In a shocking turn of events, the prime minister Narendra Modi revealed that he agreed with Nupur Sharma about the controversial statements she made about the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Last week, she came under fire for making offensive comments that angered Muslims and incited communal violence across the country. That resulted in the BJP removing her as their spokesperson, which was only done “because they had to”, according to his press conference today. Nupur Sharma stated that she was driven to retaliate because the other person had insulted her religion. Is the BJP not aware of the limitations of freedom of speech? Or are they convinced of their invincibility just because they’ve won the elections the past two times?
When confronted with questions about his past statements, Nitin Gadkari, the Minister for Road Transport and Highways, seemed to feign innocence repeatedly. He was spotted shouting “Jai Shri Ram,” a known Hindutva slogan, multiple times in assembly. He did not seem to remember controversial comments he made about the Navy, and when questioned about the corruption charges against him, after a long period of discrediting genuine sources, he declined to comment. Even the leader of his own party, the prime minister, refused to say anything about the proven charges.
Why does the BJP choose to repeatedly side with dishonorable ministers and even go as far as to defend them? The hasty implementation of the UCC across 4 states discredits them even further. Even after Nupur Sharma accepted that her removal from the party was fair, her party leaders kept defending her and her “opinion”. Is ignoring blatant islamophobia going to be the agenda of the BJP going forward? Is this a display of incompetency, or are these their actual beliefs (which would prove to be far worse for the people of this nation)? Why does the BJP continue to make exceptions for ministers whose actions go against the very spirit of democracy? Especially when it comes to something like the UCC, which they are expected to reach an agreement on tomorrow, can they really afford lapses in judgment like these. The author is concerned about the implications of this and what they mean for the people of this nation.