Paromita Das
New Delhi, 28th July: In Bharat’s flamboyant political theatre, the most shattering statements often come not in the cacophony of debates but in the pregnant pauses that follow. The resignation of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has created precisely that kind of unsettling silence—one that grows more deafening with each evasive explanation and conspicuous omission from official quarters. Labelled a “health‑related departure,” it defies logic when compared with the hours preceding his exit.
Until just before stepping down, Dhankhar was fully immersed in high‑level parliamentary activity as Rajya Sabha Chairman. He chaired two meetings of the Business Advisory Committee and even scheduled a third over lunch for the following day. That hardly resembles the demeanor of someone preparing to exit public life on medical grounds.
The Cancellation That Raised Eyebrows
What followed was no less puzzling. A second BAC meeting was abruptly cancelled—not because of a medical emergency but reportedly due to the absence of senior ministers, who couldn’t even be bothered to inform the Chairman. This act of discourtesy suggested not simple scheduling failure, but deeper friction. The nature of that friction remains murky, but its implications are glaring.
Then came the understated farewell: an impersonal, almost forgotten tweet from the Prime Minister, issued nearly thirteen hours after the resignation. Its tone was polite but perfunctory—wishing Dhankhar “good health,” with no tribute to his institutional role, no expression of gratitude for his service. A subtle rupture had been signalled—unmistakable in its coolness.
Institutional Clashes in the Upper House
Of course, tensions may have been brewing elsewhere. During recent Rajya Sabha proceedings on impeachment motions against two sitting judges, Dhankhar upheld the procedural validity of the Opposition’s notice, even urging the Law Minister for updates. In an environment where controlling the narrative is considered essential, this could have been viewed as a challenge to the executive’s preferred discretion over constitutional process.
At a public event shortly before his departure, Dhankhar delivered another striking moment. He criticised Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan—present on the same stage—for insufficient attention to farmers’ issues. His emotional remarks drew on personal legacy—his father was a farmer—offering a raw authenticity that may well have unsettled powerful listeners.
A Man of Principle in an Era of Caution
The possibility that Dhankhar’s institutional integrity and outspoken style clashed with prevailing political expectations cannot be discounted. His willingness to speak plainly—even within his own ranks—set him apart in an age when discretion often trumps dissent. In many ways, his commitment to protocol and balance became a point of contention rather than commendation.
Ironically, it is the Opposition—previously his staunchest critics—who have now lined up to praise him. Some had moved impeachment motions against him in his capacities as Governor and Vice President. Yet post-resignation, these same leaders extol his service, his adherence to constitutional norms, and his refusal to let executive overreach go unchallenged. That such gestures are emerging from across the aisle only highlights the awkwardness his exit has triggered within the ruling establishment.
What This Rift Reveals
This is more than a resignation—it is a rupture. Dhankhar’s departure exposes how narrow the space for independent institutional conduct has become in Bharat’s power structures. It raises troubling questions about the leeway afforded to constitutional office‑bearers to act on principle, especially when institutional norms conflict with political narratives.
His silence now stands in stark contrast to the eloquence of his independence. In leaving without ceremony or fanfare, Dhankhar has delivered a potent critique through absence. And for the political leadership that expected drama, he offered none—only a silent exit that echoes with disquiet.
Unexpected Allies: The Opposition Praises
It is telling that the applause for Dhankhar now comes from across party lines. Opposition leaders have described him as a “guardian of constitutional sanctity” and someone who gave due respect to parliamentary processes. That these accolades originate outside his own party not only casts the ruling establishment in a poor light but also underscores Dhankhar’s paradoxical legacy: criticized within, celebrated beyond.
That dynamic is emblematic of the broader political irony: one who was once castigated for partisanship is now lauded for impartiality—simply by refusing to compromise on duty.
The Message in His Silence
Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation is not simply a farewell—it is a loudly ringing alarm. In choosing to step down quietly, he has pointed out what louder protest could not: that institutional integrity in Bharat may now come at the cost of personal isolation. His exit underscores the shrinking room for dissent within constitutional offices and the silencing effect of political discomfort.
In the end, the void of ceremony and speech surrounding his departure may be his most compelling statement. He leaves behind a question far louder than any resignation address: in today’s Bharat, can constitutional roles still function independently when political inconvenience is silenced rather than addressed?
