Opposition or obstruction? A nation held hostage by political rowdyism

In a democracy, the opposition plays a critical role. It comprises political parties or groups not in power but with a significant presence in legislatures like Parliament or State Assemblies. Their primary function is to question, critique, and scrutinise the government’s actions, ensuring no abuse of power. They are also expected to suggest alternate policies, champion transparency, and give voice to diverse concerns of the public.

A responsible opposition acts as a watchdog, not a saboteur. It is not an enemy of the ruling government but a guardian of democratic values. A strong opposition keeps authoritarianism at bay and preserves the spirit of the Constitution. But what we witness today, across parties and states, is a disturbing deviation from this principle.

Instead of offering constructive criticism or alternative solutions, many opposition parties have chosen disruption, division, and destruction as their political weapons. Arrogance, street-style rowdyism, inflammatory speeches, walkouts, and the deliberate blocking of legislative processes have become commonplace. Sadly, this degeneration is pan-Indian—no North-South divide here. Take Andhra Pradesh, for example. Former Chief Minister Y S Jaganmohan Reddy, who had dismantled institutions, and demands status of leader of opposition though his party doesn’t meet the criteria, boycotts the Assembly and incites supporters with violent rhetoric like “Rapa Rapa”—a grotesque reference to slitting throats. His rallies are routinely marred by mismanagement; recently, during a visit to Sattenapalli, civilians lost their lives due to crowd chaos. One of his own supporters was crushed by the vehicle he was travelling, yet there was no remorse.

Worse, Jagan triggered a law-and-order scare by breaching security protocol, trying to step out of his car to confront a situation based on unverified reports on Wednesday in Chittoor district. His party indulges in street theatre—dumping mangoes procured from neighbouring towns on roads in protest minutes before his visit. There are also whispers that YSRCP leaders are discouraging investors from entering Andhra Pradesh by sending emails. Each Jagan appearance now signals potential chaos—a serious concern for both the government and police.

In Maharashtra, political rowdyism has taken another form. Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Gaikwad assaulted a canteen owner over an alleged stale food that was served. This is the same leader who had earlier offered a bounty to anyone who would cut off Rahul Gandhi’s tongue. Such rogue elements make a mockery of law and democracy.

The response from state governments has been tepid. Whether in Andhra Pradesh or Maharashtra, it’s time for demonstrative action against those who refuse to adhere to the democratic ethos. If such elements are allowed to flourish, the brand image of the state—and indeed the nation—will suffer.

Elsewhere, opposition parties are actively stoking linguistic and cultural fault lines. In Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra, they cry foul over an alleged “Hindi imposition,” manufacturing a controversy where none exists. Strangely, their outrage never extends to celebrities or industrialists who don’t speak the local language—wealth, it seems, buys silence and exemption.

Neither Rahul Gandhi nor his I.N.D.I.A bloc allies will utter a word about how a mere ring-seller with a pushcart morphed into “Changur Baba,” amassed over ₹100 crore by getting foreign funds through coerced conversions in Uttar Pradesh, and owned a palatial bungalow with foreign-breed dogs, Arabian horses, and links to criminal networks. They won’t speak against those who routinely attack Sanatan Dharma. Why? Because they believe Hindus, being largely silent and tolerant, are politically dispensable. For them, it’s not about principles—only vote banks matter.

In Bihar, which heads to polls later this year, the opposition continues to beat the tried drum of “Constitution in danger.” The I.N.D.I.A. bloc—fragmented and opportunistic as it is—offers no fresh vision. The same leaders who celebrate electoral wins cry foul when they lose, questioning EVMs, VVPATs, and the Election Commission’s integrity.

Rahul Gandhi remains stuck in denial. He speaks of stolen votes and rigged systems, yet refuses a formal EC invitation to discuss electoral processes. His hit-and-run tactics miss the mark every time. People want jobs, growth, and governance—not dynastic theatrics or divisive slogans. Even his repeated chant of “caste census” lacks seriousness. In Karnataka, it took enumerators mere seconds per household; in Telangana, stickers were pasted at many places with no actual data collection.

When Congress wins—be it Karnataka, Himachal, or Telangana—there’s silence on electoral malpractices and selective intensive revision of electoral roles. But when they lose—like in Haryana or Maharashtra—EVMs suddenly become the suspect, and the EC is accused of being BJP’s puppet. Rahul accuses the Commission of withholding critical data and voter footage. One must ask: what were Congress booth agents doing during these elections? Have they colluded with the BJP? Or is it just another excuse from a party running empty?

Even the Gen Z brigade of the opposition, like Tejashwi Yadav, is mimicking the old dynastic playbook. In Bihar, he calls for “Kranti” against BJP and mocks CM Nitish Kumar’s initiatives. This from a leader of a party that has never embraced democracy within its own ranks. For him, democracy likely means the power shuttle from father to mother to son—not the people.

Leaders like CPI’s D Raja, CPI(ML)’s Dipankar Bhattacharya, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, Mamata Banerjee, and Nobel-aspirant Arvind Kejriwal must introspect. What kind of democracy are they promoting when they stand against national security measures or indulge in disruptive politics?

The time has come to differentiate between a democratic opposition and a destructive force masquerading as one. The Indian public is not fooled anymore. They seek accountability, not anarchy.

They want development, not drama. And they deserve an opposition that rises to the occasion—not one that drags democracy into the gutter for political gain.

(The author is former Chief Editor of The Hans India)