Politics, like Indian family gatherings, has its customary characters. There is the enthusiastic cousin, the know-it-all uncle, and, occasionally, the eternally displeased uncle who asks, "But why is this necessary?"
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has now given this familiar Indian family character a political identity - the 'naraaz fufa' (Fufaji is father's sister's husband) - the commonly attention-seeking uncle in most Indian weddings and functions.
Speaking at the centenary celebrations of SRCC (Shri Ram College of Commerce), Delhi University recently, PM Modi contrasted those who convert social energy into nation-building with those who oppose every new initiative by asking: what is the need for this?
As examples, PM Modi mentioned projects and initiatives ranging from the Statue of Unity and the bullet train to UPI, the new Parliament building, and a memorial for fallen soldiers, etc - all initiated by his government.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge was clearly not humoured by PM Modi's remarks. He blamed Modi for using an important academic platform to attack political opponents instead of discussing education, employment, and the future of young Indians. Kharge also labelled 'naraaz fufa', 'dimagi naxal', 'urban naxal', 'Khan Market Gang', etc., as successive political brandings allegedly used to silence criticism.
But is Kharge being unnecessarily touchy? Or does the 'naraaz fufa' description actually capture something real about the Opposition?
There are no clear-cut answers - perhaps a little of both.
Interpreting The Metaphor
There is no doubt that a democracy needs an Opposition that questions the government. In fact, questioning a government is not stonewalling - it is one of the Opposition's fundamental responsibilities. A bullet train, a new Parliament building, a massive statue, or a major infrastructure project should be examined for cost, utility, environmental consequences, financing, and priorities. The government of the day cannot demand applause merely because it has announced some ambitious plans and projects.
But there is an equally important distinction between questioning a project and opposing it simply because the government proposed it.
This is where PM Modi's 'naraaz fufa' metaphor strikes a political chord. Large national projects often generate valid questions. Yet most of the time, opposition parties are critical of the project and found wanting in pinpointing legitimate errors with the said government initiative. If every government decision automatically becomes a subject of incompetence, corruption, or authoritarianism (without any substantial proof), criticism eventually loses credibility.
The Opposition, therefore, cannot have it both ways. It cannot demand that the government listen to their criticism without valid explanations. Not every government achievement can be considered politically suspect -it will be a doomsday for development.
PM Modi and his government, too, have to be mindful of the opportunities and platforms to connect with Gen Z.
SRCC is an institution associated with finance, economics, commerce, and some of India's brightest young minds. It was definitely an occasion to speak directly to students about jobs, entrepreneurship, education, India's economic ambitions, and the challenges facing Gen Z.
Modi is not an ordinary political leader. He is the Prime Minister. His words carry enormous political weight, and a university platform gives them an additional significance. Political humour can make a speech memorable, but it can also overshadow the substantive message.
The same criticism, however, applies to Kharge.
Walking Into A Trap
If the Congress president responds to every colourful political phrase with indignation, he risks walking straight into the trap. 'Naraaz fufa' is essentially a political caricature. It is not a constitutional doctrine or a policy argument. By treating it as though it were an assault on democratic institutions, the Opposition risks making itself appear exactly like the perpetually offended political relative PM Modi was describing.
There is also a strategic problem for the Congress. The best response to the 'naraaz fufa' charge is not outrage. It is providing valid evidence with data and alternatives.
If the Opposition believes that the bullet train is economically unjustified, explain why. If it believes a particular infrastructure project is wasteful, present the numbers. If it believes government spending priorities are wrong, produce an alternative budget. If it believes youth unemployment is the bigger national challenge, demonstrate how its policies would create jobs.
That would turn a political taunt into a serious policy debate.
The 'dimagi naxal' remark, on the other hand, is a more serious matter because it carries a considerably harsher political connotation. PM Modi has been categorically using the term for those who exploit real public issues - like exam paper leaks or unemployment - to push society toward anti-constitutional unrest rather than lawful protests.
Opposition leaders feel that the phrase is a vague label meant to mock opponents, stifle valid questions, and independent thinking.
A democracy should be large enough to accommodate sceptics, critics, and even persistent pessimists.
But the Opposition too must recognise that criticism has a responsibility attached to it. Saying no to everything is not the same as providing checks and balances. Nor is demanding accountability the same as refusing to acknowledge genuine achievements.
Ultimately, the 'naraaz fufa' controversy reveals something larger about Indian politics. Both sides increasingly seem more comfortable talking about each other than talking about the country.
The Prime Minister would perhaps be better served by spending less time naming his critics and more time persuading young Indians about his government's vision. The Opposition, meanwhile, would be better served by spending less time objecting to every adjective and more time demonstrating why its alternative is better.
The real test is neither 'whether the Prime Minister can invent the funniest political nickname' nor 'whether the Opposition can express the strongest outrage'. The test is whether either side can win an argument on facts, performance, and ideas, or they continue to perpetually debate in election mode, even on platforms meant for serious intellectual deliberations.
(The author is Contributing Editor, NDTV)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
