Indian politics has never been devoid of sharp rhetoric, but recent remarks by senior leaders indicate a worrying slide from criticism to outright denigration. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge at a press conference in Chennai on April 21 initially referred to Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a "terrorist" while criticising the AIADMK's alliance with the BJP. Later, Kharge justified that he didn't call PM a terrorist in a literal sense but in a way that he is "trying to silence people".
Similarly, in another shocking video clip circulating on social media, Bihar MP Pappu Yadav (independent but supports Congress) is heard saying, "90% of women netas start their careers in men's bedrooms". The issue is no longer about political disagreement -it is about the erosion of basic democratic decorum.
These statements are not isolated gaffes. They are symptoms of a larger degradation in public discourse where outrage replaces argument, and insult substitutes ideology. In a democracy, disagreement is natural; dehumanisation is not.
Erosion of institutional dignity
First, consider the remark targeting the Prime Minister. While political leaders must be held accountable and criticised vigorously, equating an elected head of government with a 'terrorist' crosses a line. It undermines not just the individual but the institutional dignity of the office itself. The Prime Minister represents the sovereignty and democratic will of over a billion citizens. Even if the remark was later clarified or contextualised, the damage lies in normalising such language.
This trend is not new. Indian political history is replete with personal attacks-from 'maut ka saudagar' to 'chaiwala' jibes-but the intensity and frequency have increased in the age of 24/7 media and social platforms. Political communication is now driven by virality rather than responsibility. Leaders often speak not to persuade but to provoke.
Kharge is known to court controversy. Recently, during an election rally in Idukki, Kerala, ahead of the assembly polls, Kharge had referred to Gujaratis as 'illiterate' for electing BJP. Following the widespread backlash, Kharge had to express "sincere regret" for his comments.
There is also a strategic dimension. Politicians often use extreme language to mobilise their base, polarise voters, and dominate news cycles. In the short term, this may yield political dividends. But in the long run, it erodes trust in democratic institutions. When leaders appear more interested in attacking opponents than addressing public concerns, citizens become cynical about politics itself.
Calling a Prime Minister a "terrorist" diminishes the dignity of the highest executive office.
Crude insinuations
If the attack on the Prime Minister reflects declining respect for institutions, the statement by Pappu Yadav is even more troubling because it strikes at the dignity of an entire gender.
His claim that most women enter politics through sexual compromise is not only factually baseless but deeply misogynistic. It reduces women's political agency to exploitation and perpetuates harmful stereotypes that have long hindered their participation.
The backlash to his remark was swift, with women's groups and political leaders condemning it as "despicable" and "shocking". Importantly, such comments ignore empirical reality. Women's representation in Indian politics, though still limited (among 4,666 MPs/MLAs across the country, only 464 or 10% are women) has been steadily improving through grassroots participation, reservation in local bodies, and increasing electoral success based on merit. Studies by bodies like the Election Commission and UN Women show that women voters now often outnumber men in turnout, and female candidates are gaining visibility across party lines.
To suggest that women succeed only through compromise is to erase decades of struggle and achievement-from village panchayats to Parliament. It also discourages aspiring women leaders by reinforcing a hostile narrative. It demeans half the population and reinforces regressive attitudes.
Normalisation of disrespect
Both statements reflect a failure to uphold the standards expected of public representatives. The deeper issue here is the normalisation of disrespect.
Political leaders are not private individuals; their words carry weight. When they resort to abusive or derogatory language, it legitimises similar behaviour among supporters, leading to a coarsening of public debate. This trickle-down effect is visible on social media, where political discussions frequently devolve into personal abuse rather than substantive engagement.
Moreover, such rhetoric distracts from real issues. At a time when India faces pressing challenges - economic inequality, unemployment, gender justice, and governance reforms - public attention is diverted to controversies over statements. The recent debates around the women's reservation bill, for instance, should have been an opportunity for serious discussion on gender parity. Instead, they have been overshadowed by inflammatory remarks and political mudslinging.
The recent controversies are not just about individual lapses; they signal a deeper crisis in political culture. Restoring civility in public discourse is not about silencing criticism - it is about ensuring that criticism remains rooted in respect, facts, and democratic values. Without that, politics risks becoming a theatre of insults rather than a forum for ideas.
The way forward requires collective responsibility. Political parties must enforce internal discipline and hold their leaders accountable for irresponsible remarks. Institutions like the Election Commission can strengthen codes of conduct, especially during elections. Media organisations, too, must avoid amplifying sensational statements without scrutiny.
Most importantly, voters must demand better. Democracies ultimately reflect the standards their citizens are willing to accept. If abusive rhetoric is rewarded with attention and votes, it will continue. If it is rejected, political incentives will change.
(The author is Contributing Editor, NDTV)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
