Can leaders disown their adult children’s politics but not their privilege?
New Delhi: Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s defence of an ally’s daughter against online trolling on Sunday triggered a wider debate within the BJP’s own support base over where personal freedom. . .
New Delhi: Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s defence of an ally’s daughter against online trolling on Sunday triggered a wider debate within the BJP’s own support base over where personal freedom ends and political accountability begins. The controversy arose after Dibisa Mahanta, daughter of Assam minister and Asom Gana Parishad leader Keshab Mahanta, joined a student protest in Guwahati on July 23 over alleged irregularities in the NEET-UG examination. Videos showed her carrying placards and raising slogans during the Cockroach Janta Party-linked demonstration. One widely circulated clip appeared to show her using a vulgar slogan against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The protest itself was part of the nationwide agitation over paper leaks and examination failures. But the language used in the clip shifted the debate away from the students’ demands and towards the conduct of adult children belonging to political families. BJP supporters began questioning how the daughter of a minister in the ruling alliance could publicly abuse the Prime Minister while continuing to enjoy the social and institutional privileges associated with her family’s political position. Keshab Mahanta was also targeted, with users demanding that he condemn his daughter’s words or resign from the government. What Himanta saidSarma intervened on July 25 and asked people not to attack or troll Mahanta for the political views of his adult daughter. “I don’t think we should attack or troll Keshab Mahanta for the protest by his daughter. She may not follow her father’s political ideology,” he said. Sarma compared the situation with the possibility of his own son, as a lawyer, representing someone whom the chief minister might personally dislike. He nevertheless distanced himself from the slogan. “I do not agree with the slogans she raised. When I meet her next time, I will definitely talk to her about it and try to make her understand that what she said was not right,” Sarma said. The statement attempted to draw two separate lines: an adult cannot be treated as an extension of a parent, but personal freedom does not make every form of expression acceptable. That distinction was praised by some commentators as democratic and mature. It was also the point that angered many BJP supporters, who believed the response did not adequately address the abusive language. The discussion widened on July 26 after journalist Aditya Raj Kaul praised Sarma’s position and argued that the same principle should apply to other political families. Kaul referred to the daughter of Odisha BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi, who had posted material supporting the student protests. He argued that trolling parents for the political positions of adult children was meaningless and that differing views within one family were normal in a democracy. His description of her as a Cabinet minister’s daughter was inaccurate. Aparajita Sarangi is a Lok Sabha MP. More importantly, the Odisha case was not identical to the Assam controversy because the reported issue there involved support for the protests, not a comparable abusive slogan against Modi. BJP national spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla endorsed Kaul’s broader argument. He cited his own differences with his brother Tehseen Poonawalla, a critic of the BJP, and referred to several Indian political families whose members follow opposing parties or ideologies. Supporters of this position pointed to examples such as Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and her husband Parakala Prabhakar, a persistent critic of the Modi government, to argue that political disagreement within families is neither new nor improper. The principle itself received considerable support: adult children should be judged for their own actions, and parents should not automatically be held responsible for their politics. The sharp disagreement was over whether the controversy involved merely a different political opinion. Critics drew a line between dissent and abuseMany of the strongest replies to Kaul and Poonawalla came from users identifying themselves as BJP supporters or nationalists. Their argument was that opposing the government, supporting the protests or demanding a minister’s resignation was one issue. Using a filthy personal slur against the Prime Minister was another. Several users told Poonawalla that his brother might oppose the BJP but did not use similar language against Modi. The criticism was therefore not directed only at political difference. It was directed at what users considered the normalisation of abuse under the cover of individual freedom. For these users, Sarma’s defence of Keshab Mahanta was understandable, but his response to the slogan was too soft. They wanted an unequivocal public condemnation rather than a promise to counsel Dibisa privately. The distinction matters because the debate has often been described as one between democratic freedom and party discipline. The online reaction was more complicated. Many critics accepted that adult children could hold views different from their parents. They objected to placing ideological disagreement and vulgar abuse in the same category. Privilege became the second fault lineA second argument concerned political privilege. Several users said the adult children of ministers and MPs cannot claim complete separation from their families while benefiting from their name, access, security, influence and social status. Their position was that a person enjoying the advantages of a political household also carries some responsibility for how that position is used. Some demanded that Dibisa live independently before publicly attacking the leadership of the alliance in which her father serves as a minister. That argument, however, raises its own problem. An adult child does not become a party representative merely by belonging to a political family. Financial dependence or family privilege may invite public scrutiny, but it does not legally or politically erase individual freedom. The stronger accountability question would arise if family influence had protected a person from consequences applicable to others, or if government resources were used for private political activity. No such specific evidence has been cited in the material driving the present debate. Anger among grassroots workersThe controversy also exposed resentment among sections of the BJP’s grassroots support base. Several users argued that ordinary party workers are expected to defend the leadership, face hostile political environments and maintain organisational discipline, while the children of senior politicians can attack the same leadership without affecting their families’ positions. One reply suggested that the defence of political families indirectly treated party workers as fools. This anger was less about whether Dibisa had the right to join a protest and more about unequal consequences. Critics believed an ordinary BJP worker would face disciplinary action for association with similar conduct, while a minister’s family remained insulated. That perception may be more politically damaging than the original disagreement. Political parties routinely accommodate ideological differences within families. They face a harder problem when supporters believe rules of loyalty, restraint and accountability apply differently to leaders and workers. Debate over parenting and valuesA more emotional section of the response turned the incident into a judgment on parenting. Users argued that education begins at home and that political leaders who cannot transmit their values to their own children cannot credibly preach those values to the public. Some said the incident reflected a broader failure to pass cultural, nationalist or Hindutva beliefs to the next generation. Others used language far harsher than the conduct they were criticising, including personal attacks on Dibisa and her family. That reaction undercut the claim that the controversy was only about maintaining standards in public speech. Condemning an abusive slogan does not justify abusive attacks on the person who raised it or her parents. Sarma’s central point remains relevant here: Keshab Mahanta did not raise the slogan, and an adult daughter cannot be treated as evidence of her father’s personal beliefs. The Odisha comparison has limitsThe Odisha case further showed how separate incidents were merged into one political narrative. Archita Rahar, daughter of BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi, reportedly shared posts sympathetic to the student movement. Some users questioned the consistency of her political position, noting that she had earlier sought votes for her mother. But supporting a parent during an election and later disagreeing with the party on a public issue are not necessarily contradictory. Political support does not require permanent agreement on every policy. The Assam case involved an additional and more serious element: the vulgar slogan against the Prime Minister. Treating both incidents as identical weakened the argument for individual autonomy because it failed to recognise the difference between dissent and personal abuse.