments in 1991 and 2004, it did so without a clear majority mandate, relying on sympathy or coalition arithmetic rather than popular endorsement. Allegations of horse-trading and corruption during confidence votes further weakened its moral standing.

In contrast, the BJP secured decisive mandates in 2014 and 2019, and even in the most recent election emerged as the single largest party by a significant margin. Congress, meanwhile, failed for the third consecutive time to cross even the 100-seat mark in the Lok Sabha.

Rahul Gandhi’s repeated breaches of parliamentary norms, his inflammatory language, and his handling of sensitive national security issues are steadily pushing the Congress party further into political irrelevance. Public memory is long, and voters are observant. Ultimately, it is the electorate that delivers the final verdict—and when the time comes, the answer will be given not in slogans or protests, but at the ballot box.

From Beiing Hindu FB