“When logic fails to provide a defense, intimidation becomes the weapon of choice to silence the critic.”
This simple truth cuts to the heart of modern governance. It suggests that when leaders run out of facts, they reach for force. When a government swap reasoned debate for institutional bullying, it is a silent confession: it can no longer justify its own actions.
History is full of these diversions. From the Russian Czars to the absolute monarchs of Europe, those in power have always branded their critics as "conspirators" to avoid explaining failed policies.
Today, that same old drama is playing out in the Indian Parliament.
The current battle is over the India-US trade deal. Recently, the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) slammed the agreement as a "complete surrender" of national interests. Instead of addressing the economic fears he raised, the government pivoted to a classic authoritarian move: filing a breach of privilege motion. It is a clear attempt to bury the message by silencing the messenger.
The LoP’s warnings are not just political noise. They reflect the deep anxiety of India’s farmers. As nationwide protests brew, statements from Washington suggest India is ready to slash tariffs on U.S. farm products and industrial goods. Experts warn this could flood the market with imports, including genetically modified grains, crushing the livelihoods of millions of small-scale farmers.
Instead of explaining these concessions, the government has chosen to penalize the LoP for "misleading the House." By hiding behind parliamentary technicalities, the state avoids a public debate on the actual trade policy.
This is not an isolated event; it is a strategy of distraction. We see it in the controversy over General M.M. Naravane’s memoirs, Four Stars of Destiny. Rather than facing the uncomfortable truths in the former Army Chief’s book, the government has focused on the "leak" of the manuscript, with the police opening an investigation.
From the Speaker’s claims of "conspiracies" by opposition MPs to the flurry of privilege notices, the national conversation is being steered away from government accountability and toward policing.
Stripped of the political heat, the LoP’s speech asked a haunting question: Why would a once-proud nation sacrifice its dignity and autonomy for a hasty deal? Why allow the US to monitor who we buy oil from?
While US officials celebrate a deal that is overwhelmingly in their favour, the Indian government remains vague on the details. The document hints at a massive capitulation, yet the state remains silent on the specifics.
When a government hides behind rules or criminalizes dissent, it mirrors the historical leaders who feared their own reflection.
As this firestorm grows, the central question remains: Is this deal a victory or a surrender? Until the government answers the "why" instead of attacking the "who," the spirit of our democracy remains under siege.
