“Shoot the Traitors”: When a Slogan Becomes an Indictment

 

“Shoot the Traitors”: When a Slogan Becomes an Indictment

Hindi Version: https://rakeshinsightfulgaze.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_2.html

https://youtu.be/o7fLWsOFcRY?si=8RlCuSlaIqcrswEi

“Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maro saaron ko.” Shoot the traitors of the nation.

This slogan, delivered publicly by Anurag Thakur during election rallies, was not an emotional outburst. It was political messaging. Its purpose was not to defend the nation, but to simplify it. Reduce complex questions of governance, accountability, and failure into a binary of loyalty versus treason. Once that framing is accepted, facts become irrelevant.

What unfolded in Parliament today exposes why such slogans are useful to those in power.

The government made a coordinated effort to prevent the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, from speaking about the experience of Manoj Mukund Naravane during the Chinese military buildup along the Indian border. General Naravane’s book, which reportedly documents decision-making during the 2020 standoff, has been held back from publication by the Defence Ministry for nearly two years. Portions of it are already public. The issue is not secrecy. It is discomfort.

A confident government would not fear this discussion. It would welcome it.

The government could have explained why restraint was chosen. It could have clarified the strategic calculations involved. It could have trusted citizens to understand that difficult decisions are sometimes made to avoid greater harm. Governments make mistakes. Democracies grow stronger when those mistakes are examined openly.

Instead, the response was disruption.

This reaction points to a deeper problem that slogans are designed to hide: the concentration of power and the erosion of collective responsibility.

India formally operates under a Cabinet system. In practice, authority has narrowed to a small core around Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. Ministers remain in place, but decision-making does not flow through them in any meaningful way. Their role has increasingly become reactive rather than directive, defensive rather than deliberative.

This was evident in the border crisis. If the defense minister had genuine autonomy, he would have addressed the nation directly. He would have explained the military and diplomatic constraints under which decisions were made. Instead, silence prevailed, followed by obstruction in Parliament. That silence was not strategic. It was structural.

When ministers lack the authority to speak honestly about their own portfolios, the problem is not opposition criticism. The problem is internal weakness.

Slogans like the one used by Anurag Thakur perform an important function in this system. They redirect public attention away from governance and toward emotional loyalty. They encourage citizens to ask who is “anti-national” instead of asking who is accountable. They replace institutional strength with performative aggression.

This is how democracies weaken without formally ending. Parliament still meets, but debate is blocked. Ministers still hold office, but authority is centralized. Institutions still exist, but independence is discouraged.

And when a former Army Chief’s account is treated as a threat rather than a contribution to national understanding, the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore. A state that cannot tolerate facts from its own institutions is not strong. It is brittle.

This is where the slogan turns back on its author.

If “gaddari” means weakening the nation from within, then silencing Parliament, hollowing out the Cabinet, and replacing accountability with intimidation do far more damage than any opposition speech. If patriotism means unquestioning obedience, then democracy itself becomes expendable.

India did not become a strong nation through slogans. It became strong through institutions, debate, and the willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. When those are treated as threats, the danger is not external. It is internal.

Democracy does not fail when questions are asked. It fails when those in power are too insecure to answer them.

And when slogans are used to mask that insecurity, they do not project strength.
They expose it.