The court’s suggestion that “if you are a true Indian, you wouldn’t say such a thing” Is equally abominable
The Supreme Court raising an objection to the statement of the Lok Sabha Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, on China’s encroachment into India’s territory and losses suffered at the hands of the Chinese by the Indian Army is an unwarranted interference in the affairs of the legislature by the judiciary. The court’s suggestion that “if you are a true Indian, you wouldn’t say such a thing” Is equally abominable.
Mr Gandhi has said nothing against the Indian Army as is being propagated by the BJP and its allies. All that he said in his repeated statements about the border skirmishes is that India has lost patrolling rights over 20,000 square kilometres which, if true, is a sobering thought. He also mentioned that the Army has lost around 20 of our soldiers. And the government has never been unequivocal about the outcome of the face-off in terms of territorial losses while the death of troops was indeed widely reported.
Thus, Mr Gandhi’s statements cannot be construed as being “against” the Army by any standards, especially those of the government and the armed forces. Questions on the loss of Indian fighter jets during Operation Sindoor were blocked by the very logical stand that India had achieved its operational targets and that losses were part of defence operations. By the same token, then, the government can clarify that it has achieved its targets on the Chinese border, too, losses notwithstanding. Why then are its feathers ruffled? Mr Gandhi was certainly not questioning the professionalism of the Army.
The court’s suggestion that the Leader of Opposition ought to raise such topics in Parliament is also avoidable. The judges may have missed the fact that Mr Gandhi is often not allowed to speak on the floor of the House.
On a related note, not long ago, the Mumbai high court did advise the CPI(M) activists to limit their protests to causes within the country, instead of agitating against Israel for causing the deaths of thousands of Palestinians due to hunger. It will be ideal if the judiciary leaves it to politicians and political parties to decide the causes of their demonstrations, their platform and timing, for justice will best be served when judges restrain themselves to adjudicating on matters brought before them in a timely fashion.
