In the bustling political atmosphere of Patna, Bihar, the stage was set for what appeared to be a routine commemorative event. It was the 139th birth anniversary celebration of a historical figure, a standard venue for political posturing and regional campaigning. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge took the floor, engaging with the audience in the customary style of a senior party leader. But one phrase lingered in the air, changing the tenor of the entire gathering. Kharge made a remark that was quickly transcribed and translated as: “Modi ka baap bhi jayega,” which roughly translates to “Even Modi’s father will go.”
For a political observer new to the intricacies of Indian party dynamics, this sentence might seem like a minor slip or a hyperbolic joke. In the context of the election season, however, it landed with the force of a bomb. The comment targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but it specifically invoked his father, a move that critics argued crossed from political attack into personal abuse. The incident, dated October 25, 2026, became the flashpoint for a broader accusation that the Congress party was no longer competing on policy, but on provocation.
The response from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was not measured; it was immediate and severe. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, a key architect of the current government’s security and internal affairs, stepped forward to define the moment. He did not just call the remark “indecency”; he framed the entire opposition structure as fundamentally broken. In a sharp departure from traditional electoral discourse, Shah labeled the Congress as a “mafia gang.”
Amit Shah linked the remark to the Congress’s repeated electoral defeats, alleging that the party had been left without policies or issues to raise.
This metaphorical choice was significant. By comparing a major national political party to a criminal syndicate, the BJP sought to delegitimize Congress’s role in the democratic process. The argument was that a “mafia” operates through force and fear, not through governance or policy. Shah argued that Kharge’s language was “crossing the limits of decency,” a phrase that echoed through the party’s communications. The central tenet of this counter-narrative was that the Congress had “steadily losing its base even among its own workers,” suggesting that the party’s internal cohesion was fracturing under the weight of its own aggressive rhetoric.
That one guy after saying 'Modi Kahi Nahi Jayega' on the face of the Congress President.😎 https://t.co/UpumYWxfCv
Why did the BJP pivot so hard from Kharge’s specific words to a blanket indictment of the party’s integrity? The explanation lay in the alleged vacuum of policy. Amit Shah linked the remark to the Congress’s repeated electoral defeats, alleging that the party had been left without policies or issues to raise. In the eyes of the BJP leadership, the “abusive language” against Prime Minister Modi and his family was not a tactical choice, but a symptom of a party that had run out of substantive arguments.
This framing placed the burden of the conflict not on the specific incident in Patna, but on the historical trajectory of the Congress. The narrative suggested that as the Congress accumulated defeats, it resorted to increasingly extreme rhetoric to stay relevant. The “baap” remark was thus not just a bad joke; it was presented as the culmination of a long decline into disrespect. The BJP argued that by attacking the Prime Minister’s father, the Congress had abandoned the decorum of democratic politics and entered the realm of the “indecency” that Shah so frequently cited.
The reaction was not isolated to Amit Shah. The BJP leadership unified around a position of “the strongest possible condemnation.” J.P. Nadda, a prominent figure in the party, voiced this sentiment clearly, asserting that such conduct was unacceptable in a democratic society. The consistent use of the word “condemnation” across various BJP voices signaled that this was a party-wide directive, not just the opinion of one minister.
For a newcomer to Indian politics, the scale of this response might seem disproportionate to a single quote. However, the underlying dynamic is the tension between the ruling party, which controls the narrative of “decency” and “governance,” and the opposition, which is increasingly confined to the role of the critic. The BJP’s supportive stance toward its own leaders in this context reinforces a narrative that they are the guardians of national decorum, while the Congress is the disruptor.
The BJP has announced a nationwide protest on Monday against Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge's "indecent and offensive" remarks targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Kharge sparked a controversy on Sunday with his "Modi ka baap bhi jayega" remark in response to an audience member's comment that "the prime minister would not go anywhere", during an event in Delhi marking the birth anniversary of Bihar's first chief minister, Shrikrishna Singh. "In protest against the insulting, indecent, and offensive remarks made by the Congress national president in Patna regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi's late father, the BJP will stage strong demonstrations tomorrow (Monday) across all state headquarters in the country," the BJP said in a statement. #BJP #MallikarjunKharge #NarendraModi #Congress #PoliticalNews
As the dust settles on the October 25 incident, the political landscape remains tense. The Congress party, under the leadership of Rahul Gandhi, faces a dual challenge: managing the fallout from Kharge’s remark and addressing the accusation that it lacks a coherent policy agenda. The “mafia” label is a powerful branding tool for the BJP, one that suggests the opposition is no longer a viable partner in democracy, but an obstacle to national progress.
For the voter, this incident highlights a maturing, and perhaps hardening, political discourse. The lines are drawn not just between left and right, but between what the ruling party defines as “indecency” and legitimate political opposition. The phrase “Modi’s father will go” has become more than a quote; it has become a marker of the current political temperature, indicating a contest where personal attacks are no longer just disagreements, but existential threats to the democratic order, at least according to the side in power. The debate continues, but the vocabulary has shifted, and the stakes feel higher than ever.