OPINION: Gandhi's Anti-BJP Outbursts Abroad Make Little Sense

What de facto Congress boss Rahul Gandhi has been saying abroad against the incumbent government in India makes little sense from the viewpoint of democracy. If he is dissatisfied with the way the government works and wants to change it in accordance with what he thinks are the standards of democracy, he ought to take the matter to the people who elect the government within the country.

One wonders why de facto Congress boss Rahul Gandhi, during his foreign trips, is being critical of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government in India.

Speaking at the StanfordUniversity the other day, Gandhi said that the ruling BJP government in India "have the force, not power." He said, "Power is an act of imagination... it is not linear... power comes when you go close to the truth." In other words, he said that the current government in India was based on lies. Under it, there was a concentration and abuse of force in the country and hence, the government of the day did not have the power.

Earlier, in March this year, Gandhi stated in London that because of the current government, Indian democracy was in danger. At the Chatham House in London, Gandhi stated that the institutional framework required for a democracy -- parliament, free press, the judiciary -- the idea of mobilisation -- is "getting constrained." India was "facing an attack on the basic structure of democracy," according to him.

He alleged that discussions on controversial matters like demonetisation, problems with GST, farmers' laws or even the Chinese aggression at India's borders were not allowed to take place in our Parliament. The nature of the democratic contest in India had changed completely. The reason for this was that "one organisation, called the Rashtriya Sevak Sangh, a fundamentalist, fascist organisation, has basically captured pretty much all of India's institutions."

He said, "The RSS is a secret society. It is built along the lines of the Muslim Brotherhood and the idea is to use the democratic contest to come to power and then subvert the democratic contest afterwards... The press, the judiciary, Parliament, the Election Commission and all the institutions are under (their) pressure and (are) controlled (by them) in one way or the other."

Gandhi lamented that "the so-called defenders of democracy, which are the US, European countries, seem to be oblivious that a huge chunk of democratic model (India) has come undone." He warned, "the scale of democracy in India means that democracy in India is a global public good. It impacts way further than our boundaries... If Indian democracy collapses,... democracy on the planet suffers a very serious, possibly fatal blow. So, it is important for you too. It is not just important for us... You must be aware of what is happening in India -- the idea of a democratic model is being attacked and threatened."

One finds what Gandhi has been saying at such fora abroad makes little sense from the viewpoint of democracy. If he is dissatisfied with the way the current government works in India and wants to change it in accordance with what he thinks are the standards of democracy, he ought to take the matter to the people who elect the government within the country.

There is no point discussing the nature of the current Indian government with any foreign audience. The audiences Gandhi had in the United States and the United Kingdom can do little to help him change the government in India. Of course, there are Indian diasporas in America and England. But most of them hardly participate in the Indian political process that could change the quality of governance in India.

Gandhi ought to also know India can expect little from America and England if he intends to improve the system of governance in India. The system of governance the two nations have had is democratic only in form. The successive governments in the two nations have not yet ensured what is a must in any meaningful democracy -- all-inclusive equality, liberty and justice -- in their countries.

It is well documented that Washington and London have cared a fig for democracy in foreign lands. In the post-World War II landscape, Washington's primary focus has been on "protecting our raw materials." It has viewed indigenous nationalist forces as a threat to its interests. It has had its eyes on energy sources in the world. The US sees its control over energy as a lever for global dominance. Its policy has been to block indigenous nationalist forces in other nations if they ever try to use their resources in conflict with US interests. It brands them evil in these countries and pro-Western local elites as progressive therein.

(Jagdish N. Singh is a senior journalist based in New Delhi. He is also Senior Distinguished Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, New York)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of OneIndia and OneIndia does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.