Indian Army chief Bipin Rawat slams anti-CAA protests and those leaders who are supporting them. The opposition are saying that, ‘he should not involve in politics’.


  • The army have nothing to do with politics.
  • They should not involve in commenting about politics.

Sensational video:

As we are witnesssing in large number of univerities and colleges, students the way they are leading masses and crowds to carry out arson and violence in citites and towns.

Leaders are not those who lead people in inappropriate direction. This is not leadership.

~ Indian Army chief Bipin Rawat

Indian army has nothing to do with politics?

The partition of India and Pakistan was set forth in the Indian Independence Act 1947 and resulted in the dissolution of the British Raj or Crown rule in India. The two self-governing countries of India and Pakistan legally came into existence at midnight on 14–15 August 1947.

According to INC leaders, under the Army Act, 1950 of the Constitution of India Section 21. Communications to the Press, Lectures, etc. No person subject to the Act shall –

(i) publish in any form whatever or communicate directly or indirectly to the Press any matter in relation to a political question or on a service subject or containing any service information, or publish or cause to be published any book or letter or article or other document on such question or matter or containing such information without the prior sanction of the Central Government, or any officer specified by the Central Government in this behalf; or

(ii) deliver a lecture or wireless address, on a matter relating to a political question or on a service subject or containing any information or views on any service subject without the prior sanction of the Central Government or any officer specified by the Central Government in this behalf.

Now, this article seems like the Army chief should not comment on politics. But article 19 says about freedom of speech and expression.

Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution says that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expressionFreedom of Speech and expression means the right to express one’s own convictions and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode.

Since these two constitutions are contradicting each other, there were not any clear rules made for the Indian army. Indian army chief or anyone can comment on their views until a clear constitution is built.

They should not involve in commenting about politics?

  • It was the congress leaders who were in power when the dispute of dividing India-Pakistan was discussed (BJP was not even founded at that time) . If they had a clear and firm resolution about border and ideology, right now neither of India or Pakistan army soldiers have to die defending against each other.
  • If a normal citizen of India can call ‘Make in India’ as ‘Rape in India’ and get away with it, the Indian army chief doesn’t have the same freedom of speech?


  • The army chief has the right to express his views under Article 19(1).
  • Congress leaders who failed to resolve the dispute possess no right to talk about the Army chief speech.


The army chief was right. Those who mislead people are not fit to be the leader.