Lawyer Objects to PM's 'Mental Naxal' Remark, Asks for Criteria

Prominent Lawyer Raises Objections to PM's 'Mental Naxal' Remark

A distinguished lawyer has lodged a strong objection to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's use of the term 'mental naxal' during his Independence Day address on August 15, 2026, delivered from the Red Fort.

Dr. Muralidhar Singh Shastri, a senior advocate at the Lucknow bench and one of the founding members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has deemed the Prime Minister's statement 'inconsistent and ridiculous.' He questioned the rationale behind using such terminology and demanded clarity on the criteria that would define someone as a 'mental naxal.'

Speech Content Over Duration

Comparing Prime Minister Modi's 2026 Independence Day speech with the previous year's (2025), Dr. Shastri noted that the 2026 address was approximately 75 minutes long, about 28 minutes shorter than the 2025 speech of nearly 103 minutes. However, he emphasized that the content and vocabulary used were far more significant than the speech's duration.

According to Dr. Shastri, speeches delivered from the Red Fort are not merely political statements but convey a broader message about the nation's direction, government policies, national priorities, and future plans. Therefore, he argued, the speech should prioritize themes that clarify the country's economic, social, and national trajectory.

Debate and 'Mental Naxalism' Questioned

Dr. Shastri highlighted the role of psychological processes and thought formation in societal progress, stating that societies advance through the clash of ideas and deliberation. He raised concerns that if expressing views, asking questions, or holding a different perspective on an issue falls under the umbrella of 'mental naxalism,' then a significant portion of society could be categorized as such.

He pointed to the increasing use of digital media, with millions of people using mobile phones and the internet daily to encounter diverse ideas. Consequently, he stressed the necessity of clarifying the concept of labeling any ideology or mindset as 'mental naxal.'

Who Decides 'Mental Naxal' Status?

Dr. Shastri also noted that the BJP itself is an ideological organization with a tradition of internal debate. He asserted that in any democratic society, holding differing views, disagreeing with them, and questioning policies are integral parts of the democratic process. Therefore, he stressed the need for extreme caution in the selection of words.

Objection as a Citizen, Not Personal Malice

Dr. Shastri reiterated that his objection is not driven by personal or political animosity. As a founding member of the BJP, he stated that his objection is not against any party but as a citizen and an advocate.

Given the stature of the Prime Minister's office and the significance of the Independence Day occasion, he believes that both the language and content of the speech warrant serious deliberation. He suggested avoiding the use of words that can be interpreted in multiple ways or could create confusion or disagreement among various sections of society.

He declared that he does not accept the term 'mental naxal' and appealed to others to seriously consider this issue instead of making unnecessary comments or escalating controversy. He posed the question of what the criteria would be for identifying individuals as 'mental naxals' if a large number of people could be labeled as such based on a particular mindset. He emphasized that disagreement must have a place in a democracy, and equating differences of opinion with anti-nationalism or extremist ideology is inappropriate.

Focus on National Development and Future Plans

Concluding his statement, Dr. Shastri stated that the Prime Minister's Independence Day address should aim to guide the nation and strengthen the national spirit among citizens. This occasion, he said, should present a comprehensive picture of the government's achievements, upcoming plans, economic development, national unity, and India's future.

He urged the Prime Minister and his speechwriting team to reconsider this terminology, linking it to the dignity of the national occasion and emphasizing that word choice should be made with due consideration for its broad social impact. He concluded his message with "Jai Hind, Jai Bharat. Jai Advocate Samaj."