The controversy over Congress leader Sonia Gandhi&rsquo;s remark referring to President Droupadi Murmu as a &ldquo;poor thing&rdquo; underscores how language in Indian politics is not just a means of communication but a potent weapon. The phrase, uttered offhand while commenting on the President&rsquo;s apparent fatigue after delivering a lengthy speech, quickly snowballed into a full-blown political clash. The BJP immediately condemned the statement as elitist and disrespectful, accusing the Congress of demeaning the first tribal woman to hold the nation&rsquo;s highest constitutional office. The Congress, in turn, dismissed the outrage as manufactured, arguing that the remark was neither intended as an insult nor meant to undermine the dignity of the President.
This episode is not an isolated one. In Indian politics, casual remarks&mdash;sometimes made in the heat of the moment&mdash;are frequently seized upon, distorted, and repurposed to fit broader ideological battles. Whether it is a slip of the tongue or a pointed jibe, political rhetoric is meticulously scrutinized, with every word carrying the potential to shape public perception.
Power of Words in Indian Politics
Language has long been a key battleground in Indian political discourse. Politicians on both sides of the spectrum have used rhetoric strategically, either to galvanize support or to discredit opponents. Even innocuous phrases can be transformed into defining moments that fuel narratives for weeks, if not years.
Take, for instance, Sonia Gandhi&rsquo;s &ldquo;Maut ka Saudagar&rdquo; (merchant of death) remark during the 2007 Gujarat Assembly elections. Intended as a sharp critique of then-Chief Minister Narendra Modi&rsquo;s handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots, the phrase was turned against the Congress. The BJP effectively used it to project Modi as a victim of elite disdain and consolidate electoral support. Similarly, Rahul Gandhi&rsquo;s recent remark about the opposition &ldquo;fighting not just the BJP and RSS but the Indian state&rdquo; led to an immediate backlash, with the ruling party accusing him of being anti-national and undermining democracy.
Selective&nbsp;Outrage?
The politics of language thrives on selective outrage. While parties are quick to condemn statements from their opponents, they often remain silent&mdash;or even defend&mdash;controversial remarks made by their own members. This was evident in 2022, when BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma&rsquo;s comments on Prophet Muhammad during a televized debate triggered a massive domestic and international backlash. The BJP distanced itself from the remarks and suspended Sharma, but the controversy had already sparked diplomatic tensions and protests.
The Congress has also faced criticism for its past remarks on President Murmu. In 2022, Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury referred to her as &ldquo;Rashtrapatni,&rdquo; a term widely condemned as disrespectful. The party later apologized, but the damage was done. Similarly, West Bengal minister Akhil Giri drew sharp criticism for making derogatory comments about the President&rsquo;s appearance, once again highlighting how language is weaponized in political battles.
The outrage over language is often deeply intertwined with identity politics. In the case of President Murmu, the repeated controversies surrounding remarks about her are not just about the dignity of the office she holds but also about her identity as a tribal woman. The BJP has consistently portrayed attacks on her as insults to the entire tribal community, using such controversies to bolster its outreach among marginalized groups.
At the same time, the Congress and other opposition parties argue that the BJP selectively amplifies certain remarks while ignoring similar instances from within its own ranks. They point to past incidents where BJP leaders have used divisive rhetoric, often without facing the same level of scrutiny. For instance, in 2013, Narendra Modi, then Gujarat Chief Minister, remarked that the Congress would not even allow people to celebrate Diwali if it could. The Congress accused him of communalizing the festival, but the remark was absorbed into the BJP&rsquo;s larger narrative of Hindu victimhood.
In an era of 24/7 news cycles and social media amplification, the political stakes of language have never been higher. A single phrase can be dissected, analyzed, and turned into days of headline news. Television debates, WhatsApp forwards, and Twitter trends ensure that political controversies over language remain in public consciousness far longer than they otherwise would.
This hyper-focus on rhetoric often comes at the cost of substantive discussions. Instead of debating policy decisions, governance issues, or economic challenges, political discourse gets reduced to linguistic skirmishes. The outrage over Sonia Gandhi&rsquo;s &ldquo;poor thing&rdquo; remark has overshadowed the actual content of President Murmu&rsquo;s address, just as past linguistic controversies have often drowned out more pressing national debates.
The politics of language in India reflects not just the deep polarization in the country&rsquo;s political landscape but also the strategic manoeuvring of parties to shape narratives. Every word spoken by a political leader is a potential trigger, capable of sparking controversy, mobilizing support, or reinforcing pre-existing biases. As political battles intensify in the lead-up to elections, such controversies will likely become even more frequent, with both sides ready to weaponize language to serve their interests. In this climate, the challenge for the electorate remains the same: to look beyond rhetoric and focus on the issues that truly matter.

President Droupadi Murmu (Left) and Congress Leader Sonia Gandhi

'Poor thing' row is a reminder that casual remarks can metamorphose into political weapons

The Politics of Language

'Poor thing' row is a reminder that casual remarks can metamorphose into political weapons

January 31, 2025 | 17:26 IST