Dimagi Naxal: A New Phrase Coined By The PM For The Educated

“I think, therefore I am,” declared René Descartes, the 17th-century French philosopher. Had he been born in India today, he might have reconsidered. Thinking, after all, appears to be acquiring the status of a suspicious activity. Anyone found carrying a dimag (brain) may soon have to explain themselves. Following the recent Gen Z agitation in Delhi and elsewhere, one might have expected Prime Minister Narendra Modi to respond with at least a measure of modesty. Far from it. From the ramparts of the Red Fort, he introduced a new category of national menace: the “Dimagi Naxal”, or intellectual Naxal. These are people with a “Maoist mindset” who have supposedly “carved out a place in the corridors of power”, advising government committees and influencing policies. Who exactly are they? The Prime Minister did not say nor did he offer evidence. That is the convenience of the expression, vague enough to apply to almost anyone, particularly educated citizens, intellectuals, and politicians who dare to question the government.

For perhaps the first time in Independence Day history, the government had to ask a cabinet minister to clarify the Prime Minister’s remark. His explanation proved scarcely less confusing than the original. Modi has been remarkably inventive in manufacturing political labels: “Andolan Jeevi”, “Vikas Virodhi”, “ration jeevi”, the “Khan Market Gang”, and before that, “Urban Naxal” and the “tukde-tukde gang”. The latest addition is merely the newest entry in a growing dictionary of dismissal. What makes “dimagi Naxal” particularly unfortunate is not just its imprecision but the occasion of its unveiling. The Red Fort on Independence Day belongs to the nation, not to partisan vocabulary. A Prime Minister’s address should enlarge democratic imagination, not shrink it by boxing inconvenient citizens into ideological caricatures.

There is a method to this vocabulary. Once a critic is labelled “sickular”, “libtard”, “presstitute”, “Urban Naxal”, or “tukde-tukde”, the argument itself becomes irrelevant. Why answer a point when you can rename the person making it? This is the political equivalent of changing the subject in an examination hall. Only someone who thinks and uses their brain can question a government. Modi appears far more comfortable with listeners of his Mann Ki Baat than with those who insist on voicing their jan ki baat. The Prime Minister may not want to listen, but democracy requires someone to speak. And if thinking itself becomes evidence of Naxalism, Descartes would have reached only one conclusion in India: “I think, therefore I am… in trouble.” Meanwhile, the Home Minister has demonstrated his own flair for colourful nomenclature—ghuspaithiyon and “termites” among his memorable descriptors. Between the two, the government seems to have perfected one doctrine: when you cannot defeat an argument, defeat its author with a label.