Claims are made to protect the Constitution but the ground reality is something different

- The right to marry, eat and accept religion as desired only talk

- Opinion - P. Chidambaram

- Corruption, nepotism and flattery have become common themes of his speeches. We know who they are targeting

- If rule of law is guaranteed, why riots in Delhi, civil war in Manipur and violence in Haryana's Noah?

Recently a TV channel invited one MP each from BJP and Congress in its program and the senior journalist of the respective channel asked tough questions to these MPs and that too in the presence of college students and knowledgeable personalities. His opening statement on 'India at 100' (100 years of India's independence) piqued my curiosity. The BJP MP expressed the hope that the country will become prosperous by 2047, while the Congress MP spoke of an all-inclusive India by 2047. After listening to both of them, the question arose as to why we cannot achieve these two achievements. Both these MPs may be considered to have represented their respective party ideologies, but I also had a nagging thought that India might not be able to achieve either of these.

Contradictory thoughts

In this article I would like to analyze the BJP MP's assurance of protection and preservation of the Constitution of India, full support for secularism, protection of human rights and adherence to the laws and responsibilities of the country. In response to a direct question from the Sadar reporter, the BJP MP replied, "Yes, you have the right to marry, eat and convert as you wish. ''Within my party, we can express our differences,'' he said without batting an eyelash. I meet senior leaders of my party and we also discuss Cheetah matters. When asked what will be important to you in 2047, the BJP MP said, Independence and autonomy. I think the BJP MP really believes in the answers he gave.

On the second day of this TV programme, the Prime Minister addressed the nation for 90 minutes on the occasion of our 77th Independence Day. I read the English translation of his speech. Overall this speech he focused on them ie, me, me and mine. It was a jumble of ideas and a recollection of what he believed he had achieved in the last 9-10 years. Corruption, nepotism and flattery have become common topics of his speeches. We know who they are targeting. His targets include the opposition, the Gandhi family and Muslims. His speech was a rehearsal for an election rally. Nothing has changed in the last 9-10 years.

Let's look at what the BJP MP said in the TV program mentioned above and compare it with the speech made by the Prime Minister. The BJP MP assured the college students present in the TV program that the centenary year 2047 will be a golden period. However, the Prime Minister did not reflect the views of this BJP MP while describing the new millennium. He did not give any assurances regarding the protection and preservation of the Constitution of India, full support for secularism, protection of human rights and upholding the law and accountability of the country. Thus the Prime Minister did not utter a single word on the assurance given by the BJP MP. Both presented a different picture regarding the new Millennium (a period of one thousand years) which started on August 15, 2023.

Adverse questions

Let's take a look at what the BJP MP said. If the youth have the right to marry of their choice, why are inter-caste and inter-faith couples harassed? Youths are allowed to eat food of their choice so why the controversy of halal and non-halal months in Karnataka? Young people have the right to choose their religion, so why are bitter speeches given for a particular religion. Why is there constant violence around us?

If rule of law is guaranteed, why riots in Delhi, civil war in Manipur and violence in Haryana's Noah? Why are bulldozers being used to demolish the houses and shops of the poor? If the protection and preservation of the country's constitution is guaranteed, why was a law enacted in Parliament to repeal Article 370? Why was Jammu and Kashmir stripped of its statehood? And why was the constitutional balance between the Lieutenant Governor and the elected government in Delhi disturbed? These are all hostile questions. But I am sure, the college students attending the TV program would be expecting the answers to the said questions. He was allowed to ask two probing and probing questions, but did not get satisfactory answers.

Asha was marginalized

I believe that the BJP MP present on the TV program and others in the BJP may believe in secularism, autonomy and maintaining the existing constitution, but unfortunately, their party leaders have marginalized them long ago. Fear, not hope, lurks in the energetic announcement of the start of the new millennium.