They are public servants or kings!

Public Darbar’ – a dangerous feudal echo that insults democracy, citizens & Indian constitution

Use of ‘Public Darbar’ by political leaders sparks outrage; term called an affront to democracy.

RC Sharma Chanakya

Jammu, Jun 10: In a disturbing trend that undermines the very essence of democratic governance, several political leaders and parties have been increasingly using the term “Public Darbar” to describe their interactions with citizens. What may seem like a harmless phrase is, in fact, a deeply problematic expression that echoes a feudal mindset and is a direct insult to the foundational values of the Indian Constitution.

Historically, darbars were grand assemblies held by kings, emperors, and authoritarian rulers who considered themselves above the constitution and common people. These gatherings were not institutions of accountability but displays of power, where subjects were granted access to their monarch as an act of mercy, not a democratic right. Referring to citizens’ grievances being addressed as a “Public Darbar” suggests a dangerous regression to that mindset — where leaders see themselves as rulers, not public servants.

In modern India, governed by the Constitution and the principles of democracy, there is no place for such terminology. Elected officials are public servants, entrusted with power by the people and for the people. Holding a darbar implies a top-down, patronizing attitude — one where the citizen must bow and plead, rather than assert their rights.

Several political observers and civil society voices have raised concerns over this rising trend, calling it a “severe insult to the democratic fabric” of the nation. “Using feudal language like ‘Public Darbar’ glorifies autocracy and diminishes the dignity of the common citizen and Indian constitution,” said a prominent constitutional expert. “It betrays a deep-rooted arrogance and a failure to understand the servant-leader model that democracy requires.”

The repeated use of such terminology by political parties is being seen not just as linguistic carelessness but as a reflection of their power intoxication and lack of respect for democratic norms. Critics argue that it’s high time political parties shed their arrogance of authority and recognize that in a democracy, no leader is above the people.

As India continues to march forward as the world’s largest democracy, such feudal relics of language and thought must be discarded. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the dignity of every citizen must remain non-negotiable — and that starts with the words we choose.

In a democracy, leaders are elected public servants, not monarchs. Their mandate is to serve the people, not rule over them. The Constitution of India — the supreme guiding document of the Republic — makes no provision for “public darbars.” It instead emphasizes participatory governance, equality, and accountability. The idea that a public representative can hold a “darbar” reeks of arrogance and ignorance, and must be condemned in the strongest terms.

Political leaders must be reminded that they are vote-seekers every five years, not kings or emperors. It is deeply troubling that some, once elected, begin to view themselves as above the public, using terms like “Public Darbar” to reinforce a hierarchical relationship. How can someone who begs for votes shamelessly claim to be holding a ‘darbar’ for the very people who gave him power?

This alarming terminology is not just an insult to the citizens of India, but a mockery of the Constitution. Language shapes perception, and by calling citizen interactions darbars, these leaders are pushing us backward — away from participative democracy and toward elitist feudalism.

It is time for such feudal terminology to be banned from political vocabulary. Political parties and leaders who continue to promote this democracy-insulting language must be held accountable and, if necessary, barred from public office. Let them remember: in a democracy, no one holds a darbar. The only rightful engagement is Jan Samvad — a dialogue among equals, not a performance of superiority.