Smit Machchhar Represents India, Not the Cockroaches!

Sitangshu Guha – The so-called “cockroaches” first took to the streets demanding education reform. Their demand had some merit, and the government eventually conceded. The education minister resigned, but that concession only emboldened the protesters.

This time, however, they have joined a movement demanding the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner. That is a misguided step. Meanwhile, the movement’s leading figure has reportedly faced public humiliation at the hands of a crowd in Bombay. If the movement continues along this path, other leaders could soon find themselves facing similar public hostility, including the possibility of being pelted with rotten eggs.

The public, the argument goes, is beginning to recognize that the movement’s ultimate objective is not education reform but the destabilization of the government. Had its leaders instead congratulated Smit Machchhar and called for a nationwide day of celebration, they might have earned the goodwill and support of millions across India.

The movement appears to seek a political upheaval similar to what occurred in Bangladesh. Yet, in my assessment, Bangladesh’s recent political upheaval was not a genuine revolution but a seizure of power by Islamist forces, followed by national decline and widespread hardship over the subsequent two years.

India’s younger generation, however, is sufficiently educated and politically discerning to reject such an outcome. India has weathered comparable movements before, and its federal structure remains a significant safeguard against the concentration of power.

Power in India is distributed among multiple institutions and levels of government. Its political system does not lend itself easily to unchecked autocracy. Elections remain the principal constitutional mechanism for transferring power. India’s electoral system enjoys international recognition, while its judiciary and media serve as important pillars of democratic accountability.

Although these institutions are not beyond criticism, they provide essential checks and balances. No government should be able to exercise unrestrained power by circumventing them.

The protesters, in my view, have failed to maintain the transparency and impartiality they claim to represent. Their movement raises questions about whether they are being used by other political forces to advance a broader agenda. Those forces, according to this argument, include the Left, Islamist groups, anti-Hindu political elements, and sidelined leaders who have lost power and are eager to regain it.

Anti-Hindu politics, I contend, has lost much of its former appeal in India, and political forces associated with it may face further setbacks in future elections. The Left and Islamist groups may appear ideologically opposed, but they can sometimes find common ground in their opposition to the ruling establishment.

India’s enemies, the argument goes, are not necessarily all outside its borders. Some domestic political actors may also undermine national interests while taking advantage of the freedoms afforded by democracy.

One contradiction is particularly striking: while many around the world are celebrating Smit Machchhar, some participants in the movement appear reluctant to congratulate him. The reason, I suspect, is political calculation. They may fear that praising the pilot would also require them to acknowledge the role of his Muslim co-pilot, potentially complicating their efforts to retain the support of particular voting constituencies.

The Government of India, or the ruling party, could organize a nationwide, two-day celebration in honor of Smit Machchhar. Such an event would recognize his achievement and provide an opportunity for citizens across the country to express their pride. Smit Machchhar represents India—not the so-called cockroaches or the political forces that support them.

Let me make one point clear: I am not an Indian citizen; I live in the United States. Readers are free to agree or disagree with my views. Nevertheless, I believe that those who opposed Operation Sindoor, raised slogans such as “Kashmir Mange Azadi,” or used the derogatory expression “Hinduism is Gandha Dharma” should face serious scrutiny when their political positions are assessed. In my view, such rhetoric raises legitimate questions about their commitment to India’s national interests.

India is the world’s largest democracy, and I sincerely hope it continues to prosper. But defending democracy also requires safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process.

Illegal immigrants and infiltrators should not be permitted to vote simply by virtue of being present in the country. In this context, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) are, in my view, important instruments for addressing concerns about voter eligibility and national security. Their implementation, however, must be consistent with the law and the rights of eligible citizens.

India’s democratic strength lies in its institutions, its constitutional framework, and the participation of its people. Political movements should contribute to strengthening those foundations—not weakening them. Smit Machchhar represents India. India deserves a democracy that is strong, secure, and free.

———————————————-
Sitangshu Guha, New York
E. guhasb@gmail.com