No word was banned : How a routine parliamentary procedure was twisted by a disinformation campaign

A lightly edited version of this article appeared on India Today here.

Have you ever come across the conspiracy theory that India is secretly still under British rule? It might be true. If you turn to Article 395 of our constitution, it says that the Indian Independence Act of 1947 has been repealed. There it is, in our constitution itself. Independence granted in 1947, gone by 1950. How did they manage to hide this devastating fact for so long, that too in plain sight?

Please relax. No, India is not under British rule. In fact, that article does the exact opposite. As a sovereign nation, our independence cannot be based on the Indian Independence Act passed by the British parliament. Our constitution therefore repeals this act and proclaims India to be a sovereign republic in the name of “We the people.” The legal distinction between “independence” and “sovereignty” might not make much of a difference to our daily lives, because India became self-governing in 1947. Nevertheless, when India became a republic in 1950, this was an important act of book-keeping. 

But the above example shows how a mere technicality, written out in legal or bureaucratic language, might confuse the average person. The same applies to the recently viral misinformation story about a list of words supposedly banned in parliament. This includes expressions such as “corrupt” or “dictatorial” that have always been used by opposition parties to attack ruling parties. And also newly coined ones, such as “jumlajeevi” or “covid spreader.”

No word has been banned. Nor could it have been banned. Under Article 105 of the constitution, members of parliament enjoy almost total freedom of speech when speaking inside the house. This freedom goes well above the free speech rights that ordinary citizens are entitled to. It is a privilege granted specifically to public representatives so that they may raise issues of concern to the people, without any fear.

Every now and then, someone may object to a particular expression used by a member, and the Speaker may agree to remove it from the Lok Sabha records. Not just the speaker of the Lok Sabha, but also the respective speakers of the state assemblies. It is not only about the word, but also the context in which it was used. That is how a word such as “Bua ji,” used for the Prime Minister in 1981, came to be on the list.

The list includes all sorts of things. Who knows why the speaker of the Punjab Assembly expunged the word “anyay” back in 1960, or the Assembly of erstwhile Bombay state removed the word “khel” in 1950? More importantly, does anyone care? At the very least, you would have to be very bored, or particularly obsessive, to keep track of this. At the most, you might mildly amuse yourself by digging up these details.

But the state has to keep records of everything. And therefore, every once in a while, they sit down and make a list of all the words that have been expunged, everything that has been deemed “unparliamentary,” along with the reasons why. They have been doing this for ages. This routine bureaucratic task does not appear to be a priority, nor should it be. That is probably why these lists have been published at irregular intervals, such as in 1986, 1992, 1999, 2004 and 2009. 

In a quaint bit of parliamentary procedure, they don’t just collect such words from legislatures in India. Sometimes, an expunged word from a parliament in another commonwealth country, such as New Zealand, will make it to the list. Do you want to know why the word “boys” was removed by the Kiwis back in 2010? I most certainly do not. Because I have better things to do.

Perhaps not members of the public, but members of parliament would surely have known about this. And so, when the current Lok Sabha got around to publishing the latest version of this list, they could have just let it be, as always. But no, they did not. They claimed that the government had issued a list of banned words, that the voice of the opposition is being suppressed in parliament, Modi sarkar is “fascist,” and so on. You know the rest.

Why would they pile on like this? Was it desperation for publicity, or a desperation for retweets? By the way, what does it mean when the opposition has to invent fake fascism by making an issue out of routine bureaucratic procedure? It might mean that real fascism is in short supply. Perhaps we could call it one of the “seven signs” that there is no censorship. It is when someone has to pretend that they are being censored, in order to generate sympathy. And the all important retweets, of course.

If the opposition acted in pure bad faith, many sections of the media did not do much better. Several outlets reported the opposition charges as is, without any attempt to debunk them. A simple fact-check would have exposed the matter, but they allowed the claims to run wild, and even be magnified in opinion columns. When ruling party members hit back, these were reported too, but merely as counterclaims. But this was not a case of difference of opinion. As the cliche goes, if one team says that it is sunny outside, and the other team says that it is raining, you don’t just report the claim and the counterclaim. You are supposed to stick your head out of the window and check!

We live arguably in a time when speech in India is more free than it has ever been. This is a gift of modern technology as well as a result of the maturing of our democracy. Every speech in parliament is telecast live. Members often put up their speeches on social media, where they are examined, dissected and commented upon by more people than ever before. An age old bureaucratic custom of recording words that have been expunged, and publishing a report every five or ten years, could hardly be a form of censorship.

There are still many problems with free speech in India, but this list is not one of them. In 1951, barely a year after India became a republic, Jawaharlal Nehru decided to move the first amendment to the constitution. This would amend the free speech provisions and impose what he called “reasonable restrictions.” When S P Mookherjee objected to these restrictions, Nehru accused him of not being a “loyal opposition.” 

Protesting against restrictions on free speech makes the opposition disloyal? And who is the opposition supposed to be loyal to? The government?  

A charge like that would be unimaginable on the floor of the house today. It would go viral instantly on mainstream and social media. It would expose the government to an extreme level of public ridicule. Some things are genuinely better today. And we can be happy about that.

Finally, should we say that the myth about banned words in parliament is the “Whatsapp University” moment for Indian liberals? I will not be so generous. The much maligned “Whatsapp University” consists mostly of people innocently passing on information that they think is true. While we are on the subject of words and their meanings, it is important to understand the difference between “misinformation” and “disinformation.” The latter is deliberate, spread with the specific aim of maligning someone. The senior members of the opposition who knowingly twisted an age old bureaucratic procedure and made it sound sinister have done exactly that.

Dear liberals, here is why Mohammed Zubair is getting no sympathy

A lightly edited version of this article appeared in Firstpost here.

Are my religious sentiments hurt by alleged fact-checker Zubair tweeting a joke from a 1983 movie about “Hanuman” and “Honeymoon?” Or am I offended as a Hindu (and a Bengali, if that matters) by the now infamous Kaali poster and Mahua Moitra’s reaction to it? I refuse to say. Because how I feel personally does not matter. 

What matters is whether there is even one individual somewhere whose religious sentiments have been hurt. Because in that case, I believe that those accused of causing offense should face strictest possible legal action. Whether they should be in jail and for how long, or how many FIRs should be filed in how many states, is entirely up to the police and the courts. And that is happening already. You would not want me to comment on something that is sub-judice now, would you?

Oh, and do not bother me with questions about what if everyone filed FIRs for this or that. The legal precedent, the diplomatic precedent, and some would say even the street precedent has now been set in stone, and by the other side. You cheered for it. It is not my responsibility now to resolve the contradictions within your ideology. 

So anyone who hurts sentiments anywhere must feel the full force of the Indian legal system. If that leads to all sorts of absurd situations, that is on you, not me.

Do I sound like I am being unhelpful? That’s perfect, because I do not intend to help you out. If you have been paying attention, you will notice that most people just want to relax and watch the whole thing play out. The only people outraging on behalf of Zubair are the usual suspects, not regular folks. These are the people who live for op-eds in foreign newspapers, reports from think tanks, and first class air travel on other people’s money. These people like protests because it makes them rich. That is the definition of andolan-jeevi, by the way.

Blocking the one-way street

What happens then to freedom of expression? I am not sure. When Indians decided to boycott British goods, and made a bonfire of their clothes made in England, were they acting against free trade?

Here is the thing about any kind of freedom. It has to go both ways, or it is no freedom at all. There is no such thing as one-sided free trade. It is called colonialism. In the same way, there can never be one-sided free speech. There is only censorship. The freedom, if it exists, has to be reciprocal, and open to everyone in equal measure. You cannot run away from this fact by using sleight of hand, or a play on words. Just like there is no such thing as fake news, because ‘news’ cannot be ‘fake.’ Better to refer to it as ‘lies.’

In independent India, most freedoms such as those of speech or expression have always been one-sided. So have been most of our rights and values that come under the big tent called secularism. For instance, the right of religious minorities to run their own institutions, even when funded by the government. On the other hand, the right of the state to make rules for Hindu institutions, and even places of worship, even those funded entirely by private individuals. In other words, one state-sponsored religion, and one state-controlled religion. That’s not secularism at all.

The same goes for artistic expression, or even casual expression, where you can take liberties only with Hindu gods and goddesses. I cannot claim to speak for all Hindus, but I see more and more folks who just want to block this one-way street where the most intolerant people make the rules. How they view the case of Zubair has little to do with their views on freedom of speech in general. For them, it is about fairness and equality, not freedom. Either open the road both ways, and let there be a free exchange of ideas. Or the road shall remain blocked, and let things go where they may.

Dismissing demands for fairness as “whataboutery” won’t work

Some time after 2014, Indian liberals came up with a puzzling and rather convenient new concept. That every action must be judged in a vacuum. No comparison to anything in the past or the present is allowed. This is when newly vocal BJP supporters had begun to question the hypocrisies of the old establishment that had been eating out of the hands of the Congress for sixty years.

The best way to dismiss something without making an argument is to put a label on it and throw it away. The liberal establishment did just that. They called it “whataboutery” and refused to engage with it. They also covered it with a moral veneer. Two wrongs don’t make a right. So don’t you ever dare demand accountability. 

The “whataboutery” label was invented for BJP vs Congress type of situations, but was soon extended to everything else. Do not ask basic questions such as why we cannot have a uniform civil code. Let us do the most basic things, such as make laws against child marriage, or enforce equal inheritance rights for sons and daughters. But for liberals, there is always some aspect of Hindu society that is to be targeted. Some Hindu festival that needs to be banned, some god or scripture to be critiqued, or some random guy in saffron to be mocked. They either call it environmentalism, rationalism, or intellectualism. Everything else is “whataboutery.”

If there are not too many people around, liberals will sometimes admit that the pandering by the Indian state to religious minorities is a bit excessive. But then they pull their trump card. They say Hinduism is tolerant and diverse. So do not “Abrahamize” it. What is that supposed to mean? Because it sounds to me like you are insulting other religions. If you believe that Hindu society is objectively better, then say it out aloud to everyone’s face. You can no longer manipulate us by whispering a compliment in our ear, and then demanding publicly that we submit to the most intolerant. Most Hindus have figured you out by now. 

Liberals have given some ground, but not nearly enough

Yes, they have modified some of their ways. Earlier they would refuse to acknowledge any complaints on the other side. Or they would toss away such complaints by slapping on the label of “whataboutery.” That has changed. Now every article on Zubair contains at least a few references to the plight of Ketaki Chitale. We condemn what happened to Ketaki Chitale, they say. Now you tell us about Zubair.

But we have figured you out better than that. You would not even be mentioning Ketaki Chitale if you didn’t have Zubair to worry about. The day Zubair was arrested, the media was all over it. On the other hand, the story of Ketaki Chitale seeped out slowly through social media. After she had spent nearly a month in custody, we finally began to hear about it. And only because you needed to use her as a disclaimer to establish your free speech credentials so that you could make a case for Zubair.

And let us not forget what your disclaimers are actually hiding. While jail is harsh, for many on the Hindu right, it is the least of their problems. What do I tell Trilochan Mahato? Nothing, because he is no more.

For many on the Hindu right, the terror in Bengal is still fresh in their minds. And how the media covered it up, incidentally in collaboration with “fact-checkers.” I can bet that most people would not be able to name even one victim of this terror. Because even when the media reported on them, it hid their personal identities behind labels such as “BJP worker.” I will bet many more people can name the 21 year old college student (and dog lover!) from Bengaluru who spent something like three nights in jail last year. Liberal privilege runs deep. Till then, your two lines of sympathy for Ketaki Chitale before launching into an emotional tirade over Zubair mean nothing.

Much of this terror in Bengal is still happening, by the way. Just that the media has lost all interest. Go ask what it is like to live as a political dissident in Communist ruled Kerala. It is good to see you finally acknowledging the plight of those imprisoned for speech by “liberal” governments. But you must learn to do a lot better.

Stop calling your foreign friends, because it no longer works

We know you have friends in high places. What you may not know is that your foreign friends are not helping your cause. I am serious. Do you think the German government speaking up for Zubair makes it better for him? You must be delusional.

Each time a foreign newspaper, think tank or government speaks up for Zubair, you make people here more angry. You make people feel that this is a tussle between India and the rest of the world. And that “they” are ganging up on us. You make your own liberal ecosystem appear big and sinister. You make the Indian state look like the little guy, fighting against the world to protect our interests. 

You also forget that we live in a globalized world, with fast internet access. We know how swiftly Western states move to protect their own interests and privileges. We know all about how Canada declared a national emergency and seized bank accounts to shut down the truckers’ protests. We know how the Netherlands is putting down a farmers’ protest right now, using tear gas, dogs and even bullets! Or how Sweden just agreed to give up Kurdish dissidents to Turkey’s Erdogan so that they could join NATO. We know that the European Parliament just voted to declare natural gas as “clean energy” and decided to invest in the world’s tallest dam in Tajikistan. All your activism is fake, we know. 

So if you believe that we in India are still in awe of the moral authority of the West, you are very much mistaken. We know that your so-called human rights indexes and freedom indexes are just propaganda. 

As on date, there are nearly 4.75 crore cases pending in our courts. This is proof that all these people have the highest level of trust in the Indian legal system. I would request you liberals to put your faith in the same exact system. Let the law take its own course.

Why can’t Modi’s critics stop wishing for India to burn?

“What is left for a virus to kill in a morally corrupt nation?” she muttered on Twitter in March 2020. At the time, the pandemic was only beginning. The terrible news from China could no longer be suppressed. The devastation in Europe was unfolding. There was no denying this any more. We have heard about the world wars. We have watched sci-fi movies about the end of the world. Now something terrible was about to happen to humanity during our lifetimes. For real.

America was already in the grip of the virus. India trembled. Soon it would be our turn.

What did you think about at that time? Perhaps you thought about your family and your livelihood. If you have faith, you might have turned to god. You might have reflected on our place in the universe. Or the meaning of life, family, community, nation and all of humanity. Were we going to be wiped out?

But not everyone felt this kind of anguish that makes us think about our existence. Rather they spoke as if uttering a curse on India. What is there for the virus to kill in a morally corrupt nation, they asked.

In their eyes, India had committed a sin by voting out their patrons. By doing so, the nation had become “morally corrupt.” And for this sin, India must pay. India must burn.

As our neighbor Sri Lanka collapses, as their prime minister flees and protesters take over the presidential palace, our liberals watch hungrily. Why is India not facing such a situation? You can feel it in their tweets. They crave the total destruction of India. The “morally corrupt nation” must pay.

This is a relatively new sense, something that has been around only since 2019. Why 2019? Because until then, they were willing to believe that 2014 was an exception. That the Congress would soon come back to power. Their privileges would be restored. In 2019, they were willing to burn India down to bring the Congress back to power. Now they realize that it is no longer really possible. Now they just want India to burn.

So each morning they wake up and wish for something bad to happen to India. War, pandemic, terrorist attack, assassination, anything. Whenever they can, they try to stop something somewhere in India. It could simply be a metro line in Mumbai. It must be stopped. Nothing is too small that it can be ignored. Is there a way to reopen Khalistani wounds and make India bleed again? They will go for it. Nothing is too big that they will worry about touching it. Anything to make the “morally corrupt” nation pay.

Did a mob storm the Red Fort in Delhi and plant their own flag? Yeah, that was a great day for them. A way to show the morally corrupt nation its place. Is there another foreign newspaper that called India “fascist” today? They live for these moments such as these. It does not heal their wounds, but it gives them short sighs of relief.

Is the President of the United States visiting India? What if there were huge columns of smoke rising from the Indian capital that day? Would it make India cower with shame before the whole world? Yes, it would. The thought of that makes them happy.

And when the pandemic came, it gladdened their hearts like never before. Like ghouls, they danced around our crematoriums. They flew drones to get a better look at our burning flesh, to strip it off one last bit of dignity that they could seize and sell to the West for money.

The vaccines made them angry. No, India couldn’t possibly manufacture and administer so many vaccines, they said. Every time India set a new vaccination record, they screamed like their hearts had been torn out. How many dead, they asked endlessly? It can’t be just 4 lakh. That is not nearly enough to satisfy their thirst for revenge on the “morally corrupt” nation. They wanted to hear 4 million, if possible 4 crore or even 40 crore.

They knew the vaccines would catch up sooner or later. But first they wanted India to stand with hat in hand, begging the West for vaccines. Go to China and beg, some of them said. Their desire to see India humiliated was insatiable.

But India held. We did not go under. And it drives them crazy. They cheer each other up with promises that the final destruction of India is not far away now. Each morning you can find them on social media, coiled like serpents around some random talking point, and hissing. Hunger index, happiness index, press freedom index, anything to assure them that it is all over for India. It is called confirmation bias. Then there are the reports from “think tanks.” A report from a European country that calls India “authoritarian” can sustain a liberal for an entire week.

They pester visiting foreign diplomats with questions: tell us something India did wrong. Tell us why you hate India. Give us something we can put in a headline. But no matter what they get, whether big or small, from America or from Turkey, they are always burning on the inside.

When they have a half an opportunity to humiliate India, they pounce on it with unholy relish. Did India have to say no to wheat exports after making an earlier pronouncement about feeding the world? Such U-turns are not uncommon in an uncertain world, ravaged by war and pandemic, where America is scrambling to get food for their babies. But still, India having to blush just a little on this issue made them squeal madly with delight.

Is there war in Ukraine? Look, India is neutral. That means they must be standing with the aggressor. India is fascist, and “morally corrupt.” We told you so, they say to their friends around the world.

But because the real India refuses to go under, the reality frustrates and unnerves them. That is where the wild fantasies come in. Political instability in Britain? Prime Minister ousted by his own ministers? Modi will meet the same fate one day, they say. Or he won’t, because India is under fascist rule. Did protesters in Sri Lanka take over the presidential palace and burn down the prime minister’s house? Modi will meet the same fate one day. Or he wont, because India is “morally corrupt.”

Like conspiracy theories, the wild fantasies can live on very little, or nothing at all. Did Biden just dodge a hug from Modi in that frame? That should be enough to sustain the ecosystem for a day. Oh no, Biden just walked up to PM Modi from behind, sought him out and exchanged greetings. Never mind. Did you see that capture where PM Modi seems to be bending before some Sultan? Told you the Arabs are going to deny oil to India, and finally crush our country. Yeah, the same Sultan who came to confer his country’s highest civilian honor on our prime minister.

There is a difference between hating the prime minister and wishing for evil on the country. If you want to understand this difference, check with BJP supporters when their favorite party was in opposition for decades. Go find out how many of them raised slogans of “Hows the Jaish” after a terrorist attack on our soldiers. Indeed, in all the decades of India being under ruinous Nehruvian socialist rule, it is the BJP supporters who often foolishly spoke of a coming dawn that would make India a superpower. The BJP supporters always dreamed of great things for India, not ruin.

There are many states in India where BJP is in the opposition. But you won’t see a BJP supporter standing with a Maoist, or a jihadi terrorist, just to spite the government. Not now, not before, not ever. Eight years have passed since Modi came to power. Not everything has gone right, nor could it have. But despite war and pandemic, India has made it to the position of 5th largest economy in 2022. With a little bit of luck, we will go past even Germany by 2024. A bit of luck I said, which every liberal in this country wishes we never have.

Liberalism in this country is not dead. Because, after two back to back defeats, liberalism in India has become the ideology of the “un-dead.” Its followers prowl the streets and the airwaves, looking for shreds of human misery to feast on. Whatever they eat, whether it is too much or too little, only makes them more hungry. The fire in their heart never dies down. It burns brighter each day that this “morally corrupt” nation is still alive.

Many mistakes in Maharashtra

From the point of view of a BJP supporter, there have been two days since 2004 that have been the most painful. The first was Nov 8, 2015, when the BJP lost in Bihar to the alliance of the RJD and JDU. The second was May 2, 2021, when the BJP was crushed in Bengal by Mamata Banerjee’s TMC.

But that was different. Of course the media would give no quarter to the BJP. They would dig in with their sharpest nails and taunt the BJP, causing as much pain as possible. But that doesn’t matter. The reality is that both times, the BJP fought super hard, with its back to the wall, against overwhelming odds. They lost, but that is not the point. For it was the kind of defeat that becomes the sheet anchor for future victories.

In Maharashtra, the BJP has let itself down. They have succeeded in forming a government, but in a way that will create a wound that will likely cause pain for decades to come.

It was the 2000 Assembly election in Bihar. Lalu Yadav (and family) had already been in power for a decade. At the same time there was the first BJP government at the center, led by the immensely popular Atal Behari Vajpayee. The discontent with Lalu Yadav’s misrule had been building. And this showed in the results. While the RJD was still the largest party, it’s tally had declined drastically to just 124, well short of the majority mark (don’t forget to adjust for rampant booth capturing in Bihar of 1990s).

The BJP had 67 seats, the Samata Party had 34 and the Janata Dal United had 21. With all eyes on Raj Bhawan, the BJP at the center decided to go for a power play. They would get Lalu Yadav out of power in Bihar, if even for a day. Just to show the public that Lalu raj was not invincible.

But it was only one half of a power play. The BJP could have nominated its own chief minister in Bihar. But they didn’t. They chose Nitish Kumar (then from the Samata Party) to assume the post. Nitish Kumar’s government lasted barely a few days before the RJD proved its numbers with help from the Congress. But the precedent had been set. In Bihar, the BJP had bowed out of the race. Henceforth, Nitish Kumar would be the face of the NDA in Bihar.

A lot has happened in Bihar since that day. The once invincible Lalu Raj is almost a distant memory. So much so that in 2020, the BJP had to beg young people to ask elders in their family about it. It is so old that Tejashwi Yadav now disowns those years completely. He talks of a new era. And it is so old that intellectual frauds at CSDS have the cheek to write articles saying that jungle raj was an illusion, that crime in Bihar of 1990s was in fact extremely low. But the intellectual elites have always been scumbags. We will talk about that another day, as always.

One thing has not changed in 22 years since that day. Bihar remains the only state in the Hindi belt where the BJP has never had its own chief minister. It is kind of mind blowing. Today the BJP in Bihar sits in a corner gathering dust. They have been propping up Nitish Kumar for years. As a party, the BJP’s popularity in Bihar exceeds by far that of any other. PM Modi’s popularity towers over everyone else. And yet, no chief minister. Meanwhile, Nitish Kumar plays power games with RJD, keeping BJP on its toes. On the governance front, his regime is fumbling, delivering almost nothing on the ground. The BJP is waiting for him to retire, perhaps some time in 2025. By then, the tsunami of anti-incumbency against Nitish Kumar will be enough to blow away the BJP. The BJP will go out with Nitish Kumar, carrying the blame, without a single day of holding the CM chair.

For a BJP supporter, this hurts. And it hurts to see the party repeat it.

Once again, in Maharashtra, the BJP finds itself caught in a power triangle, just like in Bihar. On one side are parties that are pathologically opposed to BJP, like the Congress or NCP. Just like the RJD in Bihar. In the middle is the “ally” who could go either way. The JDU in Bihar or the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra.

Generally speaking, the BJP does very poorly in such triangular situations. As I wrote in a recent post, political parties tend to gang up easily against the BJP. This means that in a triangular situation, ‘A’ will almost always go with ‘C’ to keep ‘B’ out. For sure, the BJP can get ‘A’ on their side, but they will have to make drastic concessions. For some mysterious reasons, allies tend to demand many more concessions from BJP than from Congress.

The BJP used to struggle just like this in Uttar Pradesh, with the BSP floating freely between two sides. The same goes with JDS in Karnataka.

The triangle is just not a game that the BJP is good at playing. Then, why play in Maharashtra a game that you are not very good at? I have no idea.

There are people who say that Fadnavis can be the power behind the throne in Maharashtra. If Pawar could have, if Sonia Gandhi could have, why not Fadnavis? Because, for better or for worse, the BJP has never been able to pull off this remote control game with any allies ever. In Jharkhand, the Congress is a minor ally of the JMM. But it is mind blowing to me how deftly 10 Janpath is able to control Ranchi. The BJP doesn’t know how to play this game. Then why play at all?

There are those who say sentiments of Shiv Sena workers would have been hurt. There was also a caste angle to the whole thing. Okay, maybe. But how come the Congress and NCP and Shiv Sena were not worried about sentiments back in Nov 2019? Modi had just won a second term. There could be no doubt that Fadnavis had a mandate to become Maharashtra CM. Did the MVA partners worry about sentiments or appearances? No, they saw power and they gobbled it up, plain and simple. Why is the BJP so scared to show strength?

There are those who say this will help from the point of view of 2024 Lok Sabha elections in Maharashtra. This is the only argument I agree with. If BJP gives a half decent government in Maharashtra along with Eknath Shinde, they have the 48 seats in Maharashtra all locked up for 2024. Otherwise, the arithmetic for BJP would have been very difficult, with 3 parties ganged up against 1.

But even then, the party could have done better with the optics at least. They could have made a big show of Fadnavis making a “sacrifice,” along the lines of what Sonia Gandhi did in 2004. I remember an India Today cover story on Sonia Gandhi sometime in 2005 (probably) titled “the halo is slipping.” It made me gnash my teeth in frustration. What halo? What sacrifice did she make? But that’s how it was perceived. There was a halo for sure. Did Devendra Fadnavis get some kind of halo out of this? I doubt it.

There are people who say: see where Mayawati’s BSP or Kumaraswamy’s JDS are today. Is it not BJP which gained ultimately. Yes, but that was due to the tectonic shift of 2014 in Indian politics. Another shift like this might not come for 50 years. Till then, what?

Yes, the politics of the Thackerays might be collapsing. Old-timers in the BJP, long used to being treated poorly by the family, might derive some pleasure out of this. But I have to look at the final transcript. In 2019, Uddhav offered the BJP five years in power, with 2.5 years in the CM post. As of 2022, the BJP has managed to secure 2.5 years in opposition, and then 2.5 years in power with 0 years in the CM post. Ouch!

I understand that we always live in the present. The deal offered in 2019 is long gone, and one cannot go back to that. I understand that BJP workers always give their best, and the party may still pull off something wonderful in Maharashtra. But for Devendra Fadnavis, the work has just begun.