akrishnarao

INDIA GATE

  • Modi’s Political Dominance and the Challenges of Governance

    “You win only when you play. If you don’t play, how can victory come?” Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently said while speaking to young children. Since joining the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1987, Narendra Modi has been continuously playing in politics. Completing four decades in this political game next year, he has had no notable defeat so far. In 1987, when he was handed over the responsibility of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation as the BJP Gujarat General Secretary, he secured this victory for his party for the first time. Since then, he has never looked back.

    His journey of victory, which began in Gujarat with the corporation win, brought the party to power in the state, and later led to him personally taking over power as Chief Minister, delivering an unchallenged governance for 12 years. Without stopping there, even after taking over the responsibilities as the Prime Minister of the country in 2014, Modi has been continuously continuing in office for 12 years so far.

    By 1987, when Modi entered active politics, the Congress was in power at the Centre and in 15 states. With the recent victory in West Bengal, the BJP and its allies under Modi’s leadership have achieved power in 21 states. In a way, Modi is now in the ascendant phase of his political life. While on one hand preparing for the celebratory milestones of his 12 years of governance, on the other hand, he is getting ready for massive changes in both the party and the government. He is setting the stage for his next political game.

    “Victory is not just a game, it is also like riding a tiger,” political scientists often describe. Once you get down from it, it will swallow you. Baba Saheb Ambedkar said long ago that democracy is not just about victory in elections. Although Modi’s government is unchallenged in politics, India’s economic situation remains worrisome. Economists say that GDP growth is gradually declining, average inflation is doubling, and the pace of development is moving sluggishly. The monthly review prepared in May by the Ministry of Finance under the leadership of Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman made it clear that international developments are severely impacting India’s economic conditions. The value of the rupee is falling day by day. Crude oil import bills are rising. Reports are coming that petrol and diesel prices have increased four times since May 15 after the assembly election results, and there are chances of them rising again. For the second consecutive week, the decline in India’s foreign exchange reserves is clearly visible. Economists like former Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian and representatives of the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy are warning that private investments in the country are also declining.

    In May last year, NITI Aayog CEO B.V.R. Subrahmanyam announced that India had overtaken Japan to become the fourth largest economy, but according to the World Economic Outlook recently released by the International Monetary Fund, India has dropped to the sixth largest economy. Regardless of this matter, irrespective of statistical details, everyone knows that the per capita income in the country is at a very low level. Economists state that since 1991, while per capita income in China has increased 38 times, it has increased only 8 times in India.

    The fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself is appealing to the people to practice austerity measures indicates the severity of the situation. Economists say that the government is taking short-term measures from time to time but is not undertaking long-term measures. What are long-term measures? Discussions are ongoing whether it means further accelerating reforms or allowing foreign investments to enter more freely. No one has clarity on what steps Modi is taking in this direction. Organizations like NITI Aayog are also not transparently publishing reports on the country’s economic situation. It has been a long time since such organizations stopped trying to tell the government the actual situation, as they are instead eager to exaggerate minor developments into mountains. Will the situation improve merely by changing the heads of ministers as part of a cabinet reshuffle?

    Secondly, even though the opposition parties in this country have failed to win elections, they seem to have succeeded in creating an impression among the people that institutions are being weakened. They are giving scope to raise doubts not only on the functioning of institutions like the Election Commission, CBI, ED, IT, CVC, and National Testing Agency, but also on the judgments given by the Supreme Court. The strange thing is, even when elections are conducted properly, the credibility of the Election Commission is being questioned. Due to the indiscriminate deployment of agencies like the CBI, ED, and IT against political rivals, trust in them is lost even when they work genuinely. Judges are acting in a manner that raises suspicion whether the boundaries that should exist between the Supreme Court and the government are blurring.

    Ultimately, the fact that a miserable state exists in this country where even exams cannot be properly conducted for students was proven once again with the leak of NEET question papers. More recently, the controversy surrounding the CBSE’s On-Screen Marking (OSM) system has further deepened concerns about institutional competence. What began as isolated complaints soon turned into one of the biggest credibility crises faced by the country’s premier school education board. Remarkably, it was not political parties or government agencies that exposed the issue, but three young students. Vedant Shrivastava brought attention to the problem after allegedly receiving another student’s answer sheet during the verification process. Nisarga Adhikary, a young cybersecurity researcher, claimed to have uncovered serious vulnerabilities in the digital evaluation portal that could expose sensitive student data and examination records. Sarthak Sidhant raised questions regarding the tendering and procurement process behind the system’s implementation. Together, these three students forced a national debate on transparency, accountability, digital security, and administrative responsibility in the education system. Even CBSE was eventually compelled to acknowledge vulnerabilities in parts of the system after initially rejecting the allegations. The episode demonstrated how public institutions can lose credibility when legitimate concerns raised by students are not addressed promptly and transparently.

    The way the youth of this country responded in an unprecedented manner to the call given on social media under the name of ‘Cockroach Janata Party’ creates a feeling that a fire is smouldering somewhere. It is naive to think that those who ask questions will decrease just by suspending social media accounts. Therefore, it must be considered that the Modi government succeeds only when it tries not just to win elections, but to increase the credibility of institutions and to solve the problems of the youth of this country.

    Moreover, the political victories of the Modi government are not completed with the victory in Bengal. From next year onwards, they have to win again in BJP-ruled states. This includes the Prime Minister’s home state of Gujarat, as well as the largest state Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and other states. The BJP’s situation in the four southern states is not very grand. In Karnataka, the BJP has no independent identity of its own outside of Yediyurappa. Even though several top RSS leaders like Dattatreya Hosabale, Santhosh, and Mukund hail from Karnataka, the BJP is unable to establish itself firmly there. As for Telangana, no party seems better than the BJP at cutting the very branch it is sitting on. In Tamil Nadu, Annamalai, who was once the party president, announced that the BJP has no future and is preparing to look out for his own path. BJP leaders do not seem to have realized that gaining acceptability in the South is more important than in Bengal.

    However, whatever Modi’s weaknesses may be, how far Congress is trying to utilize them remains a matter of debate. No one can say what Congress is doing to confront the BJP head-on in UP, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. After Congress won in Kerala, the Congress high command took 11 days to decide the Chief Minister. It took Rahul Gandhi these many days to realize that the people, senior party leaders, and the cadre there completely admire Satheesan. He could not restrain his right-hand man KC Venugopal, even though the latter made intense efforts to become the Chief Minister himself.

    Similarly, without even enjoying the happiness of winning in Kerala, the Karnataka headache started for Delhi. The Delhi elders are dragging both Siddaramaiah and DK Shivakumar along, in a helpless state where they cannot bring about a compromise between the two. Siddaramaiah, who represents the AHINDA group consisting of minorities, backward classes, and Dalits on one side, and DK, who is extremely loyal to the party and has stood by the high command in every crisis on the other side, have left the high command at a total loss. In fact, DK, who once had to move Gujarat MLAs to Bengaluru to ensure Ahmed Patel’s victory, had to get entangled in several cases. Ultimately, he even had to go to Tihar Jail. While it is justifiable to give the Chief Minister post to such a person as DK, nothing can be said right now about the future course of action of Siddaramaiah, who made it clear that he will remain active in politics and will not come to the Rajya Sabha.

    A situation arose where Shivakumar had no choice but to include everyone suggested by Siddaramaiah in his cabinet. For the past 20 days, Delhi hotels and the AICC have been overcrowded, initially with Kerala leaders and now with Karnataka leaders. Although infighting exists in Congress in every state, Delhi is in a situation where it can do nothing.

    That situation has never existed in the BJP. Even though there are BJP Chief Ministers in 17 states, there is no record of even a single one coming to Delhi for cabinet expansion or other changes. The BJP top brass has the grip to dictate who should be appointed without them needing to visit. That is the difference between the BJP and the Congress. That is also the secret behind their victories and defeats.

  • In the Light of Bashir Badr’s Memories…

    In the Light of Bashir Badr’s Memories…

    We spend our entire lives in the light of certain memories. Every time we wonder whether they are just memories or the fluttering echoes of our own life force, the poet Bashir Badr comes to mind. Yes, we must keep the light of memories with us. Otherwise, who knows in which dark alley the evening of life will come to an end? As he once said: “Ujala apni yaadon ka hamare saath rehne do” (Let the light of your memories remain with me).

    On Thursday, the evening of Bashir Badr’s life also came to a close. Passing away at the age of 91, he was one of those poets who served as a bridge between the social evolution of pre- and post-independence India—a true representative of the country’s composite culture. With his demise, it must be said that an entire generation has almost gone extinct. For the past few years, it was known that he lived like a living corpse, having lost his thoughts and memories, in a state where he did not know who he was or what his poems were. True to his own lines: “Jeevan ke safar mein mujhe koi bhi na mila, hamraah to milte hain safar yaad nahi rehta” (I found no one to stand by me in life’s journey; many walk along the path, but once the journey ends, no one remembers those memories), he vanished along with his memories. And just as he had written: “Umr bhar jagne wala pada sota raha…” (The one who stayed awake all his life now lies fast asleep), he has entered an eternal sleep.

    In a way, he was fortunate. He had once lamented that sometimes, it is better not to know what is happening around us: “Koi haath bhi na milayega jo gale miloge” (No one will even shake your hand if you go to embrace them). He had written long ago:

    “If you go with deep affection to embrace someone, no one here will even shake your hand. This is the city of a new generation of people; keep a little distance here even when you meet.”

    Today, it is not just mechanical living, but the destruction of life itself that reigns supreme. How fortunate he was not to know that the very communal hatred he fled from in Meerut to find peace in Bhopal has now spread across the entire country? He had prayed to God to grant him the strength to forget those who had completely forgotten him: “Tumhe jisne dil se bhula diya, use bhoolne ki dua karo” (Pray to forget the one who forgot you from the heart). Perhaps the Almighty took pity on him and blessed him with Alzheimer’s until his death.

    The Scars of Meerut

    Indeed, the mention of Bashir Badr’s name brings back memories of the Meerut communal riots. During the 1987 Meerut riots, miscreants destroyed his house and his writings. Those were the days when Bashir Badr, born in Ayodhya—the birthplace of Lord Rama—was working as a lecturer in Meerut. He had never realized that the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute would erupt in his birthplace of Ayodhya, and that very conflict would engulf Meerut, where he lived, like a wildfire. Many Hindus and Muslims lost their lives in these riots that took place in May and June of 1987. However, reports emerged that the PAC (Provincial Armed Constabulary) forces, tasked with maintaining law and order, gunned down many Muslims in the villages of Maliyana and Hashimpura in Meerut and threw them into canals. Human rights leader Balagopal was among those who submitted reports on these atrocities at the time. Nearly three decades later, in October 2018, the Delhi High Court sentenced 16 PAC personnel to life imprisonment for killing 42 people.

    It was about these Meerut riots that Bashir Badr wrote:

    Log toot jaate hain ek ghar banane mein Tum taras nahi khate bastiyan jalane mein (People pour their entire lives into building a single home, but you show no mercy when you burn down entire neighborhoods.)

    Bashir noticed back then that if anyone spoke the truth, they were branded as rebels or anti-social elements. He depicted this reality in his ghazal, “Main bolta hoon to ilzaam hai baghavat ka.” He wrote:

    “If I speak, they accuse me of rebellion; if I remain silent, a deep sense of helplessness and agony gnaws at my conscience, watching injustice happen before my eyes and being unable to do anything.”

    He beautifully captured the plight of an intellectual torn between speaking the truth and enduring it silently in just two lines. He wrote that even the flow of one’s tears finds its own path, just like flowing water.

    A Unique Voice in Urdu Literature

    At the tender age of 12, the horrors and riots of the 1947 Partition left an indelible mark on Bashir’s mind. Writing poetry since the age of seven, Bashir’s ghazals mirrored the changing political, social, and cultural landscape. Transforming from Syed Muhammad Bashir to Bashir Badr (Bashir the Moon), he demonstrated extraordinary talent in mushairas (poetic symposiums) and poetry competitions as a student, winning numerous awards. While he was still a student at Aligarh Muslim University, some of his poems were included in the M.A. (Urdu) syllabus.

    By setting aside the heavy Persian influence on ghazals and choosing a simple language easily understood by the common reader, he earned immense popularity. By introducing Hindi, Braj, and Awadhi dialects, he carved a unique niche for his ghazals among modern Urdu poets. He introduced metaphors that no one had created before. He boldly declared: “My turn is unique in the history of Urdu ghazal. My style itself is the style of the ghazal.” Fluent in Persian, Hindi, Urdu, and English, he was honored with the Sahitya Akademi Award, the Padma Shri, and hundreds of other accolades. His poetry was published in seven volumes.

    Transcending traditional boundaries and refusing to be trapped in the frameworks of ideologies like progressivism or modernism, he beautifully and poetically expressed the daily experiences of the common man. He carried forward the trend in India that Faiz Ahmed Faiz had created in Pakistan. He deserves the credit for making poetry a part of the common vocabulary after Ghalib. Bashir Badr’s poems highlight the humane dimension, sensitivity, and love for freedom inherent in humans. He searched for humanity all his life. There were many occasions when he lamented that the paths they once walked together were asking, “Where is your companion (Humsafar)?” He grieved, “I searched for a human being all my life. I asked God to show me a human being in this vast universe, but I could not find one.”

    In another poem, he expresses his anguish:

    “There are names on houses, and big titles (designations) next to those names. But I searched extensively… and nowhere could I find a ‘human’.”

    The Romantic and the Humanist

    We often long to look at our loved ones to our heart’s content. We want to talk openly, and the desire to meet haunts us. He yearned: “Na jee bhar ke dekha na kuch baat ki, badi aarzoo thi mulaqaat ki” (Neither did I see you to my heart’s content, nor did we talk; I had a great desire to meet). He anxious sighed: “There are many close friends of mine in the city, but they have no news of me, and I do not know their addresses.” He grieved that despite living among hundreds of people, man is becoming lonely.

    Saying “Musafir hain hum bhi musafir ho tum bhi”, Bashir reminded us that we are all travelers and will meet somewhere. He warned those chasing fame: “The peaks of fame are but momentary sights. The branch we have climbed can break at any moment.” He advised finding history in nature: “If you find free time, try to read the writings on water, because every river keeps writing a history (story) of thousands of years through its flow.”

    In his poem “Udne do parindon ko abhi shokh hawa mein”, he wrote for elders who worry unnecessarily about children: “Let the birds (children) fly in this playful wind for a while, because the days of childhood, once gone, never return.”

    There was also a magnificent romantic poet within Bashir Badr. Beautiful lines resonate through his ghazals:

    • “You burn my heart so much, yet you look so beautiful.”
    • “Place your lips upon my eyes when I sleep… only then will I believe that the heart beats even behind closed eyelids.”
    • “Even when buried in a book, a lover sees nothing but the beloved’s face. That book-like face remained right before my eyes, and so, my studies went beautifully.” (Wo chehra kitabi raha saamne. Badi khoobsurat padhayi hui)
    • “Love is like a fragrance (Khushboo) that always walks with us; therefore, no person is ever left truly alone, even in solitude.”
    • “If you are angry, do not hide it. Only then will I get a chance to persuade you.”

    A Vision of Peace and the Game of Politics

    Despite being born amid communal hatred and being deeply affected by it, Bashir Badr desired nothing but friendship between people throughout his life. He said: “The journey of enmity lasts only a step or two, after that (fighting and fighting) you will get tired, and I will get tired too.” He wrote: “Pack hatred (Nafrat) into seven boxes and bury it deep in the earth; today, man desperately needs love (Mohabbat).” He counselled: “Guard the lamps (hopes) carefully in your eyes, because ahead, for a long distance, there will be nothing but darkness.”

    His verses frequently find a place on the lips of politicians.

    Dushmani jam kar karo lekin ye gunjaish rahe, Jab kabhi hum dost hojayen to sharminda na hona (Carry out your enmity with all your might, but leave this much room—if we ever become friends again, we should not feel ashamed to face each other.)

    It is said that when the Simla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan in 1972, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto reminded Indira Gandhi of this very couplet.

    The same poem was read out in Parliament by Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge on September 6, 2018. The very next day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi also replied to Kharge using Bashir Badr’s poetry, taking a satirical jibe: “Jee bahut chahta hai sach bolne, kya karein hausla nahi hota” (The heart desperately wants to speak the truth, but what to do, the courage falls short).

    After poets pass away, politicians never hesitate to shamelessly use their poetry for political gains. But when poets are alive, these very leaders trample upon their hearts. Bashir Badr did not write these lines without reason:

    “Truth is heavily occupied, from politics to the judiciary. Speak lies; there is still immense love in lies!” (Sach, siyasat se adalat tak bahot masroof hai, jhooth bolo, jhooth mein ab bhi mohabbat hai bahot!)

  • The Cockroach Crisis: Is India’s Judiciary Losing Public Trust?

    “If the judiciary loses its credibility, nothing else will remain. An independent judiciary is the lifeblood of the Constitution. Without it, judges will exist, courts will exist, and judgments will exist—but their heart and soul will disappear,” said Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan in a recent memorial lecture in Pune.

    He referred to a stark reality: the collegium itself recorded in its minutes that a High Court judge was being transferred in accordance with the wishes of the Central Government. This serves as a clear example of how a judiciary constitutionally expected to function independently can find itself working under government pressure.

    “The judiciary must remain distant from party politics and function firmly. Changes in government should have absolutely no connection with the judiciary. It should act with goodwill and sympathy towards everyone, but should not side with anyone,” said the first Chief Justice of India, H. J. Kania, at the inaugural sitting of the Supreme Court. Yet, reviewing the situation more than 75 years after the Constitution came into force, deep doubts arise as to whether standards in the higher judiciary have improved or deteriorated.

    The Historical Shield and the Ultimate Downfall

    For nearly twenty-five years after the Constitution came into force, the judiciary largely fulfilled its responsibility of preserving its own existence, protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, and defining the limits of government authority. The Supreme Court progressively interpreted Articles 14, 15, 19, and 31. In the 1967 Golaknath case, it clarified that fundamental rights could not be diluted, and in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, it solidified that Parliament had no authority to alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

    However, after coming to power with an overwhelming majority in 1971, Indira Gandhi’s administration began to toy with judicial independence. The absolute peak of the judiciary’s downfall in capitulating to executive overreach was the infamous ADM Jabalpur case during the Emergency.

    When thousands of political opponents and journalists were jailed without trial, and citizens sought the intervention of the courts to protect their fundamental liberties, a five-judge Constitution Bench delivered one of the most disgraceful judgments in Indian history. By a 4:1 majority, the bench ruled that during an Emergency, citizens do not even possess the right to life under Article 21.

    The majority consisted of Chief Justice A. N. Ray, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Justice M. H. Beg, and Justice Y. V. Chandrachud (father of former Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud). When Justice H. R. Khanna—the sole courageous dissenter—asked during the hearings, “Does that mean people cannot question even if they are shot dead in the name of Emergency?”, the then-Attorney General chillingly replied, “My Lord, that is what the law says.”

    A Era of Introspection and Activism

    Following the Emergency—one of the darkest chapters in judicial history—the Supreme Court undertook deep introspection and initiated significant corrective measures. Moving past its catastrophic failure, the court aggressively declared that the Constitution, not the executive, was supreme.

    It opened its doors to the masses through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), ordered the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners languishing in jails, liberated bonded laborers, and eventually introduced the collegium system to insulate judicial appointments from political interference.

    Most importantly, it expanded the scope of personal liberties, protected the environment, championed the interests of working women, and curbed the arbitrary dismissal of state governments by ruling that political majorities must be proven on the floor of the legislature. At that stage, judicial activism was a remarkable shield for the vulnerable.

    Modern Shadows and Internal Fractures

    If the Supreme Court denied protection to human life twenty-five years after Independence, today, five decades after that judgment, the core functioning of the institution faces renewed skepticism. We may not be living in a formal Emergency, but public faith in the judiciary is noticeably shrinking.

    The fact that sitting judges themselves feel compelled to speak out demands serious reflection:

    • Justice Ujjal Bhuyan publicly emphasized that no external forces should be allowed to intrude upon judicial independence, asserting that personal political or ideological views must not influence decisions on the bench.
    • Justice B. V. Nagarathna warned that judges must not succumb to external pressures, noting that those who cannot live contentedly on their legitimate income should be eliminated from the system entirely. “A tainted judge is a stain on the entire system,” she remarked.
    • Justice S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, once noted: “Impartiality is the soul of the judiciary, and independence is the blood flowing through its veins.” Notably, during his tenure at the Delhi High Court, he was transferred overnight after questioning police inaction during civil unrest in the capital.

    In her book Constitution Is My Home, senior advocate Indira Jaising recalled a harrowing 2022 case involving sexual harassment allegations made by a female Additional District Judge against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge. Not only did the victim fail to find immediate recourse, but she was also swiftly transferred and forced to resign.

    Through Jaising’s persistent legal battles, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao eventually restored her position and questioned why the then-Chief Justice of the High Court had refused to even grant her an interview. Disturbingly, just days later, that very Chief Justice was elevated to the Supreme Court.

    Growing Questions and the “Cockroach” Backlash

    Why has it become necessary for judges to comment so defensively on their own institution? Critics increasingly argue that the higher judiciary—originally designed to protect the common citizen—is becoming overwhelmingly responsive to the wealthy, the state, and political elites.

    Calculated bench allocations and predictable judgments in politically sensitive cases have sparked intense debate. Former Supreme Court Bar Association President Dushyant Dave openly criticized the court for failing to check the erosion of vital institutions like the Election Commission, pointing out that judges routinely scramble for lucrative post-retirement positions.

    Simultaneously, ethical questions have mounted. Organizations like the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) heavily criticized several judges and their families for utilizing private aircraft provided by state governments, arguing it severely compromises judicial ethics. Furthermore, instances like the discovery of massive cash bundles at the residence of a former Delhi High Court judge—followed by an apparent lack of accountability—have deepened public cynicism.

    Perhaps because the public, especially the younger demographic, is closely watching these lapses, an explosive reaction occurred following recent remarks made by Supreme Court Judge Surya Kant.

    During a judicial hearing, Justice Surya Kant criticized unemployed youth, comparing them to “cockroaches” who populate social media, media outlets, and RTI activism to attack institutions. Though he later clarified that the comment was contextualized within a specific petition regarding a lawyer’s designation and was not aimed at the youth at large, the damage was done.

    Justice Surya Kant has faced widening backlash for a series of oral remarks. On May 11, 2026, during a hearing on the Pipavav Port expansion project in Gujarat, his comments drew sharp rebukes from environmentalists and legal experts. Former civil servants under the Constitutional Conduct Group warned that these remarks showed a disturbing pro-corporate bias from the bench, creating an atmosphere of fear that silences dissent. Over 70 lawyers noted that treating citizens who enforce environmental laws as “obstructionists” marks a dangerous jurisprudential shift.

    Similarly, on January 29, 2026, during a PIL hearing on domestic workers’ rights, Justice Surya Kant blamed trade unions for stifling industrial growth and shutting down traditional industries. Labor bodies, including the AITUC, strongly condemned the court for misreading economic realities, arguing that industrial stagnation is driven by corporate monopoly and pro-corporate state policies, not by workers asserting their legal rights.

    The Danger of Erased Boundaries

    Following the “cockroach” commentary, a young citizen created a social media movement under the banner of the “Cockroach Janata Party.” Millions responded. Instead of merely deflecting the insult, the youth weaponized it, using the platform to furiously criticize the government over unemployment, inflation, corruption, and systemic scams, proclaiming: “Yes, we are cockroaches.”

    This reaction highlights a profound systemic crisis. The derogatory comments were made by a member of the judiciary, yet the public directed its anger squarely at the executive government.

    This reveals a terrifying reality: the public no longer views the government and the judiciary as separate entities.

    In a constitutional democracy, nothing is more dangerous than the total erasure of the boundary between the ruling executive and the independent judiciary. The judiciary must aggressively reform and rescue itself from this crisis. If it fails, the day may soon arrive when the “cockroaches” themselves feel forced to become the arbiters of justice.

  • Tamil Nadu’s Message to India’s Political Class

    Man standing on a car waving to crowd with supporters holding flags in a night rally
    Supporters cheer enthusiastically around a leader standing on a car during a lively political rally at night.

    In Andhra Pradesh, there was a political leader who used to send various kinds of gifts door to door in his constituency. On every occasion, he distributed sweets and snacks; during festivals, Raymond clothes for men and silk sarees for women. Every newly married couple received a gold mangalsutra pendant, silk clothes, and silver anklets as gifts. During elections, things went even further. Reports said that a separate truck was used exclusively for distributing cash lavishly. Even then, he lost the last election by a margin of more than 43,000 votes.

    This single example is enough to show that if people truly decide, no amount of inducement can make them surrender their conscience. Even though political parties and leaders are aware of this, they continue making every possible attempt to lure people and buy votes. This does nothing except create disgust among the public toward political leaders. When leaders try to purchase votes, people naturally begin to wonder how much these politicians are earning in politics and how much public money they are looting. Many people feel that all this money being distributed is nothing but wealth stolen from the public itself.

    Recently in Tamil Nadu, the DMK and AIADMK distributed money on a massive scale. Estimates suggest that between ₹20 crore and ₹50 crore was spent in each constituency. Videos showing these parties distributing cash in envelopes ranging from ₹3,000 to ₹10,000 circulated widely on social media, yet the Election Commission hardly paid attention. An NGO called “Arappor Iyakkam” even lodged a complaint with the Election Commission regarding the large-scale cash distribution. Surprisingly, the TVK party of actor Vijay, which reportedly did not distribute money at all, succeeded in getting the highest number of its candidates elected. Along with Chief Minister Stalin, 15 DMK ministers were defeated. In one constituency, a four-time DMK minister lost to an auto driver. Elsewhere, the son of a car driver won. In many constituencies, TVK candidates won with huge majorities, while in at least 20 seats they lost by extremely narrow margins. These developments prove that if elections had been conducted without the influence of money power, a massive Vijay wave would likely have swept Tamil Nadu.

    In recent democratic history, Vijay earned the distinction of winning elections in a state without purchasing votes from people. In fact, Vijay did not campaign extensively across the state. In many places, his party relied on cutouts, holograms, and duplicates for campaigning. Keeping in mind the stampede incident at Karur, he cancelled many rallies. TVK candidates themselves did not campaign aggressively in several constituencies. There were even reports that in some places DMK and AIADMK candidates offered money to TVK candidates and told them to stay home and rest. In many constituencies, TVK candidates did not even go to the counting centres. They were surprised to learn from television broadcasts that they had won.

    Although huge crowds attended Vijay’s meetings, many believed TVK could not succeed because the party lacked organizational machinery, proper local coordination, sufficient funds, and experienced candidates. In many constituencies, campaigns were carried out with nothing more than a small van, two auto-rickshaws, and a few children blowing whistles while walking ahead of the candidates. In several places, students and women voluntarily went door to door campaigning. Small donations were collected for campaign expenses. In some constituencies, there were not even TVK posters. Often, people could not even recognize TVK candidates when they walked on the roads.

    The Tamil Nadu elections should serve as a lesson to parties that rely on money power, muscle power, and manipulation of systems to come to power. It should open the eyes of those who collect funds from corporate companies in the name of electoral bonds, allot Rajya Sabha seats to donors, and even launch companies for them. Illegal funding from corporations forces governments to return favors through project allocations, ignore irregularities in those projects, and encourages politicians who buy votes to indulge in further corruption to recover their election expenses. Through such corrupt practices, entire systems have become rotten. Electoral corruption plays a major role in India’s political and administrative system. Legislatures are increasingly filled with corrupt individuals, corporates, and wealthy elites. Ordinary people are finding it impossible to contest elections. There is little doubt that black money amounting to 20–50 percent of the country’s GDP has become part of the electoral system.

    Officially, the Election Commission says that an MP candidate can spend up to ₹95 lakh and an MLA candidate up to ₹28 lakh. But politicians themselves say that in reality, this amount is not sufficient even for a single day of campaigning. Although the Election Commission officially seized black money worth ₹10,000 crore during the 2024 general elections, estimates suggest that around ₹1.35 lakh crore actually circulated during the elections—far exceeding the expenditure in the 2020 U.S. elections. The Centre for Media Studies had earlier estimated that an average of ₹1,500 is paid as bribes to every voter in the country. It would not be an exaggeration to say that election observers appointed by the Election Commission have become clowns in this entire drama. Instead of preventing electoral malpractice, they appear more focused on deciding which party should win.

    It appears that the people of Tamil Nadu responded against this vicious cycle of corruption and illegality. Out of the 107 MLAs elected from Vijay’s party, 93 were first-time entrants into politics. Half of them were between 40 and 45 years old. This helps explain the direction in which Tamil Nadu’s youth and Dalits are thinking. It also suggests that they are no longer interested in hollow identity slogans and ideological rhetoric. What they really want is simple: systems that function properly. They want efficient public services in return for the taxes they pay. They want government offices—especially revenue departments—to function properly, without power cuts and delays. Instead of political parties constantly raising emotional slogans and provoking caste, religious, or regional divisions to divert public attention, the country can become modern and ideal only when systems are reformed according to the aspirations of the youth.

    Although India ranks 91st among 182 countries in the corruption index, no government appears to be sincerely working to eliminate corruption within systems. Political parties focused solely on winning elections show little interest in institutional reforms. A recent example is the NEET question paper leak scandal. Over the last four years, question paper leaks have occurred in one form or another. Reports stated that question papers for the May 3 entrance examination were sold under the guise of “guess papers” for amounts ranging from ₹10 lakh to ₹25 lakh, and that a mafia network stretching from Rajasthan, Haryana, Maharashtra, and Uttarakhand to Kerala was responsible for the leak.

    Even after it was discovered last year that students who selected the same examination centre in Godhra, Gujarat scored unusually high marks, the examinations were not fully cancelled. Although a committee headed by former ISRO chairman Radhakrishnan was appointed to investigate the 2024 irregularities, its report merely gathered dust and was never implemented. Even after the CBI investigated 144 people who had purchased leaked question papers and submitted its findings to the Supreme Court, the Court concluded that there was no evidence of a nationwide systemic failure.

    Medical education in India costs crores of rupees. Affordable medical colleges are very few. This is one of the reasons behind examination paper leaks. What is the use of leaders delivering moral sermons when they cannot make education and healthcare accessible to ordinary citizens? After all, are these not the very sectors where people could save the most money?

    Meaningful change will not come unless the kind of political awareness shown by the generation that voted for Vijay in Tamil Nadu spreads across the country. Only when a new political consciousness emerges among the youth nationwide, as seen in Tamil Nadu, can real transformation become possible.

  • BJP’s Southern Challenge: Can the Saffron Wave Cross the Vindhyas?

    Crowd of BJP supporters holding Indian flags and BJP lotus flags at a political rally with party leaders on stage

    When will the BJP’s triumphant march reach the South?

    For several decades, red waves used to surge every year at Kolkata’s Brigade Parade Ground. But on May 9 this year, saffron waves swept across it instead. In the presence of Prime Minister Modi and thousands of people, Suvendu Adhikari took oath as the BJP’s first Chief Minister in West Bengal. Exactly a day later, on Sunday, in Chennai’s Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, film actor Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay took oath as the 9th Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in the presence of national opposition leader Rahul Gandhi. Vijay’s coronation too witnessed an equally massive public turnout. This development clearly indicates that while the Bharatiya Janata Party has firmly rooted itself in Hindi-speaking states, expanded in western states like Gujarat and Maharashtra, in northeastern states such as Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Tripura, and in the eastern coastal region first through Odisha and now Bengal, entering the South is not going to be easy. On one side stands Suvendu Adhikari, and on the other Joseph Vijay — both appearing as reflections of these changing political realities. Do these two events represent two distinct dimensions in the thinking of the Indian people?

    While Narendra Modi, standing beside Suvendu Adhikari in Bengal, is now eager to expand into the South, Rahul Gandhi, who stood beside Joseph Vijay after achieving success in Kerala, has been unable to regain lost ground in North India despite repeated efforts. The southern states that once resisted Congress have not particularly welcomed the BJP either. In Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Tamil Nadu, there has been no experiment or attempt left untried by the BJP to gain entry.

    In Andhra Pradesh, the BJP accepted the dominance of the Telugu Desam Party. In Karnataka, after losing power, it is making every possible effort to regain it. In Tamil Nadu, after realizing that strengthening independently is difficult, it had no choice but to once again ally with the AIADMK. In Kerala, although the BJP won 3 seats for the first time in this Assembly election, its vote share did not increase significantly compared to the past. If Kerala and Tamil Nadu remain distant dreams for the BJP, the only promising states appear to be Karnataka and Telangana. That is why Prime Minister Narendra Modi toured these two states immediately after the results of the five-state elections were announced. However, his tours in Karnataka and Telangana were markedly different. In Karnataka, Modi declared that people were inclining towards nationalist politics and that a saffron wave would soon sweep the state. But in Telangana, he did not express the same confidence.

    In 1984, among the only two seats won by the BJP nationwide, one was Mehsana in Gujarat and the other was Hanamkonda in Telangana. Today, while the BJP has come to power in many states including Gujarat, it has still not expanded in Telangana to the extent expected. Modi himself reportedly mentioned this to state leaders and criticized them. During Bandi Sanjay’s tenure as state president, some enthusiasm had developed within the BJP cadre, but later that momentum gradually faded. The Sangh Parivar organizations may be able to steer people toward Hindutva ideologically, but it is BJP leaders who must create political momentum among the people. During Modi’s latest visit, he did not publicly provide any direct guidance to BJP leaders. He knows that the strategies adopted in North India and Bengal may not work in the South. However, his words and meetings regarding Telangana suggest that he may have some strategy in mind. Time alone will reveal what it is.

    With the BJP’s victory in Bengal, it appears that after Mamata Banerjee, every force capable of challenging the saffron party is gradually disappearing. At the same time, questions are arising whether even the national party Congress is capable of taking on the BJP. Leaders who tried to unite opposition parties against the BJP have all collapsed one by one. Nitish Kumar, Mamata Banerjee, M.K. Stalin, KCR, Sharad Pawar, Kejriwal, and Uddhav Thackeray all once sought to unite the opposition against Modi. Nitish Kumar, who made intense efforts in 2023 to unify the opposition, later shifted towards the BJP for power and has now effectively handed over power to the BJP itself. Modi used every possible political strategy to sideline leaders capable of offering alternative politics nationally. None of them are now in a position to challenge Modi at the national level; instead, they are struggling for survival at the state level. In Maharashtra, after splitting the Shiv Sena and NCP to establish dominance, the BJP also encouraged rebellion within the Aam Aadmi Party. Although a new force has emerged in Tamil Nadu, it is too early to determine how much strength it can gather before the Lok Sabha elections. The Left parties’ only government is now under Congress influence. The Left’s presence in Parliament is also steadily declining.

    As regional parties and Left parties weaken, a situation is emerging where Congress alone must face the BJP. Perhaps the BJP desires exactly that. Anti-BJP politics appears to be either weakening or losing relevance altogether. This is evident both at the leadership level and at the ideological level. Consequently, even in the South, parties are no longer hesitant to join hands with the BJP or accept its political ideology. It is difficult to say how long it will take for anti-BJP sentiment to spread beyond the “paper tigers” of social media into the broader public.

    Congress ruled the country for decades after Independence, but gradually weakened over time. The condition Congress finds itself in today resembles the condition the Jana Sangh and later the BJP once faced. Within just two years, the BJP managed to come to power in Odisha, Bihar, and West Bengal in the East. It secured power for a third consecutive term in Assam. In the West, BJP has its own Chief Ministers in Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra. In Gujarat, it has been in power continuously for 30 years. Except for Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh, BJP Chief Ministers govern almost the entire Hindi belt. Even in Punjab, the BJP has already begun plans to gradually establish itself. If the BJP could establish dominance in the North, East, and West, is entering the South truly impossible?

    However, in electoral politics, the BJP has become so strategically sophisticated that defeating the party now seems nearly impossible. No one has been able to crack the BJP’s winning formula in elections. The BJP leaves no instrument unused in its pursuit of victory; whether those methods are ethical or unethical is irrelevant to the party. Since Trinamool Congress leaders themselves admitted that the BJP won 31 seats because of “Sir,” it is likely that the BJP deployed additional strategies to win the remaining seats.

    No political party can remain at its peak forever. If the BJP is to lose that position, it must become the cause of its own downfall. An alternative political force capable of dethroning the BJP must emerge. Conditions must arise where people begin resisting the party at every step. None of these three possibilities seem likely in the near future. Ordinarily, anti-incumbency sentiment against governments becomes visible, but the BJP has managed to overcome even that. BJP leaders are experts at neutralizing anti-government sentiment. In Assam, despite ruling twice, not only did Congress fail to defeat the BJP, but even Gaurav Gogoi — a three-time MP and Congress’s Chief Ministerial face — lost by a margin of 23,000 votes. What more needs to be said?

    It is impossible to predict how much strength the opposition can build before the 2029 general elections to challenge the BJP. It is uncertain how many parties will align nationally with a Congress that defeated the Left in Kerala while simultaneously trying to weaken Trinamool in Bengal with Left support. Even if all opposition parties unite again, creating an ideological foundation and leadership capable of defeating the BJP will not be easy. Leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan and V.P. Singh are unlikely to emerge again. In reality, many votes now won by regional parties once belonged to Congress. If regional parties weaken, Congress should theoretically regain those votes. But Congress has not been able to rebuild that strength. In Hindutva politics, the BJP has no competition. Organizationally too, Congress cannot match the BJP. Congress has failed to inspire confidence that it can defeat the BJP in a direct contest. What message will the elections in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Telangana, and other states over the next two years deliver? Will Karnataka and Telangana preserve their distinctiveness like Tamil Nadu? Only time will tell.

  • The Lotus Emerging from Bengal’s Cultural Roots

    “I will not resign. It is not the BJP that has defeated me, but the Election Commission,” declared Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee after the electoral setback. For years, many believed that the Trinamool Congress’s hold over Bengal—strengthened by welfare politics, village-level networks, and appeals to Bengali identity—would remain unshaken. The state’s complex social fabric, including the decisive influence of minority votes in several constituencies, further reinforced that assumption.

    Yet the Bharatiya Janata Party’s rise in West Bengal marks one of the most significant political developments in post-independence India. Overcoming deep-rooted regional loyalties and decades of ideological resistance, the BJP transformed itself from a marginal force into a major political contender in Bengal. To its supporters, this was not merely an electoral breakthrough but the re-emergence of a long-suppressed nationalist current within Bengal’s political consciousness.

    In many ways, Bengal’s historical and cultural evolution always contained strands that could eventually align with the BJP’s ideological narrative. Bengal has never been untouched by religious or identity politics. The 1905 partition of Bengal by British Viceroy Lord Curzon triggered the Swadeshi movement and ignited a powerful wave of anti-colonial nationalism. Long before independence, Bengal had already become a battleground of competing religious, cultural, and political identities.

    Thinkers and spiritual leaders such as Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekananda, and Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay profoundly shaped Bengali consciousness. Vivekananda envisioned Bengal’s youth as custodians of India’s spiritual resurgence, while Bankim Chandra’s writings fused cultural pride with patriotic fervor. His novel Anandamath became closely associated with early nationalist sentiment.

    Bengal also produced some of the fiercest critics of both colonial rule and mainstream Congress politics. Revolutionary figures such as Sri Aurobindo, Chittaranjan Das, and Subhas Chandra Bose challenged conventional political approaches and inspired militant nationalism. During Partition, communal violence—including the Calcutta killings and the Noakhali riots—left deep scars on Bengal’s collective memory.

    It was in this atmosphere that Syama Prasad Mukherjee emerged as a major political figure. Opposing both communal violence and special constitutional status for Kashmir, Mukherjee later founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the ideological predecessor of today’s BJP.

    Despite these historical undercurrents, Bengal did not embrace the BJP for decades. Instead, the state evolved into one of India’s strongest centers of liberal, intellectual, and left-wing politics. Bengal nurtured social reform movements, literary modernism, trade union activism, and revolutionary thought. The Congress once dominated the state, only to decline before the rise of the Left Front, which ruled for more than three decades. Later, the Trinamool Congress under Mamata Banerjee displaced the Left and established its own political dominance.

    At the same time, Bengal remained a cradle of artistic and intellectual achievement. From Rabindranath Tagore to generations of filmmakers, musicians, actors, and writers, Bengal became synonymous with cultural sophistication, pluralism, and ideological debate.

    The BJP’s advance into such a political landscape therefore raises an important question: what changed?

    Part of the answer lies in long-term organizational work. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh steadily expanded its grassroots presence across Bengal over several years. The BJP combined this organizational machinery with a carefully crafted political narrative centered on nationalism, border security, religious identity, and allegations of minority appeasement under the Trinamool Congress government.

    Another major controversy during the elections was the debate surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the role of the Election Commission. Opposition parties, especially the Trinamool Congress, alleged that large-scale deletions of voter names disproportionately affected minority-dominated districts such as Murshidabad, Malda, and North 24 Parganas. The BJP, however, defended the exercise as a necessary step to remove duplicate and ineligible voters and to strengthen the integrity of the electoral process. The controversy intensified political polarization, with the opposition accusing the Election Commission of acting in a partisan manner, while the BJP projected the revision as part of a broader campaign against illegal infiltration and electoral manipulation. Regardless of the competing narratives, the issue became a crucial psychological and political factor shaping the atmosphere of the election.

    The party also demonstrated a level of electoral planning and discipline that many opposition parties struggled to match. Having already secured close to 40 percent of the vote share in previous parliamentary and assembly elections, the BJP focused on incremental expansion constituency by constituency. Elections were approached not merely as campaigns but as highly coordinated political operations involving booth management, cadre mobilization, and targeted messaging.

    Former CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury himself acknowledged that even sections of traditional Left voters had shifted toward the BJP in recent years. This reflected not only ideological polarization but also the collapse of older political structures that once anchored Bengal’s electoral landscape.

    The opposition now faces a broader national challenge. Regional leaders who once treated Congress as politically irrelevant increasingly recognize the need for coordination against the BJP. Yet the Congress party continues to struggle with organizational weakness, inconsistent strategy, and the absence of a durable grassroots network comparable to that of the BJP.

    The contrast between the two parties is striking. The BJP invests continuously in cadre-building, ideological outreach, and local organizational structures. Congress, by contrast, often appears reactive rather than strategic. Electoral alliances and parliamentary tactics alone cannot compensate for the absence of sustained grassroots engagement.

    This is perhaps the larger lesson emerging from Bengal. Modern politics is not sustained by rhetoric alone. It requires organization, ideological clarity, long-term planning, and the ability to emotionally connect with voters across social divisions. One may agree or disagree with the BJP’s politics, but its capacity to build a disciplined political machine is difficult to ignore.

    Whether Bengal’s political transformation represents a temporary shift or a deeper civilizational realignment remains uncertain. But one fact is clear: Bengal, which has repeatedly shaped the course of Indian political history, is once again at the center of a major national turning point.

  • How long will these unethical politics continue?

    Leaders exchanging party scarves during symbolic switch from AAP to BJP
    Leaders symbolically switch from Aam Aadmi Party to Bharatiya Janata Party

    On the last day of the election campaign, Prime Minister Narendra Modi confidently declared, “After May 4, I will have to come to Bengal once again for the swearing-in ceremony of a BJP government.” He expressed confidence that “after Odisha and Bihar, the lotus will bloom in Bengal.” The Election Commission has deployed CAPF forces across Bengal. Union Home Minister Amit Shah said, “Even after the elections are over, these forces will remain in Bengal for another two months.”

    While Modi’s campaign efforts aim to attract the masses, especially women voters, Amit Shah, who stayed in Bengal for 15 days, is an expert strategist working at a micro level. This leadership duo prepares meticulous strategies well in advance to win a state. They craft narratives necessary for victory, employ all possible tactics—persuasion, incentives, division, and force—and make use of every system available. With 250,000 security personnel, Bengal has been turned into a battleground. Even after all this, can the BJP come to power in Bengal? If people desire change, if Hindu voters consolidate, if women support in large numbers, and if institutions fully cooperate, BJP’s victory is certain. However, if the people of Bengal view Mamata Banerjee as a symbol of their identity and resist Hindutva influence, the Trinamool Congress will return to power for a fourth consecutive term.

    In reality, even the Congress party under Rahul Gandhi does not want Mamata Banerjee to win in Bengal. When the Women’s Reservation Bill was collectively opposed in Parliament by the INDIA alliance, Trinamool supported it. The very next day, Rahul Gandhi toured Bengal and sharply criticized Mamata Banerjee’s corrupt governance. He argued that her policies are responsible for the consolidation of Hindu voters. While leaders like Tejashwi Yadav and Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren campaigned in her support, Congress and the Left parties strongly criticized her. This approach not only exposes divisions within the INDIA alliance but may also benefit the BJP to some extent. As Venkaiah Naidu once described, Congress behaves like “friendship in Delhi, wrestling in the streets.” While the BJP unites forces at both national and regional levels under the NDA, Congress has failed to build a strong coalition capable of challenging BJP across the country, highlighting its weakness.

    Not just with Mamata Banerjee, but even in the case of Kejriwal, Congress follows a similar approach. There are reasons for this, but it also reflects how independent regional parties in the country are becoming isolated and forced into defensive positions.

    Even as the Bengal elections are underway, a significant development is that seven Aam Aadmi Party MPs have joined the BJP. What does this indicate? Even before the current assembly battles conclude, BJP leaders have turned their attention to Punjab, where elections are due in eight months. Considering the growing anti-incumbency against the AAP government there, BJP seems to have devised a strong strategy to strengthen itself in the state. Though there are allegations that leaders like Raghav Chadha were pressured and others intimidated using ED and CBI cases, Kejriwal’s leadership style has also contributed to this situation. BJP is making every effort to weaken AAP, a one-man party, both in Punjab and Delhi, and to draw its leaders into their fold. This reflects BJP’s political strategy—using every possible tool to assert dominance and weaken opposition parties.

    The way AAP handled Rajya Sabha seats also contributed to this moral decline. Selling seats and later intimidating or re-buying those who purchased them is not difficult. By sidelining people like Yogendra Yadav, Prashant Bhushan, Ashutosh, and Shazia Ilmi and elevating industrialists and millionaires instead, AAP weakened itself morally. In contrast, Mamata’s party, though regional, sent individuals like journalist Sagarika Ghose, lawyer Menaka Guruswamy, and marginalized representative Mamata Bala Thakur to the Rajya Sabha. Similarly, CPI(M) sent journalist John Brittas from Kerala. Can BJP lure such individuals? This episode shows how carefully regional parties must choose whom they send to Parliament.

    The fact that seven AAP MPs left their party overnight to join another highlights how degraded Indian politics has become. Leaders like Raghav Chadha, who once labeled BJP as a party using agencies like CBI and ED as tools of intimidation, and Ashok Mittal, now joining BJP, what message are they sending? Are parliamentary seats being expanded just to accommodate such leaders? Rajya Sabha MPs are not directly elected by the people but chosen by party MLAs. When those MLAs remain in the same party, how is it legal for MPs to defect? The current anti-defection law appears not to prevent defections but to enable them through loopholes.

    When ideological commitment and political ethics are abandoned for selfish gains, can other systems remain unaffected? Recently, former U.S. President Trump calling India a “hellhole” was completely inappropriate. His remark recalls Russian writer Alexander Kuprin’s novel “The Pit,” which exposed prostitution. Kuprin’s observation—that systems often promote the very evils they claim to prevent—applies equally to the anti-defection law. The provision for “merger” within the law creates room for legal defections. The law mentions party merger but not parliamentary party merger. How can a parliamentary party be considered the real party? The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench in the Eknath Shinde case ruled that legislative or parliamentary parties cannot act independently of the political party’s stance. Should this not apply to the AAP MPs’ merger? As early as 2003, the Supreme Court clarified that defining a parliamentary party as the real party would render the Tenth Schedule meaningless. However, in 2019, the Bombay High Court’s Goa bench ruled differently, validating Congress defections as mergers. The Supreme Court’s delay in hearing the appeal rendered it irrelevant, as the assembly term ended and fresh elections were held in 2022. Now, it remains uncertain when the Supreme Court will address the petition challenging AAP’s merger into BJP in the Rajya Sabha.

    The BJP government claims to enact useful laws for the country, but why does it not introduce a law to curb unethical political defections? Until such a law is enacted, MPs and MLAs will continue defecting at will. BJP, which claims to be different, is behaving no differently from Congress, which once popularized the “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” culture. Its focus remains on winning elections and expanding nationwide rather than fostering ethical political values. It was Congress’s past mistakes that led people to embrace BJP. For years, people supported BJP despite its flaws, keeping Congress’s misdeeds in mind. However, just as medicine has an expiry date, political support too has a time limit. Until recently, Raghav Chadha enjoyed immense popularity on social media, but after joining BJP, over two million people distanced themselves from him. Once leaders begin to decline morally, it does not take long for people to see them as corrupt.

  • The Great Women’s Reservation Show: Reform or Electoral Strategy?

    Illustration of a woman ascending steps labeled Reservation, Quota, and Reservation in a legislative chamber with supporters holding signs for empowerment and equality and opponents debating.
    “Will this bill pass? My boss is asking me again and again,” a friendly-party MP asked Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju last week. “Why do you have that doubt? As long as Narendra Modi is Prime Minister, whatever he decides will be achieved under any circumstances. A lot of efforts are happening behind the scenes. Many people will lean towards us. Just wait and watch,” he told that leader. “Not only that, I myself will speak to your boss,” he said, personally calling him and assuring, “There are no obstacles for the bill to pass.” Following this, arrangements were made in that state to gather large numbers of women and celebrate.

    In fact, it did not appear that even the Prime Minister had any apprehension that the bill might not be approved. From the second week of April, women from across the country were being brought to Delhi. BJP national president Nitin Nabin called state presidents and key leaders and instructed them to organize women’s conferences in the states and hold press meets on women’s reservation. A large conference with women was held at Vigyan Bhavan, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke. Key women leaders from the party were brought to the central office and trained to go among the public and speak to the media. Documents were prepared and distributed showing how many seats would increase in which states. Eventually, the Lok Sabha galleries were filled with women representatives. The national capital and Parliament premises were vibrant with women. Many women dreamed that they too would soon enter the House; some even identified their prospective seats.
    However, on the very first day of the Parliament session on April 16, it became clear that the opposition was united. Behind-the-scenes efforts intensified to win over or ensure the absence of opposition members. Modi even had to warn, “If this bill fails, women will not forgive the opposition.” Doubts were raised about whether opposition MPs from states going through elections would attend the session. In West Bengal, Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee is facing unusually tough competition this time, and her party MPs were deeply engaged in campaigning. Despite efforts to stay united, seven Trinamool MPs had to be absent during voting. Even so, since there was a significant gap between the two-thirds majority required in the Lok Sabha and the NDA’s strength, the constitutional amendment inevitably failed.

    Just as there are many reasons behind Karna’s death, there are many reasons behind the failure of this bill. Why did what was considered a historic moment ultimately turn into a farce? When all parties unanimously approved the constitutional amendment bill for women’s reservation in 2023, why was it opposed now? Why was there a need to modify that bill? If it had to be changed, why were efforts not made to build consensus on it as well? If women’s reservation is to be implemented in 2029, there is still three years’ time—then why extend budget sessions and hold special sessions during ongoing assembly elections? In the Bengal elections, which Modi has taken very prestigiously, was the women’s reservation issue used as a move to attract women voters? If so, why link reservation with an increase in seats through a constitutional amendment? Since an increase in seats would also benefit the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh, was this strategy aimed at drawing that party closer? Did the government not anticipate that basing delimitation on population, the absence of a proposal for a 50% seat increase, and rising concerns about North–South disparities would lead to suspicion? Even though Home Minister Amit Shah said at the last minute that the bill would be modified, the opposition did not agree—this shows the deep mistrust between the ruling party and the opposition. It also did not appear that the government anticipated criticism that using the 2011 census as a basis would ignore OBCs.
    In our country, politics driven by short-term gains and excessive publicity sometimes pushes back even necessary decisions like women’s representation.

    The job of an MP or MLA is to enact new legislation. They have to perform legislative functions. An MP may represent a single Lok Sabha constituency, but when they sit in the Lok Sabha, they are responsible for the 1.4 billion people of the country. They are part of the law-making process. The laws made by their votes apply to every citizen of the country. They determine each citizen’s fate. The Constitution provides for the executive to handle citizens’ daily needs. The executive is responsible for implementing laws made by the legislature. If Parliament or the Legislative Assemblies make good laws and the executive implements them effectively, citizens’ problems will be resolved.

    Therefore, there is a need to work on improving the quality of laws made in Parliament and the state legislatures. There is a need to work on improving the quality of debate and discussion in Parliament or the Legislative Assemblies. Then, arrangements must be made for better implementation of those laws. Increasing the number of MPs or MLAs will not change anything.

    If there is a water, electricity, or sewage problem in an MP’s constituency, the local administration must resolve it. If there is a law and order problem, the police will address it, not the MP. Therefore, it is essential that the number of police stations be increased in proportion to the population growth, the number of police personnel be increased and they be better trained, and the number of civil service staff and officers be increased so that citizens’ problems can be resolved.

    As the population grows, the number of schools and teachers should be increased. As the population grows, the number of hospitals and doctors should be increased. As the population grows, civic amenities should be developed. As the population grows, infrastructure should be developed. While this is not to say that work is not being done in this direction, it is not being done in proportion to the population growth. No one can deny the fact that the quality of civil services is continuously deteriorating.

    Therefore, the entire delimitation debate is a ‘misplaced priority’. It could also be called ‘barking on the wrong tree’. It will not bring any qualitative change to the country’s current legislative or executive system. On the contrary, it will deepen the division between North and South India.
    If, as Modi hopes, women in large numbers shift toward the BJP in the Bengal elections, the party is bound to achieve a major victory. This time, 200,000 more women voters have been added in Bengal. Out of 67.5 million voters, 34.4 million are women. Moreover, in the last elections, more women than men voted—88% of women cast their vote. Not only in Bengal but across the country, women’s voting percentages are rising faster than men’s. In many states, schemes targeting women have benefited ruling parties in elections. Therefore, there is little doubt that Modi used women’s reservation as a strategic move to attract women voters away from Mamata Banerjee. In fact, compared to all parties, Mamata Banerjee has provided greater representation to women—about 33% in her party. Of 29 Trinamool MPs, 11 are women; 20% of her cabinet are women. This time, the party has given tickets to 52 women, more than any other party. Welfare schemes like Kanyashree and Lakshmi Bhandar have also gained popularity. So whether the BJP can attract women voters through the reservation bill remains debatable—but if the BJP wins, it will have the opportunity to claim that women made the difference.
    More than women, the BJP has focused this time on Hindu-majority seats. In West Bengal’s 294 seats, only 234 have less than 40% Muslim population. The BJP had won 77 of these seats in the last election. Before 1977, Muslims supported Congress; until 2006, the Left; and since then, the Trinamool Congress. They have been a key factor in Mamata’s success.

    The BJP, which had virtually no presence in West Bengal until 2014, secured 17% votes in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections and increased it to 40% in 2019. This percentage hasn’t changed much in the last seven years. The gap between Trinamool and BJP is about five percent. To bridge this, consolidation of Hindu votes is necessary—and within that, Hindu women’s votes are crucial.
    Ultimately, increasing the number of MPs and MLAs may create more political positions and even increase women’s representation numerically, but without deeper institutional reforms, it is unlikely to bring meaningful change on the ground.
     

  • From Masterstroke to Misfire: The Amendment That Backfired

    The failure of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 marks a significant political and constitutional moment. It demonstrates that even a strong executive cannot always secure its will, and that institutional checks within India’s parliamentary system remain robust. For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose style of governance has often been described as decisive and minimally consultative, this episode represents a rare but important setback.

    The Bill, widely expected to pass, fell short of the required two-thirds majority. While 298 members voted in favour and 230 against, it did not meet the threshold of 352 votes out of the 528 members present and voting. In response, the government chose to shelve not only the amendment but also the Delimitation Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, arguing that these measures were interconnected. Notably, this is the first time in over a decade in power that such a major legislative initiative has been blocked.

    The Opposition’s coordinated resistance played a crucial role. What initially appeared to be a foregone conclusion turned into a rare moment of unity among diverse political parties. Critics argue that the government’s approach itself contributed to this consolidation, as a top-down style of decision-making left little room for dialogue or consensus-building.

    Rahul Gandhi sharpened the political attack by likening the Prime Minister to a “magician” who had been “caught,” suggesting that the push to expand the Lok Sabha was driven by political calculations rather than genuine reform. According to the Opposition, the proposal sought to reshape India’s electoral map while simultaneously projecting a pro-women image through the reservation component.

    This episode raises a broader question: can strong, centralized leadership consistently deliver effective governance? While such leadership can accelerate decision-making, it may also limit consultation and erode consensus. The perception of “bulldozing” policies—whether accurate or not—can undermine democratic legitimacy. At the same time, it is important to recognize that this pattern is not unique to the current government. Indian political history offers several examples of unilateral decision-making, from the Emergency under Indira Gandhi to the Shah Bano legislation under Rajiv Gandhi.

    The proposal to introduce 33% reservation for women in legislatures is, in itself, a landmark reform. It addresses a long-standing structural imbalance in political representation and has the potential to significantly enhance women’s participation in governance. However, the timing and method of its introduction have raised legitimate concerns. Convening a special session of Parliament during ongoing assembly elections, rather than building broader consensus, invited suspicion about political motives.

    From an electoral perspective, the move is understandable. Women voters now constitute a decisive segment of the electorate, often turning out in greater numbers than men. Welfare policies targeting women have already proven electorally effective across several states. Expanding political representation could further consolidate this support. Even opposition resistance could be framed politically to mobilize women voters in favour of the ruling party.

    Yet, the linkage of women’s reservation with delimitation proved to be the most contentious aspect. Home Minister Amit Shah attempted to reassure critics by offering verbal guarantees that southern states would not lose proportional representation in an expanded Lok Sabha. He even proposed a temporary pause to revise the Bill. However, the Opposition rejected these assurances, pointing out that such safeguards were absent from the Bill’s text.

    As drafted, the proposal relied on the 2011 Census for delimitation, which would likely reduce the representation of states with lower population growth—particularly in southern and northeastern India—while increasing the share of the Hindi heartland. This raised serious concerns about federal balance and fairness.

    The urgency with which the government pursued the amendment further fueled criticism. With the 2026–27 Census still underway, many questioned the need to rush such a significant constitutional change. Linking a broadly supported reform like women’s reservation with a highly divisive issue like delimitation was seen by critics as a strategic miscalculation.

    The Opposition’s unified stance, particularly within the INDIA bloc, proved decisive. Parties such as the Congress, Trinamool Congress, DMK, and the Left coordinated effectively, setting aside differences. In contrast, regional parties like the TDP and AIADMK faced criticism for supporting the Bill based on assurances rather than textual guarantees, despite potential implications for their states.

    The defeat of the Bill has been framed by the Opposition as a victory for constitutional principles. Rahul Gandhi described it as a rejection of an “attack on the Constitution,” while Priyanka Gandhi Vadra emphasized the importance of separating women’s reservation from delimitation. These reactions highlight the broader political narrative that has emerged from the episode.

    Procedurally, the outcome underscores the strength of constitutional safeguards. Amendments of this nature require not only a majority of the total membership but also a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, along with ratification by at least half of the state legislatures in certain cases. These high thresholds are designed to ensure that major structural changes are enacted only with broad consensus—and in this instance, that safeguard functioned as intended.

    Looking ahead, the proposal to expand the Lok Sabha remains contentious. Critics argue that such a move, especially if based on outdated Census data, risks deepening regional imbalances and straining the federal structure. While women’s reservation enjoys wide support, delimitation is likely to remain a politically sensitive and divisive issue.

    Ultimately, the episode highlights a fundamental principle of democracy: process matters as much as outcome. Even well-intentioned reforms can lose legitimacy if they are perceived as unilateral or politically driven. The challenge for any government lies not only in pursuing reform but in building the consensus necessary to sustain it.

  • “From Uncertainty to Legitimacy: The Amaravati Capital Story”

    “Which region should be the capital of a state is a decision that rests with the state government,” said Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai on February 5, 2020, in the Lok Sabha in response to a question raised by a Telugu Desam Party member. The Union Home Ministry also stated in an affidavit submitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court at the same time that it had no role in deciding the capital. Exactly six years later, history has rewritten itself. The same minister who once said in Parliament that they had nothing to do with the capital issue, has now introduced in the Lok Sabha, last Thursday, an amendment bill to the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, clearly stating that Amaravati will be the capital of Andhra Pradesh.

    Everyone knows why the Centre, which once kept itself completely aloof saying it had no involvement in the capital issue, has now agreed to grant legal status to Amaravati as the capital. Everyone also knows why a situation arose where a state had no capital for twelve years. The scenes of intense chaos in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha when Parliament decided to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh twelve years ago have not yet faded from the public memory. In complete contrast to that atmosphere, almost all parties supported the bill granting legal status to Amaravati as the capital of Andhra Pradesh. Only the members of the YSR Congress Party walked out of both Houses, because they are well aware that it was the stand taken by their leader Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy that led to the necessity of introducing such a bill in Parliament.

    When the Telugu Desam Party entered the 2024 elections in alliance with the Jana Sena Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party, many were surprised. Some even questioned whether there was any need for the BJP in Andhra Pradesh at all. However, the benefits of this alliance would have become clear to them on the day the Amaravati bill was passed. After becoming Chief Minister for the second time in the bifurcated Andhra Pradesh, N. Chandrababu Naidu took steps to revive the Amaravati works that had stalled during the YSRCP rule. With the Centre’s support, loans were secured from the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank. Many other banks also came forward to finance infrastructure. However, some industrialists and diplomats from various countries expressed doubts about whether Amaravati would continue as the capital in the future. It was to remove these doubts that Chandrababu sought the Centre’s support. Since the Telugu Desam Party is a key ally, the top leadership of the BJP stood firmly behind him this time.

    After Chandrababu personally requested Prime Minister Narendra Modi last year to grant legal status to Amaravati, the Centre raised several questions. It sent a note to multiple ministries including the Home Ministry, Law Ministry, Urban Development Ministry, NITI Aayog, and the Expenditure Department of the Finance Ministry, seeking their opinions. It even consulted the Attorney General. It examined aspects such as the basis for ensuring a comfortable life for people in the new capital, measures taken to ease business, international best practices being followed, and the law and order situation. Only after extensive deliberations and discussions did the Centre decide to grant legal status to Amaravati. As the second phase of Parliament’s budget session was to conclude within a week, the Prime Minister’s Office informed the Chief Minister that if a resolution granting legal status to Amaravati as the state capital was passed and sent, a decision would be taken immediately. Notably, this information was conveyed through Satya Kumar Yadav, a minister representing the BJP in the state.

    If Modi decides, what cannot be done? After the Assembly passed the resolution, the amendment bill to the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act was decided overnight and given legal form in the last two days of the budget session. Leaders from several parties, including JD(U) leader Sanjay Kumar Jha, stated that it is due to the crucial support extended by a visionary leader like Chandrababu that Amaravati is receiving legal recognition in Parliament in such an extraordinary manner. In any case, a state capital receiving recognition in the Government of India Gazette after approval from Parliament and the President in such an exceptional manner is a testament to Chandrababu’s effectiveness. Raising debates now on whether Amaravati should be the capital or not, or trying to politicize it, is completely unnecessary. In fact, if the decisions taken earlier by Chandrababu had been continued by governments led by Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy and later K. Chandrashekar Rao, and even by the Jagan government, this discussion would not have arisen today. It is natural to have doubts about how the capital will look, how it will be built over thousands of acres, and how long it will take to complete. Chandrababu is a person who has fought many battles, endured setbacks, and emerged victorious again. He has immense confidence and experience, and has proven many times that he possesses long-term vision. Therefore, his decisions cannot be judged with short-sighted thinking or a mindset that finds fault at every step. Unfortunately, in our country, not only opposition parties but even critics have long abandoned a constructive approach.

    Those who have seen Chandrababu as Chief Minister of united Andhra Pradesh between 1995 and 2004 would have no doubts about his capability. The language used by Chief Ministers before him was different, and the language he used was different. As a journalist, I personally witnessed his whirlwind visits to Delhi, where he would meet ministers, industrialists, foreign representatives, and World Bank officials all in a single day, giving PowerPoint presentations. When he took us to the inauguration of the Hitech City building amidst rocks and barren land, when he introduced Bill Gates, when he spoke about optical fiber and broadband in an era without mobile phones, and when he used data as a tool, everything seemed confusing at the time. But gradually, an area in Hyderabad transformed into Cyberabad, becoming a modern face of India with IT companies and institutions like ISB. It was a time when government orders were issued overnight for industrialists and approvals were granted within 15 days. Recently, when I visited Ireland, I was reminded that Chandrababu had visited the Dublin dockyard back then and adopted its PPP model for developing the Hitech City area in Hyderabad.

    During Chandrababu’s tenure as Chief Minister, I underwent nearly a month of training as a financial journalist at the invitation of the World Bank to understand the terminology of reforms and new economic policies of that time. That was a period when Andhra Pradesh had a strong association with the World Bank. At that time, after the newspaper I worked for shut down, I was managing a Telugu website. One day, while I was presenting e-governance services at a stall on behalf of that organization at Hotel Grand Kakatiya in Hyderabad, Chief Minister Chandrababu came to the stall, saw me, and was surprised. He asked, “What are you doing here?” I replied, “I don’t have a newspaper job anymore.” There is no doubt that changing circumstances also create new opportunities. Change is always for the better.

    As British singer John Lennon sang, “Imagine there’s no heaven… it’s easy if you try… no hell below us… above us only sky,” nothing is impossible if one tries. However, some may ask whether there is no difference between the conditions of 1995–2004 and those of today. Chandrababu is well aware of the changing circumstances, the people around him, and the ongoing developments.