"Dhruv Rathi, nicknamed "German Shepherd," is again engaging in anti-India propaganda, supported by Western countries and media. In his video, he starts by redefining democracy, implying that Indians lack understanding of politics and democracy. He asserts that India's democracy has eroded and draws comparisons with North Korea and Russia, labeling them as dictatorships, while conveniently omitting mention of China, possibly to avoid provoking them. This bias reveals the influence of Western policies aimed at undermining India's stature as a great nation.
At the start, he first divides Indians into two groups: "Andbhakts" who support Modi and others who do not. He mocks Modi supporters, portraying them as fools who will not understand, presenting a challenge to those watching his video.
I think those who fail to understand the condition of democracy during the Italian rule, especially in the era of Manmohan Singh as PM and influenced by Sonia Gandhi, must understand the concept of nation and the role of the ruler. This rule was essentially colonial, with all the symptoms present during that time. Firstly, there was a drain of wealth, with many scams and the death of many Indian industries due to a lack of basic infrastructure and support. The Indian electronic and processed food industries could never develop due to over-liberalization of the economy. India was left vulnerable to exploitation by the West and China, indicating a colonial mindset where rulers cared least about the land they governed. Major infrastructure projects were delayed due to protests from so-called environmentalists, backed by the West. Large projects did not receive environmental clearances as their masters did not benefit from them. Secondly, defense modernization was neglected, with deeper involvement in defense scams like the chopper and truck deals. The industrial sector did not receive adequate support for development to compete in the world market. The strategy at the time was to control inflation through higher interest rates, affecting the entire industry. The growth seen in some sectors, like the IT sector, was mainly due to domestic demand, as India served as a mere service provider for foreign companies. India faced challenges due to inadequate infrastructure in networking, resulting in a brain drain, with IT personnel working for foreign companies, leading to a lack of major software products belonging to India. The working of the economy aside, let's return to democracy. The above examples are the main traits of colonial rule. However, no one raised concerns about democracy being in danger in India during those times because the West ruled India through a proxy government of Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi.
Now, we move to the second point raised by Dhruv Rathi, regarding control over the Election Commission. I would like to remind everyone that there was a time when only one election commissioner was appointed. Then, T.N. Seshan, a famous figure, brought fairness to elections during his tenure, which contrasts sharply with the manipulation under Congress's governance. After Seshan's appointment , Congress appointed three election commissioners to dilute power, indicating complete control over the Election Commission. Dhruv Rathi fails to recall this, and he fails to mention these things in his analysis against Modi's government.
I would like everyone to recall that whenever a leader tried to work for India, they were either assassinated by the West, such as Lal Bahadur Shastri, Subhash Chandra Bose, and Indira Gandhi, or they were not allowed to rise to power due to influence and money power, like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who was not made PM. This was the stance of international powers towards India. India was never truly free, as it could never formulate policies that suited its interests. We signed WTO agreements according to the international will. The Hindu majority, the basic citizens, were plundered so that they could never rise, and rules were made to suppress Hindus and elevate minorities, especially Muslims, who had their loyalty towards Mecca and considered India as an acquired land for living, not their motherland. Laws like the Waqf Board were formulated to protect minorities. In contrast, Modi is redefining those eras and working for the Hindu majority, the original people of the land. He has successfully constructed the Ram Mandir and has not made any remarks or taken any actions against Muslims or other religions. This is democracy, working for all the people of the land, not just one minority to secure votes. Modi has established true democracy.
Dhruv Rathi talks about fair elections and gives the example of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, where the presiding officer cheated by declaring a few votes of other parties invalid and declared BJP as the winner. Certainly, this does not prove BJP involvement, but since BJP benefited, it is right to consider it done by BJP. As these are small elections, and one person can be easily manipulated, this possibility exists. However, this does not prove that BJP, as a national party, is undemocratic. It may be that some local leaders could be involved, but it has not been proven yet. Dhruv Rathi also fails to recall incidents where entire booths were captured. For example, in 2004, a large number of armed persons entered a polling booth, tore ballot papers, and ran away with the ballot box. All 22 accused in this case were later acquitted because the prosecution could not prove their guilt. This happened during the Congress government, and the accused were from the so-called minority."
He accuses the Election Commission of being completely controlled by the BJP. I will say that there are now three election commissioners, as done by the Congress to contain the absolute power to one person, as during T.N. Sheshan's tenure. The commissioners are appointed by the government and opposition leaders, and later, they do not have any control over them. Certainly, the persons appointed will be cohesive to the government, but how does this destroy any democracy? Election commissioners have lifetime pensions and complete independence; they do not need any help from the ruling party for carrying out the elections. This point made by Dhruv Rathi is baseless and does not contain any merit. Also, these commissioners are the senior-most people, as mentioned: "Commissioners shall hold office for a term of six years from the date on which he assumes his office or till he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier." They shall not get manipulated by the government as no more service is left when they retire. They derive all power from the constitution.
He then mentions horse trading by the BJP. In politics, all moves are considered legal until proven otherwise, as no move in political power can be deemed unethical if it is legal. I think Dhruv Rathi again fails to mention the incident when the Vajpayee government was brought down by just one vote through a non-confidence motion, and this was the Indian government, not a state government. The whole nation had to face fresh elections, costing money again, but no one called it undemocratic. AIADMK was horse-traded at that time. These allegations by Dhruv Rathee do not stand on solid ground. It's a political game where such ethics were set by the West-backed Congress. Today, they are calling this undemocratic. Once, they used to call it a game of numbers. This is just to misguide the Indian population to vote for Congress again, so the German Shepherd and Europe can start looting India once more.
He accuses the Modi government of interfering in state affairs through LGs and governors. I think he should check the number of times President's Rule was imposed by Manmohan Singh's government, governed by Sonia Gandhi, and president rule in the Modi Sarkar. Manmohan Singh imposed President's Rule 10 times, and the Modi government 5 times. In the case of Bihar during Manmohan Singh's tenure, President's Rule was later held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but by the time the judgment came, re-elections were held, and NDA appeared as the clear winner this time. Whereas during the Modi government's era, no such controversial President's Rule was imposed where the state was put to re-election, and the decision was held unconstitutional.
One case is Maharashtra in 2019, where President's Rule was imposed when the election was clearly won by the BJP and Shiv Sena alliance, but after the election results, Shiv Sena denied support. Here, the governor gave a chance to all parties one by one to prove the majority before putting President's Rule. Also, no re-election was held, and later the government was formed by the Congress, NCP, and Shiv Sena. BJP could not form the government here but did not push the state into fresh elections. This clearly shows that democracy is in a better state under the Modi Sarkar than during Manmohan Singh's colonial rule.
He gives the example of Delhi LG being given more power. This is the national capital, and surely, the Indian government must have greater control in this area to work properly. As all ministers live in this area, it seems logical that if the Indian government was facing some problems with the Kejriwal government, they transferred some essential administrative decisions to the LG. One must understand that Delhi is not a state. If this was unconstitutional, then it must be challenged in court. Here, too, Dhruv Rathi just plays a propaganda game with illogical examples. So democracy stands here too.He also accuses the use of investigating agencies, especially the ED. Here is one judgment from the Supreme Court: "In April 2023, the Supreme Court of India turned down a petition by 14 opposition parties accusing the Narendra Modi-led government of misusing central agencies." When the Supreme Court has denied such an allegation, then how is Dhruv Rathi making judgments above the Supreme Court? Apart from the legality of the cases, if there are no proofs against the accused, then they shall not worry about the ED as each person has the right to go to court. Certainly, even for filing a case, some money trail is required. So, this is a completely wrong accusation. Those who have done scams must return money to the nation. The ED is rather working very efficiently, making more cases against corrupt ministers and companies. The allegation that once a person joins the BJP all charges are dropped is wrong information. No charges have been dropped; only their investigations are ongoing.
Dhruv Rathi then accuses Modi of controlling the media through high-value advertisements. He shall not forget that this media control is uglier than it is portrayed. The whole of the Western media is trying to undermine India as a democracy today. They have never let India grow over time and have ruled India through proxy governments. Earlier, the same media was controlled by Western countries, and anti-India propaganda was always present to maintain control over the proxy government led by Manmohan Singh. The Modi government, to some extent, has been able to check the control of other countries over the media so that media houses do not control the government as per the wishes of Western countries. However, controlling Dhruv Rathi's propaganda against India should also not be difficult.
He then explains how majoritarianism is different from democracy, giving such dumb examples to explain majoritarianism. He should understand that the basis of democracy is equal voting rights and the written law of the land. He should understand the difference between majoritarianism and democracy. For majoritarianism, no written laws exist. It's like a gang of similar thoughts imposing their opinions because they are in greater numbers, but there are no written laws. India has a democracy with written laws and a constitution. This simple thing he is trying to say, that today we have majoritarianism, I don't know how he gets such vague ideas. But certainly, something new attracts people and helps his propaganda. One must understand that India is a true democracy with written laws of the land, so in no case can it be called majoritarianism.
He then gives the example of the Kisan Andolan and the use of tear gas and rubber bullets by the BJP government, mentioning many other protests without acknowledging how democracy has been affected by protests. The Modi government has allowed every protest and did not suppress them with force. The use of tear gas in the Kisan Andolan was employed only when they were trying to move towards Delhi. As everyone knows, no government till today has implemented MSP as a legal right. But one must understand that the Modi government has increased the MSP and also bought much more grains than all other previous governments. Though I too support the kisans for MSP, not making MSP a legal right doesn't imply that it is undemocratic. Their voice is being heard by the government, at least. He should remember what undemocratic suppression means. An example of such suppression is when Manmohan Singh ordered a lathi charge on sleeping protestors during the protest by Baba Ramdev, where he saved his life by leaving in women's clothes at night. The action was taken by the Supreme Court against the administration suo moto, rejecting applications by people, saying, "We know when to act." Such was the suppression by force that the Supreme Court themselves acted against the government. This is the killing of democracy. Why did you not mention it? In the case of the Kisan Andolan, it was allowed to last for more than a year, and then their demands were accepted but MSP. So democracy has even grown stronger during the Modi Sarkar.
Then he mentions the striking down of electoral bonds by the Supreme Court and accuses the Modi government of benefiting from this arrangement. The Supreme Court has declared it unconstitutional because it violates the RTI Act, so it has ordered SBI and the Election Commission to release the data to the public. Here, I will say that a good effort was made by the government to keep the money accountable. At least all the donations made are registered with the government agency and are available on the instruction of the Supreme Court. Earlier, many donations were made to political parties, but all in black, and no data exists today. The arrangement of electoral bonds was a good effort by the government, though it keeps the money in legal circulation and no individual is benefited. Here, the political party is benefited, which is auditable. Due to its violation of the RTI Act, it has been struck down. I think this will come again keeping the RTI intact. So, this has not undermined democracy but has further enforced the democratic system. Though it has been struck down due to violation of the RTI, it's not a scam. Everything here is available for audit, whereas no one had any such system, and all expenses by the parties were done in black. It is known to everyone.
In conclusion, it's evident that Dhruv Rathi's assertions, though provocative, often lack substance and fail to provide a balanced perspective. While criticizing the Modi government, he overlooks crucial aspects such as the government's efforts to uphold democracy, address public concerns, and navigate complex issues like electoral funding. Moreover, his comparisons and accusations often lack nuance and context, leading to an oversimplification of complex issues.
Furthermore, the examples cited by Rathi to illustrate his points often appear cherry-picked and fail to provide a comprehensive understanding of the situation. For instance, his portrayal of protests and government actions lacks depth and fails to acknowledge the broader democratic processes at play.
Ultimately, while criticism and dissent are essential components of a healthy democracy, they must be based on factual accuracy, thoughtful analysis, and a genuine commitment to democratic values. Dhruv Rathi's rhetoric, characterized by sensationalism and selective framing, falls short of these standards and risks misleading the public discourse on important issues facing the nation. As responsible citizens, it's imperative that we critically evaluate such narratives and strive for a more informed and nuanced understanding of our democratic institutions and processes.
Comments
Post a Comment