In reaction to the newspaper’s March 25 headline editorial, “Disqualified,” M Rajivlochan wrote “An attack on politeness” (IE, March 30). After his defamation conviction in Surat, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was expelled from Parliament. The publication considers Rahul Gandhi’s hasty punishment another example of nasty politics.

The publication also considered this a terrible omen for democracy. Rajivlochan disagrees with the editorial and suggests renaming it “Deservedly Disqualified,” meaning Rahul Gandhi should have been held accountable for his disqualification, not the administration.

Rahul Gandhi's disqualification: Who's to blame for politics' civility decline? 2

M Rajivlochan warns that non-compliance with Rahul Gandhi’s court conviction will lead to a free-for-all where might is right.

The author’s surprise political, legal, and social assumptions contradict the editorial. I reject Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal’s policies as a citizen, based on the Constitution, and as a political worker, based on socialist doctrine.

Rajivlochan’s essay lumps Rahul Gandhi and Kejriwal together, which is pointless. I think the RSS/BJP, Congress, and most political groups in power share a semiological cosmos. Even when parties and leaders disagree, corporate-communal-criminal forces shape this cosmos.

In his post, Rajivlochan writes, “Arvind Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi were eager to make specific allegations that would truly torment the respect and dignity of other individuals on bogus grounds.” About Rahul Gandhi.

No other political leader in India does this

Rahul Gandhi's disqualification: Who's to blame for politics' civility decline? 3

It responded to an editorial about Rahul Gandhi’s conviction and disqualification. Rajivlochan appears to have added Arvind Kejriwal in the latter portion of his post to avoid making Rahul Gandhi, a “liar,” the primary target. The author adds, “No other political leader in India does this. At least I don’t know anyone else who insists that their claims against others are correct, even given they have no evidence.”

This assumes the remainder of the country’s politics and leaders are beyond reproach. This fantastic dish is for Indians depressed by the political slide!

The article also states that Indian politicians’ speeches often include allegations and counter-allegations. It’s well-received. In the age of “wild TV news channels,” this delight of the people peaks “even while everyone tut-tuts over the erosion in norms of public discourse.”

This indicates that Rahul Gandhi willfully degraded the honor and dignity of the people by taking advantage of this trend of charges and counter-allegations, and the court was justified to penalize him. His dismissal from Parliament is justified. It’s the RSS/Rahul BJP’s Gandhi line.

Rajivlochan, like many others, seems to think Narendra Modi is the Messiah. The author accepts Modi’s criticism of others. Has the author not heard Narendra Modi’s chief ministerial and prime ministerial speeches? Without opening his claims regarding dead and alive people or communities, just two facts will suffice.

Nothing of note has happened in the past 65 years.

One, asserting “nothing occurred in the previous 65 years” repeatedly undermines independent India’s achievements. Those who built the nation with integrity and honesty have also been harmed. Two, declaring “until today it was considered a dishonor to be born in India” while abroad insults the motherland’s honor.

Rahul Gandhi's disqualification: Who's to blame for politics' civility decline? 4

When Modi became Prime Minister, the propaganda that “the country has genuinely won freedom now” has persisted, insulting the millions of Indians who fought for independence.

The author’s trust in the country’s “strange” legal system is good. He thinks ignoring the court weakens justice, which keeps society civil. The author cautions that non-compliance with the court’s order would lead to a free-for-all where might is right. Does the author not realize that a “free-for-all” has destroyed civility? Is he unaware of how society loses civility?

Unfortunately, even historians and political scientists often fail to grasp complex realities. TV outlets are not the only ones that hype news 24/7, diminishing political debate. Scholars are also failing. Rajivlochan’s paper illustrates a similar issue.