In recent years, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has often resorted to whataboutery, using historical figures like Gandhi and Nehru as a shield against valid criticism. From contentious issues like the beef ban to the controversial inauguration of the new Parliament building, the party has attempted to deflect allegations by invoking the names of revered leaders. However, it is crucial to recognize that wrong is wrong, regardless of who commits it. This article explores the fallacy of using whataboutery and emphasizes the importance of holding the BJP accountable, irrespective of historical figures, to uphold the principles of democracy and fairness.
Whataboutery may seem like a clever defence mechanism at first glance, but it ultimately falls short in addressing the crux of the matter. By responding to allegations with “What about the Congress?” or “What about past governments?”, the BJP attempts to create an illusion of equivalency, diverting attention from their own actions and diluting the seriousness of the allegations. However, this flawed defence should not overshadow the need for an honest examination of their own accountability.
Whataboutery has become a recurring pattern in the BJP’s defence strategy, particularly evident in their response to contentious policies like the beef ban. When questioned about the ban’s impact on individual choice and cultural diversity, the party often diverts attention by citing Gandhi’s views on cow protection or Nehru’s presence on dietary rituals. However, it is essential to remember that public sentiment and social dynamics have evolved since their time. Failing to address the concerns raised today undermines the essence of democracy, as it is the will of the people in the present that must guide policy decisions, not historical viewpoints.
Another example of whataboutery is seen in the recent inauguration of the new Parliament building, with the participation of swamis and elaborate poojas. Critics argue that such religious ceremonies symbolize a departure from the principles of secularism and democratic values. In response, the BJP resorts to invoking the name of Nehru, highlighting instances where his presence was seen in some inaugurations with religious rituals. However, the point of contention is not the past actions of historical figures, but the present violation of democratic principles. Democracy thrives on the diversity of beliefs and the protection of secular values, and using whataboutery to justify religious overtones in public ceremonies is an affront to these principles.
In conclusion, it is time to say “So What?” to BJP’s persistent use of “What About” as a defence mechanism. It is a reminder that in the pursuit of a truly democratic and progressive society, we must rise above deflection tactics and demand transparency, accountability, and responsible governance. Let us move beyond the shadows of the past and collectively work towards a future that values truth, justice, and the welfare of our nation.
(Image used by the author for demonstration purposes.)