The Supreme Court’s observations while granting interim bail to Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera on Friday, in a case over the FIRs filed against him for a remark he made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, highlight clearly the issues involved in the episode. The court told Khera’s counsel: “We have protected you but there has to be some level of discourse.” Khera’s jibe at Prime Minister Modi as “Narendra Gautamdas Modi” was tasteless and below the level of common civilities to be observed in political discourse. He wanted to point to the Prime Minister’s proximity to Gautam Adani, a legitimate question for the Opposition to raise. Instead, all he succeeded in displaying was his own boorishness. Khera later said it was a slip of the tongue and apologised for it. But it is unfortunate that a spokesperson, who lives by the speech and should know the meaning and value of words, slipped in the gap between clever talk and insult.
Also Read | I salute the judiciary, says Congress's Pawan Khera after being released on interim bail
The heavy-handed response to it was worse. FIRs were filed against Khera in UP and Assam for using objectionable words against the Prime Minister, and he was deplaned at the airport in Delhi from a Raipur-bound flight by the Delhi police on a request from Assam police. The provisions invoked against him included those relating to hate speech, promoting enmity between groups, intent to provoke breach of the peace, and hurting religious sentiments. Party persons said that the comment was the result of a conspiracy. The Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud asked the police during the hearing how it was a case of “religious disharmony”. These were strong-arm tactics grossly disproportionate to the alleged offence. Khera wouldn’t have vanished into air if he had taken the flight, and the spectacle of stopping the plane and taking him out of it showed that it was meant for impact. What the police wanted to make of the matter was much more than what it actually was.
All political parties are guilty of lowering the level of public discourse and there is a competitive race to go to lower levels. Even the Prime Minister has not been above board on this count. That is why there is often whataboutery about slander. But one slander does not justify another. In the race for greater impact, uncivilised conduct has become the norm and decency the casualty. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has said the “majesty of law” has prevailed, but no-one is convinced that all the charges against Khera and the high police drama were a normal response of the law. The arrest will be seen as more evidence of highhandedness against critics and opponents in a highly polarised polity where conflict is taking the place of conversation.