Rahul’s Patriarchy Politics: Hypocrisy at Top, Insensitivity at the Core
A commitment to women’s safety must be visible in institutional responses, not merely in public declarations.
NewsBharati 14-Oct-2026 13:26:06 PM
Total Views |
When gender equality becomes a political weapon against opponents but accountability becomes inconvenient within one’s own camp, the credibility of the slogan itself comes under scrutiny.
Rahul Gandhi has made “Smash the Patriarchy” a political slogan. But slogans acquire meaning not through repetition at rallies or amplification on social media, but through the conduct they demand of those who use them.
Two recent controversies have brought this question into sharp focus - the dismissal of Congress MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam from Jawaharlal Nehru University following an internal inquiry into sexual-harassment complaints by female students, and journalist Richa Parashar’s allegation that Rahul Gandhi grabbed and pulled her during an Opposition protest in Delhi.
Congress leaders Renuka Chowdhury and Alka Lamba challenged Parashar’s account. They questioned aspects of her identity, pregnancy, medical treatment and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The party’s position was that the allegation was politically motivated and that the available footage did not establish the claim against Rahul Gandhi.
The fundamental questions are - Why should a woman who makes an allegation against a powerful political leader become the target of personal insinuations before the facts have been independently established? Why should questions about her pregnancy, professional identity or medical treatment become instruments of political combat? If Congress believes the allegation is fabricated, it can challenge the evidence and present its own account. Defending oneself against an allegation is legitimate; discrediting the woman making it through insinuation is a serious matter.
The question is not whether Rahul Gandhi must automatically be presumed guilty. It is whether the party that claims to champion women’s dignity can defend its leader without diminishing the dignity of the woman who has accused him.
The controversy surrounding Angomcha Bimol Akoijam presents a different and institutionally more advanced case.
Akoijam, a Congress MP from Manipur and a professor at JNU, was dismissed by the university following an inquiry by its Internal Committee into sexual-harassment complaints made by female students. The university said the decision followed due process and consideration of the committee’s report. Delhi Police subsequently registered an FIR in connection with the allegations.
The university’s action following its internal inquiry makes the case more than a passing allegation on social media. It raises a straightforward question for the Congress leadership: what standard of accountability does it expect when serious allegations concern one of its own MPs?
The issue is not that a party must declare a member guilty before every legal proceeding is completed. Nor should an individual be denied a fair hearing because of political affiliation. The issue is whether Congress demonstrates the same urgency in addressing allegations within its own ranks that it displays when accusing its opponents of enabling patriarchy.
A commitment to women’s safety must be visible in institutional responses, not merely in public declarations. When female students complain against a professor, their concerns deserve a serious, impartial process. When the accused is a political representative, party affiliation should neither establish guilt nor provide insulation from scrutiny.
The women who made the complaints are entitled to have their allegations assessed on their merits. The accused is entitled to due process. Neither principle should be sacrificed to political convenience.
In the JNU case, the university’s dismissal order and the subsequent police action are documented developments. In the journalist’s case, the allegation against Rahul Gandhi remains contested, while Congress leaders’ public responses have themselves become a subject of controversy.
These cases should not be conflated. Their significance lies in the standard of conduct expected from political leaders and their organisations. A woman’s allegation should be examined fairly, irrespective of the identity or political affiliation of the accused. Equally, no allegation should be treated as proven merely because it fits a convenient political narrative.
If “Smash the Patriarchy” means anything, it must mean that power does not determine whose complaint deserves to be heard. It must mean that women are not expected to prove their worthiness before their concerns are taken seriously. And it must mean that a party’s commitment to gender justice survives the moment when that commitment becomes politically uncomfortable.
Rahul Gandhi is free to challenge patriarchy as a social and political structure. India continues to face genuine problems involving discrimination, violence, unequal opportunities and the treatment of women. These cannot be dismissed merely because a politician raises them. But neither can the language of social justice confer immunity from questions about personal conduct or a party’s response to allegations against its members.
The journalist’s allegation against Gandhi must be assessed on evidence, not political loyalty. The JNU case must be judged through the findings of the institutional inquiry, the applicable procedures and any subsequent legal proceedings. Congress leaders’ statements, meanwhile, can be assessed on their own merits: whether they address the substance of the allegations or resort to questioning the women involved.
That is where the slogan faces its real test. A leader who asks society to confront entrenched power relations must be prepared to face scrutiny when a woman alleges that he has mistreated her. A party that claims to defend women must demonstrate that commitment even when the accused belongs to its own political establishment.
“Smash the Patriarchy” cannot mean to smash the credibility of a woman who raises an inconvenient allegation. It cannot mean demanding accountability from opponents while treating scrutiny of one’s own camp as a conspiracy. And it cannot mean that a political slogan substitutes for consistent standards of conduct.
The test of gender justice is not how loudly a politician denounces patriarchy. It is whether the same principles of dignity, fairness and accountability apply when the political cost is personal. Rahul Gandhi and the Congress leadership must answer that question through their conduct, not merely through their slogans.
Two recent controversies have brought this question into sharp focus - the dismissal of Congress MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam from Jawaharlal Nehru University following an internal inquiry into sexual-harassment complaints by female students, and journalist Richa Parashar’s allegation that Rahul Gandhi grabbed and pulled her during an Opposition protest in Delhi.
The two cases are different in their circumstances and evidentiary status. But together, they raise an uncomfortable question for the Congress leadership - is its commitment to women’s dignity a consistent principle, or does it become a convenient instrument of political combat? On October 12, during the INDIA bloc’s protest in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, journalist Richa Parashar alleged that Rahul Gandhi grabbed her hand and pulled her, after which security personnel pushed her amid the ensuing commotion. She said she was three months pregnant and later spoke to the media from the hospital. Congress denied her account, while party leaders questioned the circumstances and credibility of her allegation. Congress response in this connection matters too.
The fundamental questions are - Why should a woman who makes an allegation against a powerful political leader become the target of personal insinuations before the facts have been independently established? Why should questions about her pregnancy, professional identity or medical treatment become instruments of political combat? If Congress believes the allegation is fabricated, it can challenge the evidence and present its own account. Defending oneself against an allegation is legitimate; discrediting the woman making it through insinuation is a serious matter.
The question is not whether Rahul Gandhi must automatically be presumed guilty. It is whether the party that claims to champion women’s dignity can defend its leader without diminishing the dignity of the woman who has accused him.
The controversy surrounding Angomcha Bimol Akoijam presents a different and institutionally more advanced case.
Akoijam, a Congress MP from Manipur and a professor at JNU, was dismissed by the university following an inquiry by its Internal Committee into sexual-harassment complaints made by female students. The university said the decision followed due process and consideration of the committee’s report. Delhi Police subsequently registered an FIR in connection with the allegations.
The university’s action following its internal inquiry makes the case more than a passing allegation on social media. It raises a straightforward question for the Congress leadership: what standard of accountability does it expect when serious allegations concern one of its own MPs?
The issue is not that a party must declare a member guilty before every legal proceeding is completed. Nor should an individual be denied a fair hearing because of political affiliation. The issue is whether Congress demonstrates the same urgency in addressing allegations within its own ranks that it displays when accusing its opponents of enabling patriarchy.
A commitment to women’s safety must be visible in institutional responses, not merely in public declarations. When female students complain against a professor, their concerns deserve a serious, impartial process. When the accused is a political representative, party affiliation should neither establish guilt nor provide insulation from scrutiny.
The women who made the complaints are entitled to have their allegations assessed on their merits. The accused is entitled to due process. Neither principle should be sacrificed to political convenience.
The deeper problem is the apparent selectivity with which gender justice is invoked in political discourse. When allegations concern an opponent, the language can become uncompromising. When allegations concern someone within one’s own political circle, the response often shifts towards denial, procedural objections, political conspiracy and demands for greater scrutiny of the accuser. That pattern is not unique to Congress, but Congress cannot claim exemption from examining its own conduct.
These cases should not be conflated. Their significance lies in the standard of conduct expected from political leaders and their organisations. A woman’s allegation should be examined fairly, irrespective of the identity or political affiliation of the accused. Equally, no allegation should be treated as proven merely because it fits a convenient political narrative.
If “Smash the Patriarchy” means anything, it must mean that power does not determine whose complaint deserves to be heard. It must mean that women are not expected to prove their worthiness before their concerns are taken seriously. And it must mean that a party’s commitment to gender justice survives the moment when that commitment becomes politically uncomfortable.
Rahul Gandhi is free to challenge patriarchy as a social and political structure. India continues to face genuine problems involving discrimination, violence, unequal opportunities and the treatment of women. These cannot be dismissed merely because a politician raises them. But neither can the language of social justice confer immunity from questions about personal conduct or a party’s response to allegations against its members.
The journalist’s allegation against Gandhi must be assessed on evidence, not political loyalty. The JNU case must be judged through the findings of the institutional inquiry, the applicable procedures and any subsequent legal proceedings. Congress leaders’ statements, meanwhile, can be assessed on their own merits: whether they address the substance of the allegations or resort to questioning the women involved.
That is where the slogan faces its real test. A leader who asks society to confront entrenched power relations must be prepared to face scrutiny when a woman alleges that he has mistreated her. A party that claims to defend women must demonstrate that commitment even when the accused belongs to its own political establishment.
“Smash the Patriarchy” cannot mean to smash the credibility of a woman who raises an inconvenient allegation. It cannot mean demanding accountability from opponents while treating scrutiny of one’s own camp as a conspiracy. And it cannot mean that a political slogan substitutes for consistent standards of conduct.
The test of gender justice is not how loudly a politician denounces patriarchy. It is whether the same principles of dignity, fairness and accountability apply when the political cost is personal. Rahul Gandhi and the Congress leadership must answer that question through their conduct, not merely through their slogans.
Editor's Desk
Editor's Desk