 |
|
The Indian political landscape was rocked by a controversy involving Samajwadi Party (SP) MP Ram Gopal Yadav and Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud. The incident began when Yadav, caught on camera, used abusive language toward CJI Chandrachud while responding to a question about the latter's remarks on the Ayodhya verdict. This outburst sparked widespread backlash, forcing Yadav to issue a clarification denying the statement and claiming he was responding to a different question. The controversy highlights the complexities of political discourse in India, particularly when it involves prominent figures like the CJI and seasoned politicians like Yadav.
The genesis of the controversy lies in CJI Chandrachud's recent statement about his personal prayers for a solution to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. Addressing an event in Pune, he mentioned that he had prayed for a solution to the long-standing issue and that God would find a way if one had faith. His remark, while seemingly innocuous, became a point of contention when Yadav was asked about it by reporters. In response, he launched into a tirade against the CJI, using offensive language and suggesting that the CJI was influenced by ghosts and '* people'. The incident was captured on video, leading to its swift dissemination across social media and news outlets.
Faced with mounting criticism and condemnation from various quarters, Yadav swiftly backtracked, denying that he had made any such objectionable statement against the CJI. He maintained that he was responding to a question about the Bahraich violence and not the CJI's remarks. However, the video evidence of his abusive outburst contradicted his denial. The controversy further escalated when SP supremo Akhilesh Yadav, while affirming his respect for the CJI, admitted to being unaware of his uncle's statement. This revelation further complicated the matter, raising questions about the party's stance on the incident and the extent of their control over their members' public conduct.
The incident also triggered a political slugfest between the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Congress leader Udit Raj, referencing the CJI's prayer for an Ayodhya solution, suggested that if he had prayed for other pressing concerns like the misuse of the CBI and ED, those issues might have also been addressed. The Congress leader's remarks, while seemingly drawing a parallel between prayer and judicial outcomes, were interpreted as a criticism of the CJI's personal beliefs and practices. In response, BJP leader Sambit Patra took a sharp jibe at the Congress, highlighting the common practice of prayer in ‘Sanatan culture’ and suggesting that the INDIA bloc leaders never pray. Patra's statement, while avoiding direct criticism of the judiciary, brought religious and cultural aspects into the debate, adding another layer of complexity to the situation.
The controversy surrounding Yadav's outburst and the subsequent political reactions reflect the deeply polarized and often volatile nature of Indian politics. While the incident highlights the potential for inflammatory rhetoric and the need for responsible conduct by public figures, it also underscores the sensitivity surrounding religious issues and the potential for such matters to become entangled with political maneuvering. The incident has raised questions about the role of faith in public life, the boundaries of free speech, and the responsibilities of politicians in a democratic society. As the controversy continues to unfold, it remains to be seen what lasting impact it will have on the political landscape and the public's perception of the judiciary.
Source: Samajwadi MP Abuses CJI Chandrachud Over Ayodhya Remark, Takes U-turn After Backlash