Congress leader Udit Raj’s remarks comparing India’s political climate to recent turmoil in Nepal have ignited a sharp war of words, with the BJP accusing him of being “anti-national” and deliberately stoking unrest.
In a post on X, Raj observed that people were drawing parallels between India and crisis-hit neighbours like Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. He acknowledged that India, too, faces challenges of inflation, unemployment, and corruption, but argued that, unlike its neighbours, India’s deep-rooted democratic system—established under the Constitution and nurtured by the Congress—prevented instability.
Raj elaborated that the BJP had tried to weaken the Constitution but failed because India’s constitutional institutions remained strong, adding that “otherwise, a situation like Nepal would have happened here as well.”
His comments came just days after violent unrest in Nepal, where protests over corruption and a ban on social media escalated into nationwide chaos, leaving Parliament set ablaze, 13,500 prisoners escaping, and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigning. The army has since assumed control in Kathmandu and imposed a curfew while negotiating with protest leaders to form an interim government.
The BJP, however, blasted Raj’s comparison. Party spokesperson CR Kesavan called the comments “dangerous,” accusing the Congress of reviving its “emergency mindset” from 1975. He alleged that the Congress had always posed the “biggest threat” to Babasaheb Ambedkar’s Constitution, pointing to the suspension of democratic rights during the Emergency as proof.
“These dangerous remarks from a senior Congress leader are blatantly anti-national and deliberately inciting unrest,” Kesavan charged, arguing that they expose the Congress’s historical disregard for democracy.
Even beyond politics, Raj’s remarks sparked wider debate. Filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma dismissed the suggestion of Nepal-like unrest in India as “pure nonsense,” saying no government would ever dare to impose something as drastic as a social media ban, given the inevitable public backlash.
The controversy underscores the fraught political atmosphere ahead of key state and national elections, with both parties weaponising constitutional debates to attack each other.
