Rahul Gandhi's Budget speech draws sharp criticism for being 'divisive', 'anarchic’

New Delhi, July 29 (IANS) Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi's speech during the Budget discussions in the Lok Sabha on Monday has drawn strong criticism from the BJP and social media users, with some labeling his remarks as 'divisive' and 'anarchic'.

BJP’s Mumbai Pradesh vice-president Hitesh Jain shared his reactions on X, stating, “Today, Rahul Gandhi's speech in Parliament was nothing short of a divisive, anarchic rant. His rhetoric was filled with cheap thrills aimed at burning down the country's unity. Mocking wealth creators and institutions shows his utter disregard for the nation's progress.”

He added, “Youth, middle class, and all the communities must unite and take action against his divisive agenda.”

Another netizen termed Rahul Gandhi’s speech “something that could divide the society on caste lines”.

A social media user even went so far as to claim that Rahul Gandhi is steering the country towards civil war, alleging that he has already identified his targets.

The BJP was particularly enraged by Rahul Gandhi's use of the metaphor of ‘Chakravyuh’ -- a complex military formation from the Mahabharata -- to criticise the government's policies.

Rahul Gandhi specifically identified three elements for his ‘Chakravyuh’ reference -- monopoly capital, government institutions, and political executive.

Reacting to this, BJP leader Jain said, “Speaking about Chakravyuh, India is breaking free from the Chakravyuh of incompetence, corruption, and divisive agendas created by Rahul Gandhi and his forefathers. His speech, devoid of facts and filled with abuse, belongs in the flames of irrelevance.”

“Rahul Gandhi’s speech today was a disgrace. His ramblings were merely an attempt to grab power and divide our great nation. Instead of presenting solutions, he chose to insult and mock, showing his true intentions,” he wrote on X.

He added, “Rahul Gandhi, a product of the very institutions he mocks, seeks only to divide the society for his own gain. His speech lacked credible data, hard facts, and honest intent. This is not statesmanship; it's a desperate bid for power at any cost.”