It has become a permanent slogan of the BJP that the Congress rule is based on dynasty and that the better part of the 70 years of independence in India was under dynastic rule. The Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi when asked in the United States of America about the criticism of dynastic rule, he said it was part of the Indian system. No doubt, Nehru-Gandhi family had been at the helm of affairs in India for more than six decades but it is also a fact that none of the family scion was promoted by the Prime Minister of the time and he or she was elected democratically to the post and then people conferred mandate on them to govern the country. And every time, post-elections, all opposition parties including the BJP openly declared that they respected the mandate of the people who are the ultimate sovereign of the country. Once the people have voted a political party and its leader to power, as at present the BJP and the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, nobody should question their authority to govern the country on this or that pretext. If we are finding fault with his or her election (barring technical ground) we are not only rebuking and reprimanding but belittling and insulting the people who exercised their franchise. It should be a crime in a democracy and it is an irony that this crime which is allowed in the guise of freedom of speech has been committed again and again by the BJP which flayed the Congress for a dynastic rule that is in reality a democratic rule.
It is reported that taking an indirect jibe at dynastic politics and one man rule in political organization, the Prime Minister called for a debate on internal democracy in political parties. He was speaking at Diwali Milan event to media persons at the BJP headquarters in Delhi on October 28. Prime Minister and BJP leaders are addicted to criticism of dynastic rule, but on the occasion, Naredra Modi did not speak of dynasty. His remark widely covered in media is significant at a time when Rahul Gandhi is going to succeed his mother Sonia Gandhi sooner than later. He said he believed that the development of a true democratic spirit within political parties was necessary not only for the country’s future but also for democracy. This democratic spirit was simply ignored by Narendra Modi when BJP president Amit Shah was chosen. Many senior leaders of the party who definitely deserved more to hold the reins of the party were sidelined and a person enjoying confidence of the Prime Minister was elected as the president. It was the nomination of the Prime Minister and not the election for the highest post in the party. He was neither senior nor experienced enough for the post but the dictates of the Prime Mister were meekly obeyed. It was dictatorship not democracy.
Demonetisation – the most crucial decision that led the democracy to decay and caused untold trouble and inconvenience to the people at large was taken by the Prime Minister himself despite the opposition by the then RBI chief . The cabinet meeting, called at eleventh hour, was more to give shade of democratic process rather than to follow the spirit of democracy. Some people called the scrapping of high valued notes a second Emergency but they forgot that as far as the people were concerned only north Indians were adversely affected by Emergency while the south was more or less safe and consequently in the elections held after Emergency the Congress was hit in the north and came with flying colours in the south. This is not the case of note ban which shocked the people of whole country. If one sets apart, the imprisonment of political leaders and restrictions on media which was made a mountain of a molehill by political parties and press, the second Emergency was more troublesome for the people at large. Many more instances may be given, but these two were the glaring examples where spirit of democracy was daringly destroyed by none other but the Prime Minister who spoke high of the spirit of democracy.