Vaudeville Verbale - Speech Circus

I watched with keen interest as Priyanka Gandhi made her debut speech in the Lok Sabha, anticipating a moment that would mark her as a serious political leader. But as the minutes passed, I found myself grappling with a growing sense of déjà vu. Priyanka’s speech wasn’t much different from what we’ve heard from other Congress leaders over the years: a blend of contradictions, emotional outbursts, and a blatant disregard for facts.

From the very beginning, I couldn’t help but draw parallels between Priyanka Gandhi and Sanjay Raut of Shiv Sena. Both seem to thrive on a language of defiance, constantly accusing the ruling government of undermining democracy and the Constitution. But as I listened to her, I was struck by how this defiance seemed shallow and lacking in political depth. It was almost as if she was repeating a script—one that didn’t offer anything new or insightful. In that moment, I understood why some people see her as a female version of Raut—full of fire but devoid of fresh ideas.

What bothered me most was Priyanka’s repeated references to the Constitution. She spoke about alleged breaches of the Constitution by the Modi government, yet didn’t answer a crucial question: If the Constitution is being violated, why are opposition leaders like her still in Parliament? If Rahul Gandhi can be the Leader of the Opposition in a system that supposedly disregards the Constitution, then what does that say about the very system they claim is broken? I couldn’t help but feel that Priyanka’s accusations were more about political posturing than any real concern for constitutional integrity.

As Priyanka criticized the Himachal Pradesh government, I was left shaking my head. She was completely unaware that her own party is in power there. How can someone who is making her first real political statement in Parliament be so uninformed? It felt as though she was simply going through the motions of making a speech, without really understanding the political landscape she’s addressing. This seemed like a pattern I had seen before, most notably in her brother Rahul, who has often been accused of lacking political awareness.

One statement that struck me deeply was when Priyanka called the people of India “cowards.” How could she say that, given that it is the same electorate that voted for the Modi government? Her words were not just an attack on the government, but an insult to the very people who put it in power. If Priyanka truly believes the country will rise and fight, she needs to acknowledge that it is the people who have chosen the path the country is on. Her remarks were a glaring misstep, revealing a lack of respect for the democratic process.

I couldn’t help but notice the contradiction in Priyanka’s argument for a caste census. Her advocacy for caste-based data collection directly contradicted the stance taken by the Congress’s most prominent leaders—Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi—who had opposed such measures. It was as if Priyanka was trying to align herself with contemporary demands without fully understanding the historical implications of what she was advocating. It made me question whether her position was based on principle or merely political convenience.

Another moment that left me feeling uneasy was when Priyanka spoke about the violence in Sambhal, focusing on the death of a tailor. She accused the police of shooting him, but the truth was far more complex. The tailor was killed by rioters, not the police. Yet Priyanka continued to target the Modi government, ignoring the broader context. What struck me as even more troubling was her failure to address the horrific beheading of a tailor, Kanhaiya Lal, in Rajasthan, a crime that was completely ignored in her speech. It felt like a selective narrative—one that chose to amplify certain voices while conveniently silencing others.

As Priyanka warned that the BJP might attempt to change the Constitution if they had won the 2019 elections differently, I found myself questioning her own party’s track record. After all, it was Congress MP Pramod Tiwari who suggested a separate law for the Gandhi family in the event of a legal setback. Priyanka’s warnings about the BJP’s alleged intentions seemed hypocritical, given that her own party has historically manipulated the Constitution to suit its needs.

Priyanka's criticism of the BJP for focusing on the past was another point of irony. She herself spent a significant portion of her speech invoking Nehru’s legacy, all while accusing the BJP of living in the past. It felt like a classic case of double standards. And when she spoke about returning to paper ballots, I couldn’t help but laugh. It was with the very same EVMs that she won her Wayanad by-election and that Congress secured victories in states like Karnataka and Telangana. If Priyanka truly had faith in her rhetoric, she would have set a powerful example by resigning from her seat in protest. But of course, that didn’t happen.

When Priyanka Gandhi talked about the Constitution emerging from India’s civilisational traditions of dialogue and discussion, I was taken aback by the distortion of history. She accused the Modi government of sowing seeds of division and hatred, but didn’t acknowledge that the very people who elected Modi are the ones she seemed to accuse of destroying the fabric of India. Priyanka’s selective narrative ignored the complexities of the country’s political reality, where both the ruling party and the opposition play their part in shaping the nation’s future.

Finally, Priyanka’s claim that dissent is being silenced in India felt disingenuous. How could she say that when opposition leaders, including her own party, continue to attack PM Modi and the BJP at every turn? Her claim that the people’s voices have been stifled was not only false but also a reflection of the broader disconnect between her party’s rhetoric and the reality of India’s democracy.

As I reflect on Priyanka Gandhi’s speech, I can’t help but feel that this was a missed opportunity. Instead of offering fresh perspectives or solutions to India’s pressing issues, she fell back on the same old grievances and emotional rhetoric that have defined her family’s politics for years. This speech didn’t mark a turning point in Indian politics. Rather, it reinforced the notion that Priyanka, like her brother Rahul, is more concerned with political grandstanding than with addressing the real issues that affect the people of this country.