CJP slams PM Modi for reviving ‘Dimagi Naxal’ remark at SRCC: ‘Give hope, not stupid labels’ | India News - Hindustan Times

**Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address at the centenary celebrations of Shri Ram College of Commerce (SRCC) on Saturday reignited a controversy that began more than a decade ago.** While lauding the college’s legacy, Modi repeated the phrase “half water‑half air,” a line first uttered in a 2010 national launch speech and widely mocked for its vagueness. He also peppered his remarks with colloquial Gen‑Z slang—calling the youth “OG” and “dhurandhar” and referring to a political opponent as “naaraaz fufa” (angry uncle). Most strikingly, he revived the contentious label “dimagi Naxal” to describe dissenters, a term that has previously drawn sharp criticism for its inflammatory overtones.

The chief justice of India, Justice **Dhananjaya Y. Kulkarni**, issued a rare public rebuke, stating that the prime minister’s rhetoric “offers labels, not hope.” In a statement released after the event, the CJP warned that such language could erode the democratic fabric by delegitimising legitimate dissent and urged political leaders to “talk in a manner that inspires confidence rather than sowing division.” The criticism was echoed by opposition leaders, notably Congress chief Sonia Gandhi’s ally, Mallikarjun Kharge, who accused Modi of resorting to “stupid labels” and highlighted the “Naraz Fufa” jibe as evidence of a growing penchant for personal attacks over policy debate.

Analysts say the episode underscores a broader shift in Indian political communication, where senior leaders increasingly adopt youth‑centric vernacular to appear relatable while simultaneously employing charged terminology to marginalise opponents. While Modi’s supporters argue that such slang bridges the generation gap, detractors contend that the blend of buzzwords and pejoratives risks normalising hostility in public discourse. The controversy is likely to fuel further dialogue on the limits of political speech, especially when it intersects with the judiciary’s call for responsible rhetoric.