BJP Defends Youth Wing Chief Amid Controversial Remarks

Shillong, India Jul 23, 2026 ALN: Even as public anger continues to swell over the alleged social media remarks of BJP Yuva Morcha president Mewaker Lyngdoh Pakma calling for protesters in New Delhi to be shot, the saffron party has gone all out to virtually defend its youth wing chief.

The controversy erupted after a post reportedly shared from Pakma’s official Facebook and Instagram handles carried the words “Shoot them! Tear gas are not enough!” along with the hashtag #UAPA_Sedition, in apparent reference to student protesters at Jantar Mantar. The remarks triggered widespread condemnation across the state, highlighting the sensitive nature of political discourse in India, particularly regarding the rights of citizens to protest and express dissent.

In India, the right to peaceful assembly and protest is enshrined in the Constitution under Article 19, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. However, the invocation of violence against protesters, as suggested in Pakma's alleged remarks, raises serious concerns about the limits of political rhetoric and the responsibilities of public figures. The backlash against his comments underscores a growing apprehension about the state of democratic values in the country, particularly in light of increasing instances of police brutality and governmental overreach in recent years.

Instead of distancing itself firmly from the controversial remarks, the BJP has chosen to stand by its leader. Party spokesperson Arnab Das claimed the youth wing president’s account was hacked and misused, adding that the “hackers were kind enough” to delete the post once it drew public criticism. Das stated that the party does not endorse any of the statements circulating on social media and that Pakma has “categorically denied” making them. This defense reflects a broader strategy employed by political parties to mitigate backlash from their members' controversial statements, often opting to attribute such statements to external interference rather than addressing the underlying issues.

“We have sought clarification from our Yuva Morcha President and he has categorically denied making any such statements,” Das said, while cautioning that any claim based on social media “will need to be verified” as accounts have been hacked in the past. This assertion raises questions about the credibility of social media as a platform for public discourse and the challenges political parties face in managing their online presence and the narratives that emerge from it.

The defense has done little to calm the storm. Political opponents and civil society groups have accused the BJP of shielding its youth wing president rather than holding him accountable. The controversy has ignited a broader discussion about the responsibility of political leaders to maintain decorum in their public statements, especially in a diverse and pluralistic society like India, where differing opinions often lead to heated debates and, at times, violence.

State Working President of the National People’s Youth Front (NPYF), Bajop Pyngrope, strongly denounced the remarks, calling them “uncalled for in a democracy.” He said the statement had not only dented the image of the BJP but also of the state. This sentiment is echoed by many who believe that such incendiary rhetoric can lead to real-world consequences, including increased tensions between law enforcement and citizens, particularly among marginalized communities who often feel disproportionately targeted during protests.

The Education Cell of the Hynniewtrep Youths’ Council (HYC) was equally scathing. In a press release, it described the alleged post as a “dangerous incitement to violence” and a direct assault on constitutional principles. The organisation said advocating bullets over dialogue reflected authoritarianism and warned that no political leader has the moral or constitutional authority to encourage violence against citizens exercising their fundamental rights under Article 19. This highlights a critical concern regarding the erosion of democratic norms and the potential for language to incite violence, which can have far-reaching implications for social cohesion and public safety.

The Voice of the People Party (VPP) Youth Wing and the HSPDP Youth Wing also joined the chorus of condemnation. Both outfits demanded that the BJP clarify whether the views expressed were personal or reflected the party’s official stand. The VPP Youth Wing called the remarks an endorsement of violence against unarmed protesters and rejected what it termed the “politics of police brutality, bullets and bloodshed.” The HSPDP Youth Wing said such statements posed a serious threat to the constitutional fabric of the country and urged leaders to promote peace rather than conflict. This collective outcry from various political factions underscores the importance of maintaining a united front against violence and upholding democratic values in times of political strife.

Adding to the pressure, the UDP State Youth Wing on Wednesday strongly condemned the remarks, describing them as irresponsible and unbecoming of a public leader. Chief organiser Augester Jyrwa said the organisation was deeply disturbed by the post. “Public representatives must exercise restraint and responsibility in both their words and actions. Statements that appear to advocate or justify violence against citizens exercising their democratic rights are unacceptable and contrary to the values of responsible leadership and the rule of law,” he said. This statement reflects a growing demand among citizens for accountability and ethical conduct from their elected representatives, particularly in a climate where political polarization is rampant.

Jyrwa called upon Pakma to immediately withdraw the statement and issue an unconditional public apology. He also urged political leaders and authorities to uphold the dignity of public office and ensure that democratic rights are protected through peace and constructive dialogue. This call for accountability is part of a larger movement advocating for transparency and ethical governance in India, where public trust in political institutions has been waning.

At the same time, he condemned the alleged brutal attack by police on a student during the protest, asserting that the right to peaceful protest and freedom of expression are fundamental pillars of democracy. This incident highlights the ongoing tensions between law enforcement and civil society, particularly in the context of student protests, which have historically played a significant role in shaping political discourse in India.

While defending its leader, the BJP also sought to shift focus. It claimed it respects the fundamental rights of students protesting at Jantar Mantar but accused other parties of trying to “hijack” the agitation for political gains. The party condemned violence against police personnel and criticized the Congress for allegedly attempting to enter the Prime Minister’s official residence. It further pointed to the central government’s action on the NEET paper leak, stating that 13 arrests have been made and sweeping reforms are underway. This attempt to redirect the narrative reflects a common tactic in political discourse, where parties seek to deflect criticism by highlighting their own achievements or framing the opposition as politically motivated.

Yet the core issue remains unresolved. By insisting the account was hacked while simultaneously protecting its youth wing president from stronger internal action, the BJP has left itself open to the charge that it is virtually defending the indefensible — even as the backlash from political opponents and student bodies shows no sign of abating. The situation serves as a reminder of the delicate balance political parties must maintain between supporting their members and addressing public concerns, particularly when the statements made can have significant implications for public safety and the health of democratic institutions.