What Example Are Our Leaders Setting When Private Relationships Enter Public Ceremonies?

An Independence Day ceremony is not a film premiere, a birthday celebration or a private family gathering. It is a State function. The venue belongs symbolically to the people. The hospitality is State hospitality. The seating arrangements carry the authority and prestige of government. Those accorded conspicuous prominence at such an occasion inevitably acquire a degree of public significance from that setting.

That is precisely why the optics matter.

At a recent Independence Day ceremony, a prominent public figure’s close friend and companion — someone whose proximity to the leader has already generated considerable public speculation — occupied a conspicuous place at an official State function. The appearance naturally attracted attention precisely because this was not an entertainment event or private celebration. It was one of the most solemn ceremonies on the government’s calendar.

The leader’s private life is his private life. We are neither interested in policing his bedroom nor interested in deciding whom he should meet, befriend or spend his personal time with. Political disagreement cannot become an excuse for voyeurism. Public figures remain human beings, and human relationships can be complicated.

But a Chief Minister is also not merely a private citizen.

When a personal equation becomes visibly intertwined with an official State occasion, the question changes.

The question is no longer: What exactly is the nature of this relationship?

The question becomes: What example is a person occupying one of the highest offices in the State choosing to place before the public?

The distinction matters enormously.

A State ceremony is not an extension of a Chief Minister’s drawing room. State hospitality is not personal hospitality. The prestige attached to constitutional office belongs to the institution and ultimately to the people, not permanently to whichever individual happens to occupy the chair.

When someone personally close to a leader is accorded conspicuous prominence at such an occasion, particularly against the background of a marriage that has itself been the subject of considerable public turmoil, citizens are entitled to look beyond celebrity gossip and consider the symbolism.

And symbolism matters because leaders do not merely govern.

They set examples.

Marriage Cannot Be Sacred Only for Ordinary Indians

For generations, Indian families have taught their children that marriage represents commitment, fidelity, responsibility, compromise and sacrifice.

We tell young men and women that relationships are not disposable arrangements. We tell them that commitments carry obligations. We tell them that personal desires cannot always override responsibilities towards spouses, children and families.

Our politicians invoke precisely the same vocabulary.

Family. Tradition. Responsibility. Culture. Values.

These words appear in speeches, campaigns and public celebrations across the political spectrum.

Then surely the standards associated with those words cannot apply exclusively to ordinary Indians.

The point is not that public figures must have perfect marriages. They will experience disagreements, separations and failed relationships like everybody else. Nobody should demand artificial perfection from politicians.

But there is a fundamental difference between having difficulties in one’s private life and appearing to allow a complicated personal equation to acquire the prestige of public office.

That is where society has every right to ask questions.

If marriage is an institution worth defending when politicians speak from podiums, surely it cannot suddenly become irrelevant when examining the example those politicians themselves publicly project.

Otherwise, what precisely are we telling the young?

That fidelity is important unless you become sufficiently powerful?

That commitment matters until fame provides alternatives?

That marriage deserves respect for ordinary households but becomes negotiable once political influence enters the equation?

Those are deeply uncomfortable questions. But refusing to ask them does not make them disappear.

Young People Learn From What We Normalise

We frequently complain about Gen Z.

We complain about their language. We complain about declining respect for authority. We complain that vulgarity has become normalised. We complain about an increasingly confrontational political culture in which being offensive is sometimes mistaken for being courageous.

But generations do not develop their values in isolation.

Young people watch.

They watch politicians. They watch celebrities. They watch activists. They watch social media influencers. Most importantly, they notice the difference between what society preaches and what society permits.

A teenager can recognise hypocrisy remarkably quickly.

Tell him marriage is sacred while powerful adults appear to treat its boundaries casually, and he will notice.

Tell her that dignity matters while public discourse increasingly rewards vulgarity, and she will notice.

Tell young Indians that responsibility matters while influence appears capable of shielding powerful people from social accountability, and they will notice that too.

Eventually, sermons stop working.

Examples take over.

The CJP Protests Should Have Made Us Think

The recent CJP-led agitation at Jantar Mantar demonstrated the enormous political energy that exists among young Indians. The movement drew significant participation from young protesters and emerged from genuine grievances surrounding education and accountability.

But movements can have legitimate grievances while aspects of their political culture still deserve criticism.

The language, imagery and deliberately provocative style associated with sections of contemporary youth activism should make older Indians ask what kind of political vocabulary is being normalised.

Political dissent does not require vulgarity.

Anger does not require contempt.

Questioning authority does not require turning disrespect itself into an ideology.

Yet increasingly, the ability to shock appears to be mistaken for political sophistication.

There has simultaneously been highly visible activism around gender identity and transgender issues in India’s public spaces, including demonstrations at Jantar Mantar earlier this year. Those debates have every right to exist in a democracy. But their slogans, demands, methods and ideological assumptions also have every right to be questioned.

No political or social ideology should become immune from scrutiny merely because it presents itself as progressive.

That applies equally to conservative movements, religious movements, gender activism, student politics and every other ideological campaign.

When Rebellion Becomes a Virtue in Itself

There is an important difference between progress and rebellion.

Progress asks whether something makes society freer, stronger, fairer or more humane.

Rebellion can sometimes amount merely to rejecting something because previous generations valued it.

Increasingly, sections of young Indians are being exposed to a worldview in which inherited conventions are automatically treated with suspicion. Marriage becomes an outdated construction. Restraint becomes repression. Traditional expectations become oppression. Provocation becomes authenticity. Vulgarity becomes self-expression.

Much of this discourse reaches India through a global cultural ecosystem dominated by Western universities, entertainment, social media and political activism.

India cannot — and should not — isolate itself from global ideas.

Civilisations grow by exchanging ideas.

But there is an enormous difference between learning from another civilisation and surrendering one’s judgment to it.

India should be confident enough to examine every imported cultural fashion and ask a simple question:

Does this strengthen our society?

If it does, embrace it.

If it does not, why should we imitate it merely because someone somewhere has labelled it “progressive”?

Modernity Does Not Require Cultural Amnesia

There is something peculiar about the idea that becoming modern requires Indians to become embarrassed about everything inherited from their civilisation.

India was developing complex ideas about philosophy, ethics, family, social obligation, governance and human existence centuries before many modern nation-states existed.

That does not mean every ancient practice deserves preservation. No civilisation progresses by freezing itself in time.

But neither does civilisation progress by assuming everything new must automatically be superior to everything old.

Marriage survived for centuries not merely because priests, governments or traditions commanded it. It survived because stable relationships, responsibility towards children, intergenerational support and mutual obligation created social stability.

Individual freedom matters.

But freedom divorced from responsibility eventually produces its own consequences.

A civilisation must be capable of defending both.

This Is Why Political Leaders Matter

Against this cultural backdrop, the behaviour of political leaders becomes even more significant.

If young Indians are already navigating an environment in which traditional institutions are constantly questioned, public figures should understand the enormous symbolic weight their actions carry.

That does not mean politicians should become morality instructors.

It means they should understand that example is itself a form of leadership.

Imagine telling a 20-year-old that marriage requires fidelity and commitment while he watches someone surrounded by political power apparently receive a completely different social rulebook.

What argument do you give him?

Imagine telling young women and men that marriage vows carry consequences while political prestige seems capable of making uncomfortable questions disappear.

Why would they believe us?

And imagine simultaneously condemning Gen Z for irreverence and lack of restraint while refusing to examine the conduct projected by those at the top.

The contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.

State Hospitality Carries a Message

This is precisely why the State ceremony with which we began matters.

Perhaps no protocol rule was violated.

Perhaps every invitation can be technically explained.

Perhaps those involved consider the entire controversy nobody else’s business.

That still does not erase the symbolism.

Official ceremonies communicate hierarchy, legitimacy and honour.

Who sits prominently matters.

Who receives access matters.

Who appears alongside people occupying constitutional office matters.

And an Independence Day function carries even greater symbolism because the occasion belongs not to a politician or party but to the Republic itself.

Political leaders should therefore exercise greater discretion, not less, when determining how their personal world intersects with such occasions.

The burden should rise with power.

It should never diminish because of it.

One Rule for Ordinary Indians, Another for the Powerful?

Perhaps the greatest danger is not changing morality.

It is selective morality.

India can survive changing attitudes. Every society changes.

What corrodes public faith far more rapidly is the belief that there are two sets of standards: one for ordinary people and another for those with power.

An ordinary person’s marital controversy can destroy a family, reputation or career.

A celebrity’s becomes entertainment.

A sufficiently powerful politician’s risks being treated as something nobody is supposed to question.

That hierarchy is corrosive.

Values mean very little if their application depends upon someone’s social position.

If fidelity matters, it matters whether someone lives in a two-bedroom flat or a Chief Minister’s residence.

If responsibility matters, it cannot disappear behind security barricades.

If institutional dignity matters, State occasions cannot appear to become platforms through which complicated personal equations receive public prestige.

Stop Blaming Only Gen Z

Older generations should therefore be careful before declaring that today’s youth have lost their way.

Perhaps some have.

But who built the road they are travelling on?

Young people inherited a political culture that rewards outrage.

They inherited a celebrity culture that rewards exhibitionism.

They inherited social media platforms that convert provocation into attention.

They inherited public discourse where abuse frequently travels faster than argument.

And they inherited leaders who sometimes demand standards from society that they appear reluctant to impose upon themselves.

Then we express astonishment that young people become cynical about traditional values.

If we want Gen Z to respect marriage, demonstrate why marriage deserves respect.

If we want them to speak with dignity, political discourse must demonstrate dignity.

If we want them to respect institutions, those administering institutions must protect their sanctity.

If we want them to understand that freedom comes with responsibility, the powerful must demonstrate responsibility when nobody can compel them to do so.

India Does Not Need to Become a Copy of the West

India’s future cannot be constructed by pretending the outside world has nothing to teach us.

Nor should it be constructed by assuming the outside world has everything to teach us.

The confidence of a civilisation lies in its ability to choose.

Take technology from wherever it is best.

Take scientific knowledge from wherever it advances humanity.

Take ideas about liberty, equality and accountability wherever they improve our democracy.

But cultural confidence requires the ability to say that some Indian institutions and values remain worth defending.

Family responsibility is not backward.

Fidelity is not backward.

Respect is not backward.

Restraint is not backward.

Commitment is not backward.

And believing that political leaders should demonstrate these virtues does not make a society primitive.

Quite the opposite.

A truly modern society should be capable of demanding more accountability from the powerful than from the powerless.

India’s Civilisational Claim Must Mean Something

We repeatedly describe India as a cradle of civilisation.

That expression cannot remain merely a line delivered during international summits or cultural festivals.

Civilisation is not just ancient temples, manuscripts, monuments and philosophical texts.

Civilisation is behaviour.

It is what a society honours.

It is what it refuses to normalise.

It is the standards it passes from one generation to another.

Most importantly, it is whether those standards survive contact with power.

There is little meaning in celebrating thousands of years of civilisation if contemporary India develops one moral code for ordinary families and another for political elites.

Our cultural inheritance cannot merely decorate speeches.

It has to inform conduct.

The Next Generation Is Watching

Ultimately, this argument is not about identifying someone’s companion.

It is not about solving the mysteries of anyone’s marriage.

And it certainly should not become another piece of celebrity gossip.

It is about something far larger.

What are those occupying India’s corridors of power showcasing to the next generation?

When private relationships enter public ceremonies, when complicated personal equations appear to receive the prestige of State hospitality, and when the powerful seem insulated from the standards routinely preached to everyone else, young Indians receive a message whether anyone intends to send it or not.

Meanwhile, we complain that the same generation has become irreverent, provocative and disconnected from traditional values.

We cannot have it both ways.

We cannot ask young Indians to believe in commitment while appearing to celebrate its opposite.

We cannot demand respect while modelling hypocrisy.

We cannot complain about imported cultural attitudes while our own leaders fail to demonstrate the values we claim distinguish Indian civilisation.

Before asking where India’s youth are heading, perhaps those occupying the highest offices should ask a more uncomfortable question:

What destination are we showing them?

Because young people are watching.

They are watching whom society celebrates.

They are watching what power excuses.

They are watching which institutions we defend only in speeches.

And what India’s leaders normalise today may well become the moral standard of the generation that governs India tomorrow.