Modi’s Government: A Pattern of Politicized Removals

The resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar as Vice President of India, forced on him a year ago by the government that appointed him with great fanfare, is being revisited in light of recent developments. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has highlighted what he sees as a disturbing pattern of behavior from the Centre.

A Politicized Removal?

Dhankhar was appointed Vice President in 2019 during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second term and served for three years before being made to resign reportedly due to his outspoken criticism of the government’s handling of farmers’ issues. His allegations of “shocking insensitivity” towards them suggest that Dhankhar was not merely a sacrificial lamb but rather a casualty of the government’s own making.

The fact that Dhankhar was forced out just three years into his five-year term raises questions about the underlying reasons for his removal. Was it truly a matter of performance, or was there something more at play? The Modi government has been accused of using its vast powers to remove officials who pose a threat to its interests or policies.

Ramesh’s critique is not limited to Dhankhar’s case alone but also extends to the government’s handling of student protests and demands for greater transparency in education. He argues that the same “insensitivity and indifference” displayed towards farmers is now being directed at lakhs of students and youth, raising concerns about the Modi government’s commitment to addressing pressing social issues.

The politicization of appointments and removals is a long-standing issue in India, dating back to the Emergency era. However, under Modi, this trend seems to have accelerated, with an increasing number of officials being targeted for speaking out against government policies or highlighting human rights concerns. The implications are far-reaching, not just for those directly affected but also for the country’s democratic institutions as a whole.

The current protests over examination irregularities and demands for greater transparency in education have been largely ignored by the government, much like Dhankhar’s pleas on behalf of farmers. Ramesh’s comparison between the two situations is apt – both highlight the Centre’s apparent disinterest in addressing pressing social issues and its willingness to suppress dissent.

The education system in India has long been plagued by inefficiencies, corruption, and a lack of transparency. The protests now unfolding are not merely about student concerns but also reflect deeper anxieties about the government’s ability to deliver on its promises. If ignored, these grievances could boil over into more widespread unrest, further undermining public trust in institutions.

As we mark one year since Dhankhar’s resignation, it is clear that the issue goes beyond a single individual or event. The Modi government’s actions have significant implications for India’s democratic fabric and its ability to address pressing social issues. Ramesh’s critique serves as a timely reminder of the need for greater accountability and transparency in governance.

In the absence of meaningful reforms and commitment to addressing the concerns of marginalized communities, it is likely that this trend will continue, with more officials being targeted for speaking out against government policies or highlighting human rights abuses. If so, India’s democratic institutions will continue to suffer, and its people will pay the price.