Independent Morning Bureau. A political controversy has arisen due to the comments made in the latest editorial of 'Organizer', a mouthpiece associated with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), regarding the National Advisory Council (NAC) headed by former Congress President Sonia Gandhi. In the editorial, serious allegations have been made against the tenure of NAC and the political-social groups associated with it and the term 'mindless Naxal' has been used.
The editorial claimed that a coalition of Islamists, Maoists, missionaries, social workers, NGOs, some intellectuals, legal professionals, film industry and parts of the media is working behind the various farmers, students and other movements. The editorial has attempted to link the activities of these groups to the broader campaign against Hindutva.
After this comment, the debate regarding the political use of the word 'mindless Naxal' has intensified. After the use of this word by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his Independence Day speech, questions were also raised from the opposition as to for whom it is being used.
On the opposition's questions, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had clarified that the Prime Minister has not called the opposition leaders 'mindless Naxals'. Rijiju had given his interpretation of the term on social media platforms, saying that it includes those who support Maoists, do not believe in the Constitution, stand with separatists or support Article 370 and allegedly try to separate the Northeast from the country.
The comment made in the editorial of 'Organiser' regarding NAC has given a new political dimension to this debate. Now the question is arising that what is the political and ideological definition of the term 'mindful Naxal' and which ideas and groups are being kept within its scope.
NAC was formed during the tenure of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and Sonia Gandhi was its chairperson. Questions have been raised in the editorial regarding the role of NAC and the political implications associated with it. However, the reaction of the parties concerned on the allegations made in the editorial is yet to be seen.