Congress has accused the Bharatiya Janata Party of political hypocrisy, alleging that the ruling party applies double standards when it comes to democratic protest and public accountability.In a sharply framed statement issued on Sunday, senior Congress figures said it was “deeply ironic” that the BJP, which organised high-profile demonstrations during national events such as the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi, now questions the legitimacy and timing of opposition-led protests. The party argued that peaceful dissent is a constitutional right and cannot be selectively endorsed or condemned depending on who is in power.
The exchange comes amid heightened political friction over public demonstrations targeting the Union government’s handling of governance issues ranging from economic management to allegations of administrative lapses in several states. While the BJP has maintained that protests should not disrupt official events or undermine national prestige, Congress leaders contend that the same standard was not applied when the BJP mobilised supporters against the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance more than a decade ago.
During the run-up to the 2010 Commonwealth Games, the BJP, then in opposition at the Centre, staged protests over alleged corruption, cost overruns and organisational failures. Several of its senior leaders demanded accountability from the Congress government, describing the controversy as symptomatic of systemic weaknesses. Congress now says that history demonstrates the legitimacy of raising concerns through public mobilisation, even when major international events are under way.
Congress spokespersons argued that the BJP’s criticism of opposition protests reflects what they termed a “convenient reinterpretation” of democratic norms. They pointed to instances where BJP leaders have defended the right to protest in other contexts, including farmers’ agitations and state-level demonstrations, while taking a different tone when faced with criticism of the present administration.
The BJP has rejected the accusation of inconsistency. Party officials say their objection is not to dissent itself but to what they describe as attempts to politicise sensitive moments or create instability. They argue that national and international engagements require a measure of unity and that opposition parties should exercise restraint when events have broader diplomatic or economic implications.
Political analysts note that disputes over protest tactics are a recurring feature of India’s electoral politics. Since 2014, when the BJP secured a majority in the Lok Sabha under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, opposition parties have often relied on public mobilisation and parliamentary disruption to press their case. The BJP, for its part, frequently highlights its electoral mandate and argues that street protests should not override institutional processes.
Scholars of constitutional law emphasise that the right to assemble peacefully is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order and sovereignty. Courts have, over the years, sought to balance that right with concerns about disruption and security. In several judgments, the Supreme Court has underlined that protest is a fundamental democratic expression but cannot infringe upon the rights of others or paralyse civic life indefinitely.
Congress leaders have sought to frame the present controversy as part of a broader debate about institutional accountability. They argue that public protest remains one of the few avenues available when parliamentary debate is limited or when investigative agencies are perceived to act selectively. The party has also invoked its own history in the freedom movement, positioning dissent as integral to India’s political tradition.
The BJP counters that Congress is attempting to deflect from its own governance record in states where it holds power. Party representatives say that law and order is a state subject and that opposition-ruled administrations must also ensure that demonstrations do not escalate into disorder. They further contend that equating protests during the Commonwealth Games with current political campaigns overlooks differences in context and scale.