Communalists must have Respect for the Constitution

Recently, a video circulated on social media in which a YouTuber asked a Muslim labourer which train he intended to board. Instead of saying "Vande Bharat," the labourer repeatedly referred to it as "Gande Bharat." When the YouTuber asked him why he was deliberately mispronouncing the name, the labourer smiled and replied that he would always call it "Gande Bharat." Such conduct may perhaps be attributed to a person with little formal education.

However, prejudice and sectarian attitudes are not confined to the uneducated. I recall a highly educated teacher at Banaras Hindu University who habitually referred to Ramnagar, situated across the Ganges from the university, as "Nam Nagar." He would also offer Namaz in his office chamber on campus. Whenever some students objected to what they considered inappropriate conduct in an academic setting, several others, claiming to uphold secular values, would immediately come to his defence. This illustrates how communal attitudes can manifest in different forms and are often judged by different standards depending on the circumstances.

Against this backdrop, many people have criticised the Chief Minister of West Bengal for making the singing of the national song and national anthem compulsory in Madrasas. A letter issued on May 19 by the Director of Madrasa Education directed that "Vande Mataram" be sung before classes commence. It is difficult to understand why this should automatically be viewed through a Hindu-Muslim lens.

The Constitution empowers governments to frame educational policy. Since the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, education has been placed in the Concurrent List, meaning that both Parliament and the State Legislatures can enact laws on the subject. In the event of a direct conflict, central legislation prevails.

Unfortunately, Madrasas are often viewed by communal elements solely through the prism of religion, despite receiving support and facilities from the government like other educational institutions. The issue of national symbols and religious belief is not new. In 1985, a controversy arose in Kottayam, Kerala, when three schoolchildren belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses faith refused to sing the national anthem, "Jana Gana Mana," during the school assembly. However, they stood respectfully while the anthem was being sung. Their religious belief was that they could not participate in acts that they regarded as a form of reverence to anyone other than God (Jehovah). The school expelled them, and the dispute eventually reached the courts.

The Kerala High Court initially upheld the expulsion. However, in 1986, the Supreme Court of India reversed that decision. The Court held that no law required an individual to sing the national anthem, that the children had shown no disrespect by standing respectfully, and that their expulsion violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution relating to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, who authored the judgment, was a born Christian who later became an atheist, emphasised an important constitutional principle: courts should not sit in judgment over whether a religious belief is reasonable or unreasonable. Their role is to protect the constitutional freedoms guaranteed to all citizens, provided public order, morality, and other constitutional limitations are not violated.

Lacklustre Demonstration of the so-called Gen Z at Jantar Mantar

 

The demonstration by the newly formed and much-publicised Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) yesterday at Jantar Mantar was a total flop.  Hardly a few hundred people participated, which included supporters and opponents, police personnel, and onlookers who were there only to watch and enjoy. There was practically no presence of Gen Z in the demonstration. Many professional agitators and protesters certainly reached Jantar Mantar, but they received a very lukewarm, if not a cold, reception.  Undoubtedly, it will cause further frustration among the youth of the country.

Such demonstrations are political and sponsored by some vested interests. Since it was aimed at denouncing the Modi government, it was clear that forces against the Modi government were active in organising this protest. The arrival of the US-based Mr Abhijeet Deepke at Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi was drummed up as if he were a revolutionary of any kind.

 The word " cockroach " was lapped up by this gentleman from a remark made by the Chief Justice of India, Shri Suryakant, during the hearing of the case, which was drafted and presented in a very non-serious manner. This also shows that this high-bred American Deepke has no respect for the people of the country. Let us see how it unfolds in the future, but going by Saturday’s demonstration, it can be said that it fizzled out and did not inspire any confidence in Gen Z.

Not Vacating Office or Residence After Losing Power Is Indefensible

A disturbing trend appears to be emerging among some politicians who, after being voted out of office, show reluctance to abide by the rules and conventions governing the relinquishment of power and official privileges. In a democracy, respect for the people's mandate requires not only accepting electoral defeat but also gracefully surrendering the offices, residences, and privileges attached to power.

Two examples that attracted public attention are those of Mamata Banerjee and Rabri Devi, both former Chief Ministers of their respective states. The country witnessed an unprecedented constitutional situation when Mamata Banerjee, despite losing the Assembly election, did not immediately relinquish office. Ultimately, the Governor had to intervene and administer the oath to the new Chief Minister. Such incidents undermine democratic norms and set an unhealthy precedent.

The conduct of Rabri Devi and her husband, Lalu Prasad Yadav, who together dominated Bihar's politics for nearly one and a half decades, has also raised serious questions. Rabri Devi is presently the Leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Council, while her son, Tejashwi Yadav, serves as the Leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Assembly.

Rabri Devi has been residing at 10 Circular Road, Patna, since demitting the office of Chief Minister in 2006. However, in November 2025, the Bihar Government earmarked and formally allotted 39 Hardinge Road as the official residence of the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council. Since she has already been provided an official residence in her current capacity, there appears to be little justification for continuing to occupy a bungalow that has since been allotted to a serving minister.

The issue assumes greater significance in light of the Patna High Court's 2019 judgment striking down the policy that allowed former Chief Ministers to retain government bungalows indefinitely. The court made it clear that such residences are public property meant for current constitutional and public functionaries, not for the lifetime use of former office-holders. While the government has honoured Rabri Devi's entitlement by allotting her an alternative official residence, her insistence on retaining the same bungalow risks conveying the wrong message. Rather than challenging the government to evict her, it would be far more appropriate to resolve the matter amicably and in accordance with the law.

This is not the first time that questions have been raised about the conduct of former holders of high office. When Akhilesh Yadav vacated the official residence of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, he was accused of removing fixtures and causing damage to the property, drawing widespread criticism in the media.

The larger question is why some individuals who have occupied the highest public offices find it difficult to observe the very rules and conventions that they once administered. Public office carries not only authority but also the responsibility to set an example. A graceful exit after the loss of power strengthens democratic institutions; resistance to it weakens public faith in them. Whatever the political affiliation of the individuals concerned, refusal to vacate official residences or relinquish official privileges after their entitlement has ceased is difficult to defend from any perspective.