"Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel"”— New Testament (Matthew 23:24)
The above quote, a phrase rooted in biblical literature, describes focusing intensely on small faults while ignoring much larger ethical failings.
It points at “performative propriety” of how individuals and governing bodies often fixate on minor social etiquettes, or trivial "laws," while overlooking or accommodating significant injustices, such as state-sanctioned failures and structural inequalities.
Recent instances of "performative propriety" have surfaced in two unlikely places: a statement by cricket legend Sunil Gavaskar and an open letter from former bureaucrats targeting Rahul Gandhi. Both cases highlight a curious trend of policing small actions while ignoring massive systemic contradictions.
While the legendary cricketer flagged a $500,000 franchise deal for Abrar Ahmed, a Pakistani cricketer by a franchisee as "contributing to casualties of Indian soldiers, the ex-bureaucrats in an open letter to Rahul Gandhi expressed deep concern over his act of having tea and biscuits on the steps of the Parliament.
Gavaskar’s statement left the cricket fans struggling to keep with his “national security math”, while he seemed perfectly comfortable and happy to commentate on $250 million India-Pak World Cup matches that contribute huge money to the Pakistan cricket board.
It’s a fascinating brand of Hypocritical Patriotism, wherein, An Indian owner pays a single player a few lakhs help Pakistan to sponsor terror activities, while India playing a mega-match that fuels a $3 billion broadcast deal, ensuring the PCB getting its ₹313 crore annual ICC handout is totally fine. He never seemed to have found a reason to call for a boycott of India-Pakistan matches.
By his logic, if buying one player is a security risk, then playing the World Cup matches that bankroll the entire Pakistan board is a full-scale financial bailout. It seems his "patriotism" alarm only rings for small-time player auctions, but curiously stays on "Mute" when there’s a massive broadcast check and a commentary contract attached.
Similarly, a group of retired bureaucrats recently identified what they consider the ultimate threat to Indian democracy: Rahul Gandhi having tea and biscuits on the steps of Parliament.
In an open letter that surely took more time to draft than a five-year plan, these eminent citizens expressed "deep concern" over the Leader of the Opposition having tea on the steps of Parliament, a supposed breach of Parliamentary decorum.
The letter argues that the steps of Parliament are "not a venue for spectacle". Curiously, this standard of "parliamentary decorum" seems remarkably flexible.
While having tea is "unbecoming" of the nation’s highest legislative body, the same group remained remarkably stoic when ruling party members allegedly used expletives on the floor or when the Treasury benches seemingly "ran away" from pressing issues citing "threats" from women members of the Parliament.
It is a curious paradox: the "dignity of the House" is apparently fragile enough to be shattered by a cup of tea and a biscuit, yet robust enough to withstand the systematic silencing of the Opposition and the steamrolling of bills without debate.
While these "eminent citizens" expressed deep concern over the "unbecoming" sight of snacks on the Parliament steps, they were notably stoic when ruling party members allegedly used derogatory slurs like "sala" within the same hallowed halls.
The Treasury benches seem to possess a "Bureaucratic Protective Shield." When the Opposition demands answers on LPG price hikes or fuel shortages, they are met not with policy rebuttals, but with a defensive wall of retired officials.
This group has mastered the art of "Strategic Silence." Much like Sunil Gavaskar, who condemns a single player’s franchise deal while profiting from the multi-billion-dollar India-Pakistan broadcast machine, these ex-bureaucrats were perfectly comfortable with the erosion of debate during their years in service. Only in retirement have they discovered a sudden, theatrical flair for denouncing the Opposition’s "spectacle."
To these critics, India’s democracy is under "assault", not by the capture of institutions, but by a "rising tide" of Chai and biscuits. They demand apologies for "political theatre," yet ignore the true performance: a Parliament where the government frequently evades accountability, leaving the Opposition with nowhere to sit but the steps.
In their display of “performative propriety” these intellectuals overlook a Parliament where the government often avoids accountability, turning the nation's highest legislative body into a venue where debate is the only thing truly missing.
