Straight Talk
Pradeep Ramteke
Editor-in-Chief
In Marathi, terms such as pakshantaru (defector), dalbadlu (turncoat), tatvahin (unprincipled), or satteche lobhi (power-hungry) are used to describe leaders who switch parties solely for personal gain. These terms cast a shadow over the moral integrity of such leaders, leading them to be perceived as untrustworthy figures.
Consequently, the act of defection has begun to erode the standing—not only of the leaders themselves—but also of their parties’ ideologies and their own personal ethics. Furthermore, a new modus operandi appears to be emerging: upon defecting, individuals are often assigned a specific mandate—that of sowing discord along caste and religious lines.
Shaping the public psyche requires immense effort to deeply embed a party’s ideology within the minds of the masses. However, turncoats—those who are power-hungry, treacherous (betraying both the party and the people), and unprincipled (lacking any coherent ideology)—are incapable of grasping the concepts of ideological fidelity and social trust. Consequently, one can never predict what stance they might adopt or when they might undermine and ruin loyal party workers.
“Unprincipled” and “treacherous” are political descriptors frequently applied to leaders who repeatedly switch parties. Such habitual defectors—whether they are elected representatives or party functionaries—possess absolutely no genuine concern for the public interest. As a result, they engage in reckless rhetoric and expend their energy on vitiating and poisoning the social atmosphere with hatred.
Those who switch parties with calculated intent are, by definition, disloyal and treacherous; yet, one cannot deny the undeniable truth that they are also morally corrupt, unstable, and opportunistic.
Indeed, those currently joining the BJP are often being assigned a specific new task—for instance: 1) [To act as] unprincipled elements within society and religion… 1) Engaging in activities that create ideological discord; 2) Repeatedly defaming prominent political and social figures through the use of inappropriate language.
It has been observed that if discord is constantly sown within society and religion, the vast populations of OBC, SC, ST, and minority communities—both men and women—become ideologically paralyzed or incapacitated, subsequently neglecting their own rights. Since politicians who fuel religious fanaticism and casteism are well aware of this effect, they frequently abuse their power and official positions.
Given that the ruling party—along with its ministers, elected representatives, and party functionaries—unnecessarily and systematically disseminates the “poison” of casteism and religious fanaticism through improper conduct, the question arises: Are *they*, in fact, the true traitors to the nation and society—the real Naxalites and terrorists?
Since those who have sworn allegiance to the Indian Constitution—including His Excellency the President, the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Members of Parliament, Governors, Chief Ministers, State Ministers, and Members of Legislative Assemblies—as well as those in power who have not taken such an oath (such as party functionaries and spokespersons), are failing to eradicate caste discrimination in India and to redress the injustices stemming from it, doubts are increasingly being cast upon their fulfillment of their duties.
Furthermore, given that the ruling establishment consistently engages in actions that marginalize the OBC, SC, ST, and minority communities, it is abundantly clear that it is the rulers themselves who are trampling upon the rights of these very communities.
It has also come to the notice of the discerning and knowledgeable citizens of India that, by flagrantly violating the Indian Constitution, the ruling BJP establishment effectively makes a mockery of the very offices they hold and the oaths of secrecy they have taken. One cannot expect a commitment to public welfare or a spirit of egalitarian harmony from those in power who mock the Indian Constitution and disregard their oaths of office and secrecy. Furthermore, given that they are driven by ideological and behavioral malice, it is evident that they pose the greatest threat to democracy.
If the exercise of power proves detrimental to the people—whether at the national level or within the individual states of India—then such power cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be characterized as being dedicated to public welfare.
If those holding power—both at the national level and within the states—are not striving to protect the citizenry or to eradicate caste-based discrimination; if they fail to discharge these duties; and if, instead, they misuse their authority to keep the people ensnared in religious divisions, then must we not conclude that such rulers are unbridled, self-serving, devoid of conscience, and guilty of betraying both society and the nation?
BJP ministers, Members of Parliament, and Members of Legislative Assemblies pay mere lip service to public welfare and citizens’ rights. However, as their actual conduct in this regard is inimical to the public interest, they are never seen actively striving—in accordance with the Indian Constitution—to uphold the rights and interests of the people of India.
Consequently, the BJP leadership does not appear to be undertaking any initiatives for public welfare that are truly aligned with the spirit of the Indian Constitution. Thus, the BJP rulers and their associates—who foster an environment conducive to casteism and religious polarization—must be unequivocally characterized as being *not* dedicated to the public good.
How can one possibly speak well of rulers whose exercise of power leaves the populace feeling terrified and insecure? This is, indeed, a grave matter.
Hence, the question inevitably arises: Is the very concept of power merely a lethal weapon—one that serves to propagate hatred and to fuel the fires of casteism and religious sectarianism?
