Even the politicians lack freedom of speech in India

Continuing on from the previous post where we saw how celebrities such as Aamir Khan are harrassed for their views and opinions. But, even the politicians who run the world’s largest democracy are denied the freedom of expression!

Politicians kicked royally for holding diverse opinions

In the UK and even the USA many MPs hold their own views irrespective of the official party line. They need not be submissive and self-defacing. In the UK these people have a name “the backbenchers”, for sitting in the back benches, and also sometimes holding opposite views to the government.

In the US, take for instance the nuclear deal – among the Republicans as well as the Democrats there are senior figures who support the deal and senior parliamentarians who oppose the deal – neither party admonishes these naysayers for their divergent views.

But in India I’m kicked out of my party if my moral standpoint or point of view is different from that of the party high command.

Take for example Uma Bharati – she disagreed with Advani and Mahajan and was kicked out of the party. I’ve written on this previously. The same happened with the former Chief Minister of Delhi, another member of BJP.

Recently, an MP from the NCP party opposed the proposed hike in reservations, but the NCP acted swiftly to “repair” its image amongst its contemporaries as well as among the people (OBCs).

It said that its official position was for reservations and therefore sought to silence the “dissident” MP.

As soon as there is difference of opinion, the so-labelled dissidents are kicked out of the party. And these “misfits” vent their shame by starting their own party, an example being the Bharatiya Janshakti Party started recently by Uma Bharati. As if the thousands of existing parties are not enough to (mis)rule India!

Why do the parties of democratic India want to paint an unnatural uniform colour? When the politicians harp at every speech about Unity in Diversity (a concept that I don’t see in India), why do they seek to only one opinion, just one view in their party of thousands?

How do these parties contend to rule democratically when they strive to suppress it within their own ranks?