It is good to have a strong opposition, just as it is good to have a competing government, but what the first “debate” over motion of thanks to the speech of the President revealed was something more worrisome: the visceral dislike both Modi and Rahul have for one another: mirroring the divisiveness that is politically explicit between BJP and Congress and its “secular” allies.

This personal dislike for each other goes back to the 2002 Gujarat riots, when Modi was declared an object of hate by the Congress and secular opposition. No amount of exoneration by legal system has changed this perception, and alleged hate culture and Rahul was able to directly harp on BJP’s alleged hate culture in his speech. For their part, Modi and BJP have been aggressively critical of the Nehruvian legacy and Rahul’s rise to prominence based on its linage. For a while, this characterization worked well for BJP /NDA, as Rahul was seen as “Pappu”, someone with no political gravitas. BJP also used Rahul’s “Pappu” status as a useful contrast to Modi’s own personality. BJP partisans saw this as a no contest and indirectly promoted a Modi-Rahul comparison to vindicate their position.

The old adage, be careful what you wish for, for it may come true, applies here. After years of demanding a Prime Ministerial face from Congress, it is now reasonably clear that Rahul could be that face and it is not the face of Pappu.

Even before he started shedding his Pappu status, Rahul had the ability to get under the BJP’ skin. As early as 2015, he managed to rile on government by calling it a “suit, boot ki Sarkar” and later doubled down on this allegation by directly naming industrialist Adani.

Among other things, Rahul said in his debut speech as LoP that Modi and Amit Shah do not care what is happening in Manipur, and that neither of them (and their party) was a Hindu by his definition. PM, for his part, spoke of legal cases faced by Rahul, and how his party is riding on voters of its allies rather than his own strength. He referred to LoP’s speech as infantile (Balak Buddhi).

Even assuming Rahul’s remarks on Hinduism and BJP were only aimed at labelling BJP and Sangh Parivar as hate-driven, those bits of his speech went too far. Contrast these comments with his own assertion some time ago and that his secular ally, Muslim League, was “secular” party. Sangh may not represent all Hindus, but it deserves legitimate social and political space for canvassing its own version of nationhood, which Rahul may disagree with. (IPA Service)