Rahul Gandhi seems to find his mark with his criticisms of India’s ruling regime with an enviable frequency. Gauging from the irate responses of Bharatiya Janata Party leaders over Mr Gandhi’s criticism of the party’s style of functioning and its resultant impact on democratic practices in India while on a visit to the United Kingdom, it appears that the Congress leader has hit the bull’s-eye, once again. Without naming Mr Gandhi, the prime minister, Narendra Modi, has criticised the Opposition for defaming India’s democratic traditions. It is unlikely that Mr Modi or his peers would engage in a substantial debate on the points raised by Mr Gandhi. Their ploy, evidently, is to evoke a shrill, emotive response that would, apart from reiterating the BJP’s specious claims on nationalism, yield political dividends. It must be noted that the prime minister brought up the incident in poll-bound Karnataka where the BJP is expected to face a spirited challenge from the Congress. The spin is already yielding an additional benefit. Parliamentary proceedings were adjourned on Monday given the — orchestrated? — uproar over Mr Gandhi’s remarks, enabling the government to evade searching queries from the Opposition on Mr Modi’s alleged ties with Gautam Adani, among other contentious issues.

All this is, of course, par for the course in the rough and tumble of politics. What is unprecedented though is the vice-president of India, the occupants of one of the highest constitutional offices, chiming in with his views on the matter. Speaking at an Ayurveda Kumbh, Jagdeep Dhankhar had urged the people to raise their voices against leaders who, the BJP crows, have defamed the nation. Neutrality is the cornerstone of any constitutional office. The holders of these high chairs are bound by the Constitution to remain non-partisan voices of propriety. Of course, Mr Dhankhar has had a rather chequered record when it comes to discharging his constitutional obligations: his stint as governor of Bengal will be remembered for his energetic attempts to intervene — was there a nudge from the Centre? — in the functioning of the state government. The line between the government and constitutional offices is inviolable. It must hold. The strain on this sacred line of separation would only confirm Mr Gandhi’s charge of the weakening of Indian democracy. Surely Mr Dhankhar would not like to be checkmated on this score.