Delegitimising Dissent: From “Dimaagi Naxal” to the “Andha Dimaagi” Citizen

Just a day after the Prime Minister’s Independence Day address, the phrase “Dimaagi Naxal” is already generating debate—and for good reason. In yesterday’s speech, Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned of ‘dimaagi naxals’ (intellectual Naxals) and called for them to be identified and isolated, referring to those opposed to his dominant narratives. Over the years, the political vocabulary surrounding dissent has accumulated terms such as ‘Urban Naxals’, ‘Andolan Jeevi’, ‘Tukde-Tukde Gang’, ‘Toolkit Gang’, ‘Anti-National’, ‘Khan Market Gang’, ‘Lutyens Gang’, ‘Presstitutes’, ‘Sickulars’, ‘Libtards’, and ‘foreign-funded’. These labels are used by the BJP and its supporters to delegitimize critics, intellectuals, journalists, and ideological opponents. The common strategy is to question the patriotism or intentions of those who dissent rather than engaging with their arguments. This matters because democracy thrives on citizens capable of questioning their government, not those who uncritically accept narratives. Asking questions like ‘Where is the evidence? Who is accountable? Why did this happen? Who benefits? What is the cost?’ is not anti-nationalism—it is democratic citizenship. The danger arises when disagreement is framed as disloyalty, criticism as conspiracy, and dissent as extremism. When citizens fear questioning might label them politically, they may stop asking altogether, making democracy quieter without being healthier. The issue is not whether the government should be criticized—it is whether criticism itself should be treated as suspect. A confident government should withstand questions, and a confident democracy should welcome them. The article then shifts to historical revisionism, critiquing recent changes to NCERT textbooks. The revised Class 7 Social Science textbook for 2025–26 removed references to the Mughals and Delhi Sultanate while expanding material on ancient Indian dynasties. The Class 8 textbook’s controversy over Mughal rulers and emphasis on religious intolerance highlights how history is being selectively reconstructed to reinforce a preferred political narrative. The concern is whether children are taught to investigate history or given a predetermined interpretation. The article contrasts ‘Dimaagi Naxal’ (someone who questions too much) with ‘Andha Dimaagi’ (someone who blindly accepts narratives). The latter is described as a citizen who outsources critical thinking to political propaganda, believing uncritically, repeating slogans, and accepting myths without evidence. This approach is far more dangerous to democracy than questioning too much. The core message is that India needs citizens who think independently, question authority, and demand accountability—not those who surrender their minds to propaganda. Dissent is not disloyalty; questioning is not anti-nationalism. A democracy’s strength lies in citizens who can hold different views without fear. The phrase ‘Dimaagi Naxal’ thus raises a fundamental question: What kind of citizenry does India want to create—one that thinks critically or one that unquestioningly obeys?