We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
My objection, however, is not to ideology itself. No political philosophy, be it left, centre, or right, is inherently malign. What matters is the calibre and integrity of those who profess it. On that count, contemporary Indian politics offers little reassurance. The traditional left is electorally irrelevant, while the broader left-of-centre space is burdened by a legacy of dubious stewardship: from the corruption-tainted tenure of Lalu Prasad Yadav to the dynastic and often troubling political ecosystems associated with Mulayam Singh Yadav, the governance controversies under Mayawati, and the criminal-political nexus epitomised by the late Atiq Ahmed.
Compounding this malaise is the persistent inability of Rahul Gandhi to articulate a compelling or credible alternative. His reliance on alliances with politically compromised actors (like some of the names mentioned above), coupled with the insistence on branding the coalition as “INDIA”, and the not so subtle coercion of public discourse to adopt this nomenclature, betrays a disquieting disconnect from political reality. It reflects not strategic acumen, but a reliance on symbolism in place of substance.
The difficulty with figures such as Kamra is more fundamental. There is a discernible asymmetry in his critique: while his satire relentlessly targets Narendra Modi, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), it remains conspicuously silent on the failings of the political actors he implicitly supports. This selective scrutiny lends the impression not of independent satire but of advocacy guided by a predetermined brief. Whether motivated by ideological alignment or patronage, the effect is the same: a narrative that champions one side while shielding it from equivalent examination.
And yet, even with this awareness, one cannot entirely dismiss his effectiveness. As a communicator, he possesses a remarkable ability to captivate and mobilize his audience. In that sense, he resembles a modern-day pied piper, leading his listeners with wit and conviction, even if the destination remains open to question. In a country like India, where the legal and political consequences of outspoken dissent can be significant, it is difficult to imagine anyone operating at this scale without substantial financial backing and the assurance of robust legal cover.
If he had the backing you claim he has, would he have ran?
All this falls apart if you look at numbers, look at the electoral bond disclosures. The congress is nowhere near to the lvl of money BJP has.
The BJP owns Hindi and English Legacy media, there's literally not a channel right now that will not toe the line. Yet whatever little dissent exists we are saying it's asymmetric?
That's literally obvious, why would Kamra talk about Rahul Gandhi? Is he in power since 10+ years?
What about the supreme leader? The state has to be questioned, regardless of who runs it.
By logic if i criticise the state, i must also criticise the opposition? But why? Are they same in terms of the executive power they yield?
You want opposition to be criticised, watch North Korean style TV on our very own Republic TV.
The BJP has the country in a chokehold and all TV channels criticise are the opposition! The prime minister of the country has done 2 press conferences across 3 tenures in power. Yet we still Rahul Gandhi to be criticised.
Literally yesterday the PM did a national address where he mentioned the Congress 59 times. He talks about a Prime Minister who died in 1965 and why hia failings are why the supreme leader is helpless. But sure Kunal Kamra is the problem lmao suree buddy
Wake up and smell the sauce.