Actor and MP Kangana Ranaut is being criticised for seeking implementation of the three farm laws that had been withdrawn by the Modi Government after farmers’ protests. She has reportedly been ‘pulled up’ by the party high command for expressing her opinion at a time when elections are ongoing in Haryana, a major agricultural producer. But elections are underway almost all the time in the country, so when does a politician get to have a say? How are political parties going to be exemplars of democracy if they cannot digest a differing opinion? It may be noted that the release of Ranaut’s film on the Emergency has also been held up because of its supposed lack of political correctness.
We cannot have a culture in which up and coming politicians that represent the new generation are made to become just ‘a brick in the wall’. May not Kangana build a constituency of her own by articulating opinions that are different but do not differ? How come, in comparison, the most ridiculously radical views on religion, caste and community are freely expressed by politicians in the belief that they will find resonance with the people and benefit their respective parties? It is true that there are many issues that are highly sensitive and can cause law and order problems, but the effort should be to develop a civil society that can maturely debate issues without getting overwrought. After all, if Udhayanidhi Stalin can have his say on Sanatan Dharma, why not others?
What point is there in winning an election in Haryana if a party compromises on all of its ideology to do so? What then does it have to offer the people when it does come to power? Will governance be carried out in similar duplicitous manner? Consider how compromising on ideology has rendered the Congress a casteist and anti-liberalisation set-up. The idealism of the freedom movement has become a cynical pandering of vested interests. Does the BJP also wish to sacrifice its best and brightest on the altar of compromise?
