By comparing Modi with Ravan, Congress president Kharge doesn’t cover himself or his party in glory
Responding to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s “Ravan” comment targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the latter said that it was not appropriate to call someone Ravan in the land of “Rambhakts.” The mythological villain seems to have caught up the fancy of political leaders and public figures. In a recent movie Adipurush, Saif Ali Khan played the role of Ravan. It attracted a lot of attention from people; many people were upset by what they claimed was inaccurate and offensive portrayal. Some people also said that Ravan was a scholarly Brahmin. No sooner had the demon king started getting some good press than Kharge came up with his comparison, thus restoring Ravan’s image as the personification of evil. Slamming Modi for his visual appearance everywhere, especially during the ongoing Assembly polls, Kharge sarcastically asked, “How many times do we see your face?... Do you have 100 heads like Ravan?” This has elicited a sharp reaction from Modi, who said that there is a competition in the Congress as to who can insult him more. While campaigning at Kalol in Gujarat, he reminded the audience that recently a Congress leader said Modi would die a dog’s death, another said Hitler’s death. Another said that he would kill Modi if he got a chance. Modi went on to say that Congress leaders have compared him with Ravan, rakshash (demon), etc.
The Prime Minister is correct in deploring the use of such language in politics. Unfortunately, Congress leaders don’t have a monopoly over using bad language, indulging in loose talk, and making personal attacks; leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party, even senior ones, also do that time and again. And then it has its IT Cell which has scaled new peaks in muddying political debate; invective, insinuation, innuendo — nothing is off limits. Other parties are no better. This has been going on for quite some time. An appalling consequence is the growing popularity of two types of argumentation — argumentum ad hominem and tu quoque (or whataboutery). The former pertains to personal attacks, as Kharge recently made. In it, the arguer rather than the argument is assailed. And illustration: If Mr X says that economic reforms are good for the country, Mr Y doesn’t counter him by presenting facts and arguments but simply disparages Mr X as a stooge of multinational corporations, the World Bank, America, etc. The second can be simply described as ‘your scam is bigger than mine.’ That is, if Mr A is accused of, say, a financial fraud involving Rs 50 crore, he refers to a much bigger scam and cries ‘what about that.’ Such fallacies have debauched political discourse; they have practically driven out healthy discussions; important issues often go unaddressed with personal attacks and reprehensible remarks holding sway. This trend must be reversed, but for this all political parties have to follow some kind of code. That, however, is a big ask.