With Sushma Swaraj’s “conspiracy theory” pointing out the recent terror attack in Bangalore and Ahmedabad as an attempt by Congress-led UPA government to divert public attention from the cash-for-vote-scam and a plot to gain Muslim votes, BJP has certainly hit Indian politics to a new low. A leader of her stature, as regarded as one of the emerging second generation leader of Bharatiya Janta Party, has certainly won all criticism with her irresponsible statement and at the same time diluted her party’s position on the issue of national security.
Ms Swaraj’s shout was certainly shameful and this is why her party high command has been keeping itself distant from the statement. As BJP is moving ahead for the next assembly elections taking the issue of “national security and terrorism” as one of its central poll strategy, Sushma Swaraj could have done something better by criticising UPA govt’s soft stand on terrorism and the need of a stern anti-terror law. The leader’s comment is only going to reverberate in the assembly poll.
The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has already cleared its stand to oppose any economic reform to be brought up by the Centre and advocating for the next government to take up all agendas. It seems that the party has lost its way after losing the no-confidence motion in the wake of Indo-US nuclear deal for a short-term political gain. Again the headless statement can be termed as growing indiscipline in a level-headed nationalist party.
Terror attacks on anywhere in the world is condemnable, but there is no need to play politics on such a crucial issue of national security. Furthermore, such ridicule statement is nothing but to destroy our democratic fabric that is the prime aim of terrorists. The need of the hour is to work united in all respects being security, development or any other issue of domestic and international importance. In a democratic government the role of opposition is as needed and essential as the ruling party, but it should always mind to oppose with any solid reason and not merely for the sake of opposing.