Reading time : 2 minutes
- Dr. Shujaat Ali Quadri
The resignation of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has sent shockwaves through the Indian political landscape, raising critical questions about internal rifts within the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the functioning of constitutional offices under the Modi regime, and the erosion of institutional autonomy in the world’s largest democracy. As the second-highest constitutional office in the country stands abruptly vacated, speculation has mounted over the motivations behind Dhankhar’s exit and more importantly, what it reveals about the current state of Indian politics.
A Vice President in Conflict?
Jagdeep Dhankhar, a former Governor of West Bengal and a seasoned lawyer, was elevated to the post of Vice President of India in August 2022. Known for his combative stance against the Trinamool Congress during his gubernatorial tenure, Dhankhar was seen as a staunch defender of the Modi government and a loyalist of the BJP. His elevation was interpreted as part of the BJP’s strategy to place politically aligned individuals in key constitutional positions. But Yesterday his sudden resignation hints at deeper tensions within the ruling establishment.
Reports suggest that Dhankhar had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the government’s interference in parliamentary processes, particularly the undermining of the Rajya Sabha’s independence. As Chairman of the Upper House, he was constitutionally tasked with maintaining decorum, neutrality, and procedural fairness a responsibility that had become increasingly difficult under a hyper-partisan environment fueled by the central government’s assertiveness.
Signs of Dissent: A Quiet Struggle?
Political insiders have long whispered about friction between Dhankhar and sections of the BJP’s top brass, particularly over parliamentary functioning. His attempts to allow greater opposition participation in the Rajya Sabha, refusal to block certain debates critical of the government, and mild rebukes to BJP MPs for procedural violations may have been viewed as signs of deviation from the party line.
For a government that has centralized authority and expects constitutional appointees to function in alignment with its interests, Dhankhar’s insistence on procedural integrity might have been seen as defiance. In this context, his resignation is being interpreted not as a personal decision, but as a political statement a rare act of protest in an era where silence is often rewarded and dissent punished.
Questioning the Prime Minister’s Style of Governance
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has often been accused of fostering a culture of authoritarian centralization. From the weakening of federalism and judicial independence to the reduction of parliamentary debates to formalities, critics argue that India’s democratic institutions have been systematically undermined.
The resignation of the Vice President raises troubling questions: Has the Prime Minister’s dominance reached a point where even constitutional functionaries feel suffocated? Is there no space left for autonomy, even within the highest offices of the land?
If Dhankhar once considered a Modi loyalist found it impossible to continue, what does that imply about the pressure constitutional officers are under to toe the line? Is the Rajya Sabha being reduced to a rubber stamp body where even the Chairman’s voice is silenced?
BJP’s Internal Cracks
While BJP officially remains tight-lipped, murmurs of growing dissatisfaction among senior leaders are becoming harder to ignore. The departure of Dhankhar may embolden others who are increasingly sidelined in a party where all decisions appear to flow from a tight inner circle. The party’s refusal to address the issue publicly also reflects a deep-seated insecurity an unwillingness to allow internal debate to be perceived as weakness.
Moreover, Dhankhar’s departure has potential consequences for BJP’s image among its traditional base: a group that values discipline, hierarchy, and loyalty. His resignation could be perceived as a symptom of instability within, or worse, of the leadership’s intolerance towards even constructive institutional resistance.
The Silence of the Prime Minister
What is equally troubling is the Prime Minister’s silence on the matter. In moments of national constitutional crisis, the leader of the country is expected to reassure the nation, clarify doubts, and uphold democratic accountability. The silence not only reflects a pattern of avoiding difficult questions but also underscores the opacity with which the government operates.
This silence also signals that the government views Dhankhar’s resignation as an act of disloyalty rather than an expression of constitutional conscience. The refusal to engage with the public on such a significant issue only deepens the perception that India’s democracy is veering towards personalization of power.
Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation is more than a personal or procedural matter it is a referendum on the political climate of contemporary India. It reflects the strains placed on constitutional office bearers to conform, and the diminishing space for independent thought even at the highest levels.
It is now up to the people, the media, and the remaining institutional frameworks to ask hard questions: What pushed the Vice President to resign? Is our democracy still capable of accommodating dissent, or has it become a system that punishes it? And most importantly, can India afford to let even its constitutional offices become casualties of political power plays?
In the annals of India’s constitutional history, this moment must be recorded not just as a resignation but as a warning.