Modi's Election Speeches are 'Immoral, Unethical, Unacceptable', He Owes Indian Muslims Apology

Summary

In a recent interview on The Wire, Mr. N. Ram, the former editor-in-chief of The Hindu, discusses the implications of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's speeches during the election campaign. Ram asserts that Modi's remarks, particularly those made in Rajasthan, which targeted Indian Muslims, were not only in violation of the Model Code of Conduct and Section 123 of the Representation of People Act but also morally and ethically wrong. He emphasizes that political morality, or constitutional morality, should be a priority and that Modi's statements are unacceptable. Ram also addresses the Election Commission's lack of response to multiple complaints regarding Modi's speeches, suggesting a loss of independence and a failure to uphold the principles of democracy. He calls for the Prime Minister to apologize to Indian Muslims and for the Election Commission to take appropriate action, viewing the current situation as a low point for India's democracy.

Takeaways

• 📜 The Rajasthan speech by the Prime Minister of India is described as immoral, unethical, and unacceptable by Mr. Ram, a highly regarded former editor-in-chief of The Hindu newspaper.
• 🗣️ Mr. Ram suggests that Prime Minister Modi should apologize to Indian Muslims for his remarks, which were perceived as divisive and against constitutional morality.
• 🚫 The speech is believed to violate the model code of conduct and Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, which prohibit the promotion of enmity and hatred between citizens.
• 📉 Mr. Ram criticizes the Election Commission for their silence and inaction following complaints about the Prime Minister's speeches, which he sees as a sign of a compromised and non-independent body.
• 🤥 It is asserted that Prime Minister Modi's claim about the Congress Manifesto was a lie, and such disinformation is strategic despite being easily fact-checkable.
• 🈲 Under Section 124 of the Representation of People's Act, deliberate dissemination of false information that impacts elections is considered a corrupt practice.
• 📉 The Prime Minister's alleged nervousness and desperation are inferred from his divisive rhetoric and untruthful statements regarding the opposition's manifesto.
• 📉 Mr. Ram connects the Prime Minister's actions to a broader pattern of communal hate and appeals to religious sentiments, which are seen as breaches of both law and political morality.
• 😶 The Election Commission's lack of response to multiple complaints against the Prime Minister's speeches is viewed as a significant concern and a sign of a failure to uphold democratic principles.
• 🏛️ There is a call for a campaign to change the current state of the Election Commission and to hold it accountable to the principles of independence and impartiality.
• 🌐 The discrepancy between the Hindi and English versions of the Prime Minister's speech on the PMO website is seen as an attempt to target different constituencies with varying messages.

Q & A

What was the main concern raised by the speaker regarding Prime Minister Modi's Rajasthan speech?

The main concern was that Prime Minister Modi's speech was deemed immoral, unethical, and unacceptable as it was believed to have breached the model code of conduct and section 123 of the Representation of People Act, which prohibit the promotion of enmity and hatred between citizens.

According to the speaker, what should be the Prime Minister's course of action after delivering the Rajasthan speech?

The speaker suggests that the Prime Minister should apologize for his remarks, acknowledging that they were inappropriate and recognizing the public discourse around them.

What does the speaker believe the Election Commission's silence on the matter indicates?

The speaker believes the Election Commission's silence is eloquent and indicative of its lack of independence, suggesting a failure to act in accordance with its constitutional duties.

How does the speaker view the Prime Minister's claim about the Congress Manifesto in Aligarh?

The speaker views the Prime Minister's claim as a lie, stating that it is completely false and falls under the category of disinformation.

What is the speaker's opinion on the Election Commission's role in the current political scenario?

The speaker is critical of the Election Commission, stating that it has failed to act independently and has not taken prompt action on complaints against the Prime Minister's speeches.

What does the speaker suggest is the appropriate punishment for the Prime Minister's actions?

The speaker suggests that the Prime Minister should be barred from campaigning for an extended period, possibly for the remainder of the election phases, due to the severity of his breaches.

Why does the speaker believe the Election Commission's response to the Prime Minister's speeches is a test of its credibility?

The speaker believes that the Election Commission's response is a test of its credibility because it has a constitutional duty to ensure fair elections, and its failure to act promptly and independently in this case raises questions about its commitment to that duty.

What is the speaker's view on the Election Commission's lack of action in previous instances?

The speaker expresses disappointment and a lack of confidence in the Election Commission's past actions, citing instances where it failed to penalize politicians for hate speech or false information.

What does the speaker imply about the different versions of the Prime Minister's speech on the PMO website?

The speaker implies that the omission of offensive content in the English version of the Prime Minister's speech on the PMO website suggests a strategic attempt to target different constituencies with different messages.

How does the speaker describe the current state of India's democracy in light of the discussed events?

The speaker describes the current state as a low point for India's democracy, indicating a significant concern over the erosion of constitutional morality and the rise of authoritarianism.

What is the speaker's call to action for the viewers regarding the program's editorial independence?

The speaker calls on viewers to support the program to ensure it remains bold, independent, and defiant, suggesting that viewer support is crucial for maintaining editorial independence.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ PM Modi's Rajasthan Speech: Unethical and Unconstitutional

The first paragraph discusses the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi's speech in Rajasthan, which was criticized as being immoral, unethical, and against constitutional morality. The speaker argues that the Prime Minister's remarks were unacceptable and that an apology to Indian Muslims is warranted. The discussion also touches on the Election Commission's lack of response to the speech, which is seen as a violation of the model code of conduct and section 123 of the Representation of People Act, both of which prohibit the promotion of enmity and hatred between citizens.

05:03

📜 Misrepresentation of Congress Manifesto: A Desperate Move?

The second paragraph focuses on the Prime Minister's alleged misrepresentation of the Congress Manifesto, accusing Modi of lying about its contents. The conversation suggests that Modi's actions were unwise and possibly indicative of nervousness or desperation. The discussion also addresses the legal implications of Modi's statements, including potential breaches of section 124 of the Representation of People's Act, which deals with deliberate false information that can impact elections.

10:05

🚨 Election Commission's Inaction: A Reflection of Desperation?

In the third paragraph, the discussion shifts to the Election Commission's lack of action following complaints about the Prime Minister's speeches. The speaker expresses concern over the Election Commission's silence and suggests that the commission's inaction is a sign of desperation. The conversation also highlights other instances where the Election Commission has taken action against politicians for hate speech, contrasting with the current situation.

15:06

🤔 The Election Commission's Credibility on the Line

The fourth paragraph delves into the Election Commission's credibility, questioning its independence and its failure to act promptly in response to the Prime Minister's speeches. The speaker calls for political pressure and public awareness to potentially influence the Election Commission's actions. The discussion also touches on the potential consequences if the Election Commission fails to act, including the need for a campaign to change the commission's approach and uphold constitutional morality.

20:08

📉 Democracy's Low Point: The Need for Exemplary Punishment

The fifth paragraph discusses the implications of the Prime Minister's actions on India's democracy, marking it as a low point. The speaker suggests that the Prime Minister's position demands a higher standard of conduct and that any punishment should be exemplary. The conversation also addresses the potential for the Election Commission to impose a ban on the Prime Minister's further campaigning and the importance of this as a test of the commission's credibility.

25:08

🔍 The PMO's Omission: A Strategic Message Control?

In the sixth and final paragraph, the focus is on the discrepancy between the English and Hindi versions of the Prime Minister's speech on the PMO website. The speaker interprets this as a strategic move to convey different messages to different constituencies. The discussion also returns to the idea of an apology from the Prime Minister to Indian Muslims, emphasizing the importance of a genuine and heartfelt apology as a step towards rectifying the situation.

Keywords

💡Immoral

The term 'immoral' refers to actions or behaviors that are considered to be wrong from a moral standpoint, often in violation of societal norms or ethical principles. In the video, the term is used to describe the Prime Minister of India's speech, which is criticized for being unethical and against constitutional morality. It is a central theme as the discussion revolves around the inappropriateness and potential consequences of the speech.

💡Unethical

Ethics are moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity. 'Unethical' describes actions that go against these principles. The video script discusses the Prime Minister's speech as unethical, indicating that it breaches expected standards of right and wrong, particularly concerning the treatment of Indian Muslims.

💡Constitutional Morality

Constitutional morality refers to the ethical principles that are derived from or are in accordance with the constitution of a country. It is mentioned in the script to emphasize the severity of the Prime Minister's speech, which is seen as violating the core values and principles enshrined in India's constitution, especially concerning secularism and equality before the law.

💡Apology

An 'apology' is a formal expression of regret or acknowledgement of error or failure. The video suggests that the Prime Minister should offer an apology to Indian Muslims for his speech, which is seen as offensive and harmful. The discussion of an apology is tied to the broader theme of accountability and the need for leaders to take responsibility for their actions.

💡Election Commission

The 'Election Commission' is an autonomous constitutional authority responsible for administering election processes in a country. In the context of the video, the Election Commission of India is criticized for its lack of response to alleged violations of the election code by the Prime Minister, which raises concerns about its independence and effectiveness in upholding electoral integrity.

💡Model Code of Conduct

The 'Model Code of Conduct' is a set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission to ensure free and fair elections. It is mentioned in the script as being potentially violated by the Prime Minister's speech, which is claimed to have aggravated existing differences and created mutual hatred between communities, thus breaching the code's principles.

💡Hate Speech

Hate speech is any speech, conduct, writing, or expression that offends, threatens, or insults individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or disability. The video discusses the Prime Minister's alleged use of hate speech, which is a significant concern as it can lead to social unrest and is prohibited under various legal frameworks.

💡Disinformation

Disinformation refers to the deliberate spreading of false information to deceive and mislead audiences, often with malicious intent. The script accuses the Prime Minister of disinformation for falsely claiming the contents of the Congress Manifesto, which is seen as an attempt to manipulate public opinion and is a key issue in the discussion around truthfulness in political discourse.

💡Secular Democracy

A 'secular democracy' is a form of government where the state maintains strict neutrality regarding religion, treating all citizens equally regardless of their religious beliefs. The video emphasizes the importance of secular democracy in the context of India, where the Prime Minister's speech is seen as a breach of this principle, potentially undermining the country's democratic fabric.

💡Representation of People Act

The 'Representation of People Act' is an Act of the Parliament of India that regulates elections to the parliament and state legislatures in India. The video script cites this Act, particularly Section 123 and Section 124, to argue that the Prime Minister's speech and alleged false statements could be considered corrupt practices under the law, which, if proven, could have serious legal implications.

💡Political Strategy

A 'political strategy' refers to a plan of action designed to achieve specific political goals, often involving tactics to win elections or influence public policy. The video suggests that the Prime Minister's divisive speech and alleged lies may be part of a political strategy, reflecting on the ethical considerations and potential desperation in the approach taken by political leaders to secure votes.

Highlights

The Rajasthan speech by the Prime Minister of India was deemed immoral, unethical, and unacceptable by the interviewee.

The Prime Minister's speech was considered to breach the model code of conduct and Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, which prohibit the promotion of enmity and hatred between citizens.

A suggestion that Prime Minister Modi should apologize for his remarks, not as a forced act but as a genuine acknowledgment of the mistake.

The Election Commission's silence on the matter has been described as eloquent, shocking, and indicative of a lack of independence.

The Prime Minister's alleged misrepresentation of the Congress Manifesto is labeled as a lie, and a breach of Section 124 of the Representation of People's Act.

The interviewee expresses a lack of confidence in the Election Commission to act appropriately on the complaints filed against the Prime Minister's speeches.

The Prime Minister's strategy of dividing Hindus and Muslims and lying about the Congress Manifesto is seen as a sign of nervousness and desperation.

The interviewee calls for a campaign against the perceived packing of the Election Commission and a push for it to fall in line with constitutional expectations.

The situation is described as a low point for India's democracy, with the potential for a serious campaign to address the issues raised.

The discrepancy between the Hindi and English versions of the Prime Minister's speech on the PMO website is highlighted, with the English version omitting controversial statements.

The interview concludes with a strong call for the Prime Minister to apologize to Indian Muslims for his remarks.

The interviewee emphasizes the importance of constitutional morality and its role in guiding political behavior, especially from the Prime Minister.

The discussion points to a Supreme Court judgment that provides a broad interpretation of Section 123, which could encompass the Prime Minister's speech.

The Election Commission's past actions against politicians for hate speech are contrasted with its current inaction, raising questions about its credibility and independence.

The interviewee suggests that the Election Commission has the power to impose severe penalties, including banning the Prime Minister from further campaigning.

The potential ramifications of the Election Commission failing to act are explored, including the need for political and moral pressure to ensure justice.

Transcripts

you're saying to me Mr R and forgive my

Interruption yes you're saying to me

that the Rajasthan speech by the prime

minister of India was immoral it was

improper absolutely

absolutely so the word it was immoral is

correct the word that is immoral

unethical and against

all everything that constitutional

morality means I think that's that's

absolutely it's unacceptable

okay immoral unethical

unacceptable would it not be honest and

proper for the prime minister to

actually say I'm sorry I made a mistake

I apologize yes that would be the right

thing to do not not a forc apology but

an apology on your own seeing what what

is being discussed out there and I think

uh that would be the that would help yes

so the Prime Minister owes Indian

Muslims an apology yes absolutely many

apologies the silence is eloquent this

is it just speaks to it's being a surval

Election Commission it's got worse and

worse over three

elections in this situation the silent

is shocking it's uh and we can't find

the word strong enough to deplore and

condemn

[Music]

[Music]

hello and welcome to a special interview

for the wire how should we view prime

minister Narendra modi's election

speeches and what should we make of the

fact that even after three days the

election Commissioners had absolutely

nothing to say about them those are the

two key issues I shall raise today with

the do of Indian journalism the

well-known and highly regarded former

editorinchief of the Hindu newspaper n

Ram Mr Ram in the speech he delivered in

Rajasthan on Sunday speaking

specifically about Indian Muslims Prime

Minister Modi referred to them as those

who have more children and he called

them infiltrators in your eyes does this

breach the model code of conduct as well

as section 123 of the representation of

people act both of which prohibit the

promotion of enmity and hatred between

citizens yes

indubitably it it violates the modal

code of conduct

specifically uh Clauses one and three

under General conduct the first Clause

saying no party or candidate should

indulge in any activity which may

aggravate the existing differences or

create Mutual hatred or scause tension

between different casts and communities

religious or linguistic and then three

clause three says there shall be no

appeal to cast or communal feelings for

securing votes so clearly does that and

as for

section23 I think it's uh very clear and

current there is an important Judgment

of the Supreme Court in 2017 which

should be be brought to people's

attention abiram Singh versus CD

kachan where the where seven bench seven

judge bench of the Supreme Court of

India held by a four 4 to3 major 4 to3

majority that se section

123 three brackets three ought to be

interpreted and given meaning in a

purposive manner in a broad and

purposive manner in other words it's not

just the particular candidates religion

or the religion of the of the candidates

opponent

that would fall under this section but

any any any attempt to to appeal to this

and uh there's an important statement

here by then chief justice takur and I

quote an appeal in the name of religion

race cast Community or language is imp

permissible under the representation of

people act 1951 and would constitute a

corrupt practice sufficient to annal the

election in which such an appeal was

made regardless whether the appeal was

in the name of the candidates religion

or the religion or the election agent or

that of the opponent or that of the

voters so this I think uh gives us the

sense of the thinking of the Supreme

Court and this is the law of the land as

it as it exists tell me Mr Ram beyond

the laws beyond the rules that the

rajasthan's speech clearly breaches do

you also believe that in a 21st century

secular democracy it's immoral to speak

of fellow citizens in the way Narendra

Modi spoke of Indian Muslims so this is

not just a question of law it's also a

question of propriety and morality yes

absolutely I agree with that in fact

that's even more important than the law

Pol constit political morality what Dr

edar used to call constitutional

morality which I think is above

everything else and

if you if you use that the art stick

this is completely impermissible but

then this is not this cannot be seen in

an isolated way because there are number

of incidents the whole lead up to the

bjp's rise uh I I think has been built

on this platform communal hate appealing

to religion and that violates not just

the election laws not just the modal

code of conduct which really

has you know it's doubtful whether it

what you're saying to me Mr R and

forgive my Interruption yes you're

saying to me that the Rajasthan speech

by the prime minister of India was

immoral it was improper absolutely

absolutely so the word it was immoral is

correct the word that is immoral

unethical and against

all everything that constitutional

morality means I think that's that's

absolutely it's unacceptable

okay immoral unethical

unacceptable now 24 hours after the

Rajasthan speech in aligar Narendra Modi

said the Congress Manifesto states that

a congress government and now I'm

quoting will investigate who earns how

much owns how much wealth and how many

houses and the government will take

control of your property and distribute

it among everyone then he added they

also want to survey how much salaried

persons have invested in fixed deposits

how many vehicles they own how much land

they own they will conduct this survey

and seize your property the truth is

that the Congress Manifesto says

absolutely nothing of the sort so does

that mean that the Prime Minister when

he claimed that the manifesto was making

these charges was in fact

lying yes it is completely untrue

uh there is a famous phase used in the

House of Commons terminological inex

inexactitude the old days so it's

clearly false and it it falls under the

category of

disinformation terminological

inexactitude with a churchan euphemism

would you accept this was an outright

blatant lie yes it is

false a lie

would you use that word a lie yes I

would now the Congress Manifesto is a

written document available to anyone who

wants to see it so how wise or foolish

is it to lie about its contents when you

can be easily revealed to be lying so

was this a wise strategic move or was it

foolish and

silly yes I think it was very unwise

because you know people have called call

called him out on this fact checks have

been published but then they don't care

the whole point about disinformation is

you speak to a

section your bucks and they they're not

going to consult all this and even if

you publish or bring to their attention

on television or whatever or social

media or in print that this is

completely false uh they they're not

going to believe it that's that's that's

the premise on which thisinformation

operates and so on but yes it was unwise

for those who follow these things for

those who care about facts but for the

bucks one further Point Mr R not only is

this untrue and a lie but I believe and

I'm told that under Section 124 this

time of the representation of people's

act deliberate false information which

can have an impact on the elections is

also deemed to be a wrong corrupt

practice so once again Mr Modi in lying

and doing so deliberately is in breach

of section 124 of the representation of

people act yes I not looked at that but

from what you say this clearly the the

speech clearly falls under that uh under

that section and uh I hope the courts

will render Justice when this matter

goes before them now before I come to

the election commission what as a

leading journalist of this country is

your explanation for the prime

minister's speeches does this attempt to

divide between Hindus and Muslims this

attempt to deliberately lie about the

Congress Manifesto suggest a certain

nervousness in Mr modi's part does it

suggest a sort of creeping hint of

desperation yes it does because uh if

you ask the rational question why why is

he doing this did he need to do it if

he's so confident if they are so so

strong he says we must get 400 seats and

so on that's if that's the goal where is

the need to do it so it does raise that

question in any rational person's mind

and it does suggest that this is an act

of

desperation uh and so on yes it does and

it's not just once that he's done it he

did it in Rajasthan he did it in aligar

and today Wednesday I believe he's done

it again so clearly this is in his find

a deliberate strategy and you believe

that this deliberate strategy is a

reflection of actual nervousness it's

not confidence it's not just an attack

on Congress it's nervousness about his

own party's

prospects yes and in fact something

happened before all this at nvada and

biar on April 7th uh and he he spoke at

and then in ajir in Rajasthan on April 6

uh he he made SE several references

appeals to relig incitement of religious

sentiment against a political opponent

by saying certain parties particularly

the Congress and the

rjd were against the were opponents of

the ram temple they're being against

Lord Ram they're insulting Lord RAM and

so on and he clearly uh appeal to the

election I mean the religious symbol of

the consecration of the idol the idol of

ram laala in in aoda on January 22nd so

those also

fall foul of the model code of conduct

and possibly sec in fact certainly

sections of the Indian penal code in

particular 153a sub Clause A and B and

section 55 of the Indian Penal Code so

those also have to be brought in uh when

we talking about uh uh you know does it

reflect desperation uh why is he doing

it's not just desperation that is

reflected in what you just told me but

also further aggravating breaches of the

model code of conduct of the

representation of people act and as you

pointed out the Indian Penal Code as

well all three are breached here yes um

in fact

Karan okay we'll come to that if you

have questions let me put it like this

election commission's resp respon

yeah hi I'm Karen taper over the last

few years I hope you've been watching my

program the interview on The Wire during

that period I've interviewed doctors

politicians businessmen scientists

authors and even the occasional Noble

Laurette for me it's been exciting I

hope it's been enjoyable for you but

these as you know are tough times and if

this program is going to remain bold

independent and sometimes even defiant

then I think we need your support at the

end of the day it's a truism but

editorial Independence is best defended

by the viewers so if you would like this

program to remain the way it is

forthright outspoken and interesting

then would you consider supporting us

all you have to do is to click on the

description at the bottom but more than

anything else I hope you will continue

to watch the interview your viewership

means an awful lot to me

let's come to the election commission

directly multiple complaints have been

filed in front of the election

commission by sitaram Yuri of the CPM by

the congress party by jish choker by Mr

E Sarma just to name those four there

are probably many others I believe the

congress party itself has filed as many

has 17 complaints that is what I've read

in the

papers 3 days have passed since the

Rajasthan speech two days have passed

since the aligar speech but we haven't

had an official reaction from the

election commission how do you view

that

yeah the election commission has ceased

to be an independent body and this is in

direct violation of the order of the

Supreme Court earlier which uh made a

certain suggestion about the composition

of the selection selection committee if

you like the selection panel for

appointing election Commissioners uh and

the government has violated it

completely ceased to be an independent

body this this has been a process that's

been unfolding over time but then I want

to call attention I mean to bring uh

take us back to

2014 the election commission

banned Mr Amit sha and also aam Khan of

the

samajwadi party for inciting hatred for

hate hate speeches and the BJP sought a

review and so on finally Amit sha gave

an tendered an unconditional apology and

he was let off but from there this is

you know it's we we it has come to where

where we seen at least in 2014 there was

an attempt

to to to penalize reprimand and penalize

actually act against by Banning him from

attending rallies by the election

commission and

today it's some striking contrast can I

put this you it's been three full days

since the Rajasthan speech two full days

since the aligar speech is that not

sufficient time for the election

commission to at least issue a notice

yes it's not sufficient time for a

judgment and a ruling but they should at

least have expeditiously issued a notice

this is a matter of grave concern done

but in the middle of an election the

prime minister is campaigning every day

and aggravating the situation by

repeating what he said on earlier days

so surely in the three days the election

commission could have at least issued a

notice yes it it was bound to issue a

notice and the silence is eloquent this

is it just speaks to it's being a surval

Election Commission it's got worse and

worse over three elections and uh uh yes

it's you know it can't that it is

truthless and helpless under the law

it's got the powers the Supreme Court

has empowered it the Constitution

empowered it it is you know to conduct

it's in complete control of the conduct

of the election it can transfer

officials it can order it can issue

directives to them all government normal

government activity comes to a stop and

cannot move without the election

commission uh initiating this action so

I think in in this situ situation the

silent is shocking it's uh and we can't

find word strong enough to deplore and

condemn this uh this act let's let let's

hope let's let's see within the next two

or three days whe there it's going to be

different you know in

2019 that's exactly five years ago there

were multiple complaints that the Prime

Minister speeches at the time were

promoting enmity and hatred but the

election commission did absolutely

nothing and ultimately asoke lavasa

resigned and left the commission last

year during the kattic elections the

Prime Minister told voters to chant J

bajarangbali when they vote again the

election commission did absolutely

nothing and the matter was allowed to be

forgotten how confident are you that

this time around the election commission

will

act I am not confident at all that the

election commission will act but

the only way of making it act the only

chance we have of making it Act is to

pile up the pressure political pressure

and also take this to the people as part

of the election campaign if that happens

who knows but uh if they have uh hide as

thick as they have today then there's

little chance of their acting any better

than they've done so far you know on

earlier occasions and you referred to at

least one of the occasions a moment when

you were talking about Amit sha on

earlier occasions when the election

commission has deemed politicians to be

guilty of hate speech which breaches the

modal code of conduct or the

representation of people act they've

barred those politicians from

campaigning for a day for two sometimes

even for three would you say similar

action is needed in the prime minister's

case absolutely for a much longer

duration because he has the advantage of

be of being able to use uh the official

uh means of transport to go to any part

of India so I think uh you know there's

a certain uh lack of

equity between the way he campaigns and

the others do so I think even for a

longer duration yes so you're saying to

me that the correct fitting and suitable

punishment would be barring the Prime

Minister from campaigning for one two or

three days or maybe more yes because

there's no limit to what they can do

they can even impose an a total ban on

on further campaigning in the election

on anything that prospected tell me

something else I'm going to quote what

abishek singi said to the Press after

the Congress went public with their

complaint to the election commission he

said the higher the position a person

holds the greater is the obligation on

that person to exercise restraint and

there can be in India no higher

opposition than than the position of the

Prime Minister do we therefore need some

form of exemplary punishment because the

offender is the prime minister and not

an ordinary minister or an ordinary MP

or just an MLA because of the position

he holds should he be meed with

exemplary

punishment what kind of exemplary

punishment I leave that to you to tell

me I think it has to be within the

confines of the law and the Constitution

you know there's political punishment

there's Moral Moral censure let me put

it like this Mr RAM does it need to be

more severe punishment than would have

been given if the same comments had been

made by just an ordinary Minister yes

which is why I said they have the power

to ban the Prime Minister from F any

further campaigning in the seven phase

election one phase is gone so six

remaining phases that's the ultimate you

can do and you can work out the actual

they have that power I mean

and you're arguing that the punishment

because of the fact that the man is the

prime minister the most important

position in the country therefore the

punishment needs to be exemplary it

needs to be more than it would be if the

offender had been someone else yes that

that is

correct is this therefore a test of the

credibility of the election commission

yes to put it mildly yes because uh you

know the way the appointments have been

done in such a rush in violation of the

spirit of the Supreme Court's order the

whole thing in in blatant violation of

this of this ideal of Independence the

concept of independence of the election

commission on which the Supreme Court

has spoken so yeah but we can also raise

the question why didn't the Supreme

Court do something about it well let

that's a different issue let's not get

the reflected with that let me put this

to you instead if this is a test of the

credibility of the election commission

and your answer was yes to put it mildly

yes what happens if the election

commission fails the test because you

said to me a moment ago you're not at

all confident they will act properly so

what happens when they fail the

test I think you had to campaign against

uh such packing of the election

commission of India and also you know

they you know session whatever his

faults sometimes he overdid it transform

the character of the election commission

and subsequent election Commissioners

have Chief election Commissioners and

others have done exceedingly I mean many

of them have done very well because they

have asserted their independence now uh

it's gone back to the pre-session era so

I think there has to be a serious

campaign to change this to get these

Commissioners uh uh either fall in line

or I I don't know if they can be removed

they can't be

removed election Commissioners can be

removed more easily because they can be

removed under the recommendation of the

election commissioner but the chief

election commissioner can only be

removed

by yes so it's that won't happen but

unless the Supreme Court strikes down

the uh appointments themselves of the

election commissioner because that

matter is still before The Supreme Court

but let me ask you this is this

otherwise you have to do political

campaigning and raise moral issues of

the kind you said it it goes against

constitutional morality let me ask you

this Mr Ram is this a low point for

India's

democracy yes it is a it is it is a low

point but other there have been other

low points many awful things have

happened Hindu authoritarianism for one

has taken a heavy troll of Indian

democracy and this is widely

recognized by serious this is but this

is another low Point yes it is finally

the wire has revealed that the pmo

website does not carry the offensive

passages in the English version of the

Prime Minister speech although they are

there in the Hindi version they dropped

from the English version but they're

retained in the Hindi how do you

interpret

that yeah so you say different things to

different

constituencies the Hindi version is

presumably aimed at the Bucks and their

constituency and they want more of this

not less whereas the in the English

version aimed at you and me and many

others perhaps a minority of our

population certainly is is it has to be

a message has to be more sophisticated

but I also read that story saying the

videos are there quite right but is this

not in a sense

playing fast and loose with the full

truth the English version doesn't convey

the full truth of what the PM said yeah

it summarizes what he said apparently

and deletes what he said about Muslims

when he said they have more children

than us and again when he said they were

infiltrators that's

deleted yes but that will be no comfort

for them if it the matter a notice is

issued and the matter properly

investigated because it's there they is

there in the video and is it is it a is

it at all even the slightest smallest

hint of remorse and regret on the part

of the Prime Minister this is why it's

been dropped from the English

version remorse is too strong a word but

rethinking is possible perhaps okay you

say it in the spur of the moment and

then you you sort of rethink but remorse

is too strong a word given their

ideological if there is if there is a

rethink and this is not just a question

of you and me speculating about it if

there is a real genuine heartfelt

rethink would it not be honest and

proper for the prime minister to

actually say I'm sorry I made a mistake

I apologize yes that would be the right

thing to do not not a fced apology but

an apology on your own seeing what what

is being discussed out there and I think

uh that would be the that would help yes

so the the Prime Minister owes Indian

Muslims an apology yes absolutely many

apologies for for many of many strikes

against okay I'll end on that note I

just repeat it because I think it is so

important you said the prime minister's

speech is immoral unethical and

unacceptable the Prime Minister owes

Indian Muslims an apology in fact you

said he owes them many apologies Mr Ram

thank you very much for making time for

me take care and above all else stay

safe thank you Karan it's always a

pleasure talking to you and an

educational sir thank you hi I'm Karan

taer over the last few years I hope

you've been watching my program the

interview on The Wire during that period

I've interviewed doctors politicians

businessmen scientists authors and even

the occasional Noble Laurette for me

it's been exciting I hope it's been

enjoyable for you but these as you know

are tough times and if if this program

is going to remain bold independent and

sometimes even defiant then I think we

need your support at the end of the day

it's a truism but editorial Independence

is best defended by the viewers so if

you would like this program to remain

the way it is forthright outspoken and

interesting then would you consider

supporting us all you have to do is to

click on the description at the bottom

but more than anything else I hope you

will continue to watch the interview

your viewership means an awful lot to me