akrishnarao

Category: A Journalist’s view 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.

  • Silence in Face of Injustice Threatens Sovereignty, Warns Justice N. V. Ramana

    Former Chief Justice of India Justice N. V. Ramana voiced deep concern over recent global developments, warning that the current international climate reflects a troubling erosion of diplomatic norms and respect for national sovereignty. He remarked that certain actions and statements by powerful world leaders signal a growing disregard for the foundational principle that nations must govern their own affairs without external interference. Justice Ramana was among the first former constitutional functionaries to openly warn against the dangers of silence in the face of such developments.

    He was speaking at the 20th Memorial Lecture organised by the Badrivishal Pannalal Pitti Trust in Hyderabad on March 28, 2026, held to mark the 98th birth anniversary of the late socialist leader Badrivishal Pannalal Pitti. The event featured reflections on Pitti’s legacy alongside discussions on contemporary issues of national and global importance.

    Justice Ramana noted that claims of having “stopped” conflicts involving other countries, along with interventions in regions such as Venezuela and Iran, raise serious questions about the intent and legitimacy of such actions. According to him, these moves lack the essence of diplomacy and instead challenge the very idea of sovereignty, often reflecting arrogance, economic greed, and a desire to control natural resources under the guise of maintaining order and stability.

    He emphasized that the notion of one nation intervening in another’s internal matters, particularly in regions that are home to ancient civilizations, is deeply concerning. He observed that for powerful countries, morality often becomes negotiable, shaped by strategic and economic interests, while for less powerful nations, morality and sovereignty remain central, rooted in hard-won independence achieved through long struggles and sacrifices.

    Highlighting the global impact of such tensions, he pointed out that conflicts between major powers have far-reaching consequences, affecting ordinary citizens across the world. In this context, he stressed that the responsibility to respond does not lie with any one nation or political group but must be shared collectively, calling for a unified global voice against actions that undermine peace and sovereignty.

    Turning to the question of ideology, Justice Ramana said ideology is not confined to politics alone but is a manifestation of an individual’s values, closely tied to human principles and beliefs. He observed that a decline in human values has led to a weakening of commitment to ideologies, even as numerous ideologies continue to promise visions of a perfect society. Emphasising the need for clarity of purpose, he said individuals must focus on their “swadharma,” or inner duty, rather than attempting to adopt every ideological framework.

    Recalling India’s past approach to global issues, Justice Ramana said he was reminded of an article by journalist Krishna Rao of Andhra Jyothy, which brought back an important moment in recent history. He noted that in 2003, under the leadership of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Indian Parliament had taken a principled stand by condemning the United States’ actions in Iraq. He described it as a moment of moral clarity that reflected India’s commitment to universal fundamental values, adding that such clarity now appears to have diminished, with the world growing quieter even in the face of visible suffering.

    Drawing from history, he warned against the dangers of silence by invoking the words of Martin Niemöller in the context of the Second World War: “First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    Expressing disappointment over what he described as a lack of moral leadership globally, Justice Ramana said that many leaders have remained silent in the face of war and suffering. He lamented the absence of a widely respected international figure who can command moral authority and mobilize collective resistance against injustice.

    Justice Ramana urged individuals and nations alike not to remain silent in the face of suffering, cautioning that failing to support others in times of crisis ultimately weakens collective security and undermines the very values that sustain a just and equitable world order.

    Rising Political Opportunism Undermines Democratic Values

    At the political level, he noted that while different parties have held power over time, none have succeeded in building an ideal society. This, he said, is because political parties have largely failed to translate their ideologies into meaningful action, echoing the idea of a “poverty of philosophy.” He described ideology as the crucial link between political parties and the people, but pointed out that in recent years, loyalty has increasingly shifted from principles to power.

    Justice Ramana highlighted a growing trend where elected representatives switch allegiances based on electoral prospects, sometimes even immediately before or after elections. Such actions, he said, undermine democratic values and reduce ideology to mere opportunism. He cautioned that when ideologies are not backed by action, the effectiveness of democratic institutions diminishes and public trust is eroded.

    Referring to rising instances of political defections, he said that constitutional mechanisms meant to address such practices are being undermined, turning what was once seen as political betrayal into an accepted strategy. He warned that treating the voter’s mandate as a transferable asset poses a serious threat to democracy, adding that morality cannot be enforced by law alone and must be internalised by those in positions of power.

    He also expressed concern over increasing divisions in society despite the weakening of ideological commitment, particularly the use of misunderstood religious ideologies as tools for polarisation. Emphasising that all religions fundamentally promote values of peace, compassion and fraternity, he said the true strength of a society lies in its ability to embrace diversity and coexist harmoniously.

  • India at a Turning Point: The Decline of Naxalism and the Road Ahead

    A discussion is scheduled to be held in Parliament on March 30 regarding the measures being taken by the government to eradicate Maoist extremism. In this context, the reported imminent surrender of top Maoist leader Muppala Lakshmana Rao (Ganapathi) is being viewed as a potentially decisive moment. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has reiterated the government’s commitment to eliminate Maoist extremism by March 31, 2026. Recent developments—including the killing of several senior leaders in 2025 and the surrender of nearly 4,000 cadres—indicate that sustained security operations and policy measures have significantly weakened the movement. If Ganapathi surrenders, it would represent not only a strategic setback but also a major symbolic blow to the Naxalite movement.

    The Naxalite movement traces its origins to the 1967 uprising in Naxalbari, where peasants revolted against feudal landlords. Inspired by Maoist ideology, leaders such as Charu Majumdar and Kanu Sanyal mobilized marginalized communities around demands for land redistribution and social justice. Over time, the movement spread across states like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Telangana, forming what came to be known as the “Red Corridor.” The formation of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in 2004 sought to consolidate the insurgency, though internal divisions had already begun to weaken its cohesion.

    Over the decades, the movement fragmented due to ideological differences, leadership rivalries, and disagreements over strategy. Some factions advocated immediate armed revolution, while others emphasized mass-based political mobilization. Disputes over tactics—including the targeting of civilians—further eroded unity. Even after consolidation attempts, splinter groups continued to emerge, weakening the movement’s overall strength and coordination.

    This fragmentation was accompanied by a steady erosion of public support. While the movement initially drew legitimacy from its opposition to exploitation and inequality, its increasing reliance on violence, extortion, and coercive control alienated the very communities it claimed to represent. As a result, public perception has shifted significantly: encounter deaths of Maoist leaders no longer evoke widespread sympathy, and in many areas, there is growing acceptance—if not quiet support—for state action aimed at restoring stability and enabling development.

    Despite this decline, the persistence of the movement was rooted in structural issues such as land inequality, displacement of tribal populations, governance deficits, and lack of economic opportunities. These conditions enabled Maoists to sustain support in certain pockets and continue guerrilla operations for decades.

    The government’s response evolved significantly over time. Under P. Chidambaram, a coordinated national strategy was introduced that combined security operations with development initiatives. Measures such as synchronized inter-state operations, strengthening of central forces, expansion of intelligence networks, and programs like the Integrated Action Plan aimed to improve infrastructure and governance in affected regions.

    Building on this foundation, the government under Narendra Modi, with Amit Shah leading internal security efforts, has adopted a comprehensive, time-bound, and highly coordinated strategy to eliminate Naxalism. This approach has emphasized close cooperation with state governments, expansion of security infrastructure, improved connectivity, and the implementation of the SAMADHAN doctrine. The increasing use of advanced technologies—including surveillance drones, cyber intelligence, and systems influenced by international practices—has further constrained the operational space available to Maoist groups. In an era of digital monitoring, maintaining secrecy and sustaining long-term insurgency has become significantly more difficult.

    A clear indication of the movement’s internal crisis is the surrender of senior Maoist leader Mallojula Venugopal Rao, who described the CPI (Maoist) as a “failed experiment.” He acknowledged that the movement failed to adapt to changing conditions, underestimated the strength of the Indian state, and gradually lost its social base due to its own mistakes. His appeal to cadres to lay down arms reflects a broader shift within the movement itself.

    Another dimension shaping the trajectory of Naxalism has been its romanticisation by sections of intellectual and cultural circles. In its early decades, it was often portrayed as a heroic struggle against injustice. While such narratives drew attention to genuine social issues, they also created an idealized image of armed revolution that did not align with ground realities. This sometimes misled sections of youth, who were drawn by ideological appeal but later confronted the harsh realities of violence, isolation, and limited outcomes. Over time, the gap between romantic portrayals and lived experiences contributed to disillusionment.

    As the movement declines, previously inaccessible regions—particularly in mineral-rich states like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha—are opening up for economic and industrial activity. Improved security conditions have reduced operational risks for businesses, enabling infrastructure projects and attracting investment in sectors such as mining, manufacturing, logistics, and telecommunications. This has the potential to generate employment, boost local economies, and integrate remote regions into the national development framework.

    However, this transition also brings important responsibilities. Sustainable progress will depend on ensuring that development does not replicate past patterns of displacement and exploitation. Fair compensation, environmental protection, and meaningful engagement with tribal communities are essential to maintaining long-term stability and preventing the re-emergence of unrest.

    In conclusion, the Naxalite movement has evolved from a peasant uprising in Naxalbari into a major insurgency and now into a weakened, fragmented, and increasingly isolated force. The combined impact of internal divisions, declining public support, sustained security operations, and technological advancements suggests that India may be approaching a decisive turning point. However, the lessons of the past remain crucial. The government must ensure that the conditions which once enabled exploitation and alienation do not re-emerge in new forms. Preventing exploitative practices, safeguarding the rights of vulnerable communities, and ensuring equitable and inclusive development are essential—not only to consolidate current gains but also to ensure that discontent does not give rise to similar movements in different forms in the future.

  • “Strategic Autonomy or Strategic Adjustment? India’s New Reality”

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated in both Houses of Parliament that, due to the war raging in West Asia, the country is facing a situation similar to the crisis that arose during the COVID period, and that everyone should be prepared to face it together. While saying that there is no shortage of gas and oil at present, it is noteworthy that he also described the situation as worrying. He declared that not just India but the entire world is facing an energy crisis. In reality, it is not unknown to him that people have already begun facing difficulties regarding cooking gas. With the sudden rise in demand for induction stoves in the country, their prices have also increased. Those who cannot afford these stoves have already begun either going hungry or depending on others. “You have CNG at home, right… I’ll make four rotis and go…” our domestic worker asked. The sale of gas cylinders in the black market is also taking place. Shops that used to fill gas into 5 kg cylinders have shut down. There are many instances of consumers quarrelling with dealers over cylinders due to them. Prices of tea and food items at roadside stalls have also increased. “No stock” boards are visible at many petrol pumps. People, believing rumors, are lining up at petrol pumps. Since it is unclear how this situation will be in the future, Prime Minister Narendra Modi came before the people. Recalling the experience of some selling oxygen in the black market during COVID, he warned that black marketing will not be tolerated. Modi is also aware that people will not ignore these issues during the Assembly elections in five states. India imports nearly 60 percent of its LPG. Of that, 90 percent must pass through the Strait of Hormuz. According to the latest reports, with great difficulty, we have managed to bring in four ships so far. Modi told Parliament that a large number of Indians have been safely brought back from the Gulf. The benefits that families here used to receive from the remittances sent by them have now stopped. “We know you will face problems at present. But this war is happening so that there will be no problems in the world in the long term,” Israel’s ambassador Reuven Azar said recently in Delhi. Who gave Israel, or its godfather America, the authority to wage war on behalf of all countries in the world?

    In fact, as soon as Parliament sessions began, the opposition strongly demanded that Prime Minister Narendra Modi make a statement on the West Asia situation. With insistence on a discussion in Parliament, the House was adjourned several times. Rahul Gandhi made serious allegations that Modi avoided discussion. Finally, Modi made a statement in Parliament explaining the situation, but a discussion on West Asia has still not been conducted. Modi said in his speech that he is speaking with Israel, America, and Iran, and has made it clear that the issue should be resolved diplomatically. However, even as he emphasized diplomacy, global developments indicate parallel backchannel efforts: the Donald Trump administration has reportedly offered a 15-point ceasefire plan to Iran, conveyed through intermediaries from Pakistan, which has also offered to host renewed negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Trump stated for a second consecutive day that the United States is in talks with Iran to end the war, while JD Vance may lead potential negotiations that could take place in Islamabad, with Pakistan acting as a mediator.

    Unlike in the past when Trump claimed he had stopped an India–Pakistan war, Modi is not in a position to make such a claim now. India has developed such close ties with America and Israel during Modi’s tenure that it is no longer in a position to criticize those two countries. This could turn into a double-edged sword. The fact that Modi did not criticize the stance of America and Israel at all in his lengthy speech in both Houses of Parliament is evidence of this. Even when an Iranian ship returning after participating in naval exercises conducted by India in the waters off Visakhapatnam was blown up by America in the Indian Ocean, India did not condemn it. At the same time, India is also in a position where it cannot sever its historical ties with Iran. Modi has already spoken twice with Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian and expressed sympathy over the attacks. He requested that there be no obstacles to energy supplies.

    In fact, when America attacked Iraq in 2003 on the pretext of chemical weapons, the government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee not only strongly condemned it but also introduced a resolution in Parliament. The ruling and opposition parties together unanimously passed that resolution condemning America’s stance. Speaker Manohar Joshi himself introduced the resolution, severely criticizing the attacks by American coalition forces on Iraq. Congress leader Jaipal Reddy described it as a very unusual resolution and explained how dangerously America was acting. He urged India to remain alert to the consequences of America’s toxic conspiracies. BJP leader Vijay Kumar Malhotra, Telugu Desam Parliamentary Party leader Yerran Naidu, Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav, CPI(M) leader Somnath Chatterjee, along with leaders of all parties, condemned American aggression. Then External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha declared that no one could suppress the voice of India, the world’s largest democracy, and that the country was ready to face any challenge.

    What changes have occurred between the Vajpayee government and the Modi government? Why are the BJP and its allies now unable to comment clearly on developments in West Asia? Why have they ignored attacks on Venezuela and Iran?

    What is surprising is that Pakistan, which has been closer to America than India, is now playing a key role in trying to broker peace between Iran and America. Reports indicate that Pakistan’s Army Chief Field Marshal Munir spoke with US leadership, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also spoke with Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian. It is said that Pakistan, along with Turkey and Egypt, is making serious efforts to stop the war. In fact, Pakistan strongly condemned the joint attacks by America and Israel on the Islamic Republic of Iran in violation of international law. Instead of punishing such Pakistan, why is America allowing it to attempt mediation?

    Amid these developments, the Indian government on Wednesday convened an all-party meeting around 5 pm over the ongoing West Asia conflict that began after US–Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh chaired the meeting, with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri in attendance. The meeting was held inside the Parliament building without the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Rajya Sabha’s Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge objected to the format and demanded a full debate in the House instead of just a briefing. Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi said he would be unable to attend due to a prior engagement in Kerala. This meeting followed Modi’s address in Parliament, where he urged citizens to be prepared for every challenge and warned that the effects of the war could last for a long time. He also stated that the government has constituted seven empowered groups to formulate strategies on fuel, supply chains, fertilizers, and other sectors to mitigate the impact of the Iran–Israel–US conflict.

    Prime Minister Modi has so far visited 68 countries. He has toured the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, Russia, and many other countries multiple times. It cannot be said that this has not enhanced India’s reputation or brought economic benefits. Large-scale defense and industrial investments and technology transfers have increased. Modi has invited foreign direct investment from many countries, including China, and has entered into strategic agreements with several nations. Modi is the only Indian Prime Minister to have visited the United States nine times and Israel twice. Having recently completed 8,931 days in public office, Modi was praised unanimously by NDA leaders. Home Minister Amit Shah described him as a Prime Minister who upheld India’s self-respect on the global stage. Even so, it remains to be discussed whether India has lost its strategic autonomy under Modi, who has acted differently from the approaches followed during the tenures of Indira Gandhi, Vajpayee, and P.V. Narasimha Rao, or whether it is merely being forced to take a temporary step back.

    In any case, at this juncture, the Modi government suddenly bringing forward the women’s reservation bill and the delimitation of constituencies is another surprising development. As initially planned, the latest census should have been completed, the number of constituencies increased, and then women’s reservation implemented. But why was there a need to introduce delimitation and women’s reservation based on the 2011 census? If these bills are passed, the focus of political parties and the public will certainly shift entirely to constituencies and women’s seats. Whether this will bring the expected political advantage to the Modi government in the Assembly elections in five states can only be known once the results are declared.

  • Revamping the Sahitya Akademi: Restoring Credibility and Cultural Vision

    Indian literature today stands at a fascinating and critical crossroads. It is not a moment of decline, as some may fear, but rather a moment of immense possibility. Across the vast linguistic and cultural landscape of India, there exists an extraordinary wealth of writers—working in dozens of languages, representing countless traditions, and expressing a wide spectrum of human experience. Together, they form a living bridge between the classical past and the evolving modern present.

    This continuity becomes clearer when we look at the grand lineage of Indian literary thought. From ancient sages and poets to modern storytellers, each generation has enriched and reinterpreted the cultural inheritance of the land. The foundations were laid by timeless figures such as Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti, Valmiki, and Vyasa. Their works were not merely literary creations but civilizational pillars. Epics like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata shaped ethical imagination, social values, and philosophical inquiry for centuries. Classical Sanskrit literature brought refinement in aesthetics, language, and dramatic expression, creating standards that continue to inspire writers even today.

    This tradition flowed into regional languages with renewed vitality. Poets such as Tulsidas in Hindi and Kamban in Tamil reimagined the epics in ways that resonated with local cultures while preserving universal values. In Tamil literature, Subramania Bharati emerged as a transformative modern voice who infused poetry with nationalist fervor, social reform, and a passionate call for equality, especially women’s emancipation. His works combined lyrical beauty with revolutionary thought, making literature a vehicle for both cultural pride and progressive change.

    In Telugu literature, alongside the classical brilliance of the Kavitrayam and Pothana, modern writers like Gurajada Apparao played a pioneering role in shaping contemporary literary sensibilities. His celebrated work Kanyasulkam not only introduced realism and social critique into Telugu drama but also challenged regressive social practices such as dowry and caste discrimination. Gurajada’s emphasis on using spoken language (vyavaharika bhasha) marked a significant shift, making literature more accessible and socially relevant.

    These writers did not merely translate or imitate earlier traditions—they transformed, localized, and democratized literature, bringing it closer to the lived realities of the people.

    Alongside them, voices like Kabir emerged as powerful agents of social and spiritual questioning. Rejecting rigid orthodoxy, Kabir’s poetry cut across religious and social boundaries, emphasizing inner truth and human unity. This phase of Indian literature demonstrated that it could be both deeply rooted and radically questioning at the same time.

    As India moved into the modern era, literature began to engage more directly with social realities. Writers like Premchand brought the lives of ordinary people into the center of literary discourse. His works exposed poverty, caste oppression, and moral dilemmas with unprecedented realism and empathy, marking a shift towards socially conscious writing. Literary movements further expanded the expressive possibilities of Indian literature. The Chhayavad movement in Hindi poetry, for instance, introduced a new lyrical sensibility, blending romanticism with introspection and individual expression. Similarly, progressive and modernist movements across languages challenged established norms and opened new avenues for experimentation.

    What is remarkable is that all these writers and movements, despite their differences in time, language, and ideology, contributed to a shared literary civilization. They enriched Indian literature not by conforming to a single viewpoint, but by expanding its horizons. Each added a new dimension—whether it was spiritual insight, aesthetic excellence, social critique, or philosophical depth.

    At the heart of this literary tradition lies a deep engagement with human values—love, devotion, justice, dignity, equality, and the search for meaning. Writers have confronted complex issues such as caste oppression, gender inequality, cultural erosion, and social exploitation. They have not only documented society but have challenged it, questioned it, and, at times, reimagined it.

    In earlier decades, it was perhaps easier—or at least more common—to categorize writers along ideological lines, broadly labelling them as “left” or “right.” Such classifications may have had some contextual relevance during specific political or intellectual movements. However, in today’s literary landscape, these divisions appear increasingly inadequate. They oversimplify the richness of literary expression and reduce complex creative minds to narrow labels.

    A writer cannot be fully understood through the prism of ideology alone. A novelist who critiques tradition in one work may celebrate it in another. A poet who questions authority may simultaneously uphold cultural continuity. Literature is not bound by rigid binaries; it thrives in ambiguity, contradiction, and evolution. To judge writers primarily by their perceived ideological leanings is to diminish the very essence of their craft.

    This concern becomes particularly significant when we turn to contemporary debates around literary institutions and awards. The Sahitya Akademi, India’s premier literary body, continues to play a crucial role in recognizing and promoting literary excellence. However, recent discussions have raised important questions about its processes and decisions.

    The announcement of the annual awards once again triggered debate. The selection of writer Mamta Kalia brought both appreciation and criticism. Some observers argued that the specific work recognized was comparatively weaker, raising a broader concern that in recent years, senior writers have sometimes been honoured for works that may not represent their strongest contributions. This has led to a fundamental question: should awards be given for a particular work, or should they recognize a writer’s overall literary contribution?

    At the same time, concerns have been raised about the role of ideology in shaping decisions. It is often suggested that ideological leanings influence institutional functioning, and that selection committees may not always be entirely neutral.

    Procedural questions have also emerged. Changes in the award process, delays in announcements, administrative transitions within the Akademi, and the involvement of the Ministry have all contributed to a sense of uncertainty. There have been questions about whether proper procedures were consistently followed and whether transparency has been adequately maintained.

    These concerns cannot be dismissed outright. Institutional credibility depends on clarity, fairness, and trust. At the same time, it is important to recognize a deeper issue within these debates. Instead of focusing primarily on literary merit, discussions often shift quickly toward ideological suspicion. Writers and works are evaluated not only on their artistic value but also through the lens of perceived affiliations.

    This tendency reflects the very limitation that contemporary literary discourse must overcome. A writer like Mamta Kalia, with a long and respected career, cannot be reduced to a single work or judged solely through ideological assumptions. Similarly, any award decision should be examined first and foremost on the basis of literary quality.

    The more meaningful questions are: Does the work demonstrate depth, originality, and insight? Does it engage meaningfully with human experience? Does it contribute to the evolving tradition of literature? These are the criteria that must guide literary evaluation.

    In this context, the idea of bringing Indian writers into a shared national stream gains significance. This does not imply erasing differences or enforcing uniformity. On the contrary, it calls for a collective recognition that all these diverse voices—regardless of language, region, or viewpoint—are part of a common cultural heritage.

    Such a vision requires strong and thoughtful institutional support. The Sahitya Akademi must evolve beyond being merely an awarding body into a vibrant, inclusive forum that brings together writers who think beyond rigid ideological boundaries. It should encourage dialogue across languages and regions, expand translation initiatives, mentor emerging writers, and ensure that recognition is based purely on merit.

    At the same time, neutrality should not be mistaken for the absence of values. Literary institutions must nurture a broad and inclusive cultural consciousness—one that respects India’s civilizational depth, cultural diversity, and shared heritage. This perspective does not impose uniformity; rather, it celebrates plurality within a unifying framework.

    If guided by such a vision, Indian literature has the potential to achieve even greater global relevance. Its philosophical depth, ethical concerns, and aesthetic richness offer insights that resonate far beyond national boundaries. The idea of India as a cultural and intellectual guide to the world can find powerful expression through its literary traditions.

    Equally important is the need to elevate the public status of literature within the country. Literary achievements should be recognized as national achievements. Writers should be seen not as isolated individuals but as contributors to a larger cultural and intellectual tradition.

    However, in pursuing unity, one must not lose sight of diversity. The strength of Indian literature lies precisely in its plurality—in its ability to accommodate multiple perspectives within a shared cultural space.

    The way forward is not to erase differences but to transcend divisive labels. It is to move beyond ideological reductionism and return to the core values of literary engagement—depth, authenticity, creativity, and human insight.

    By doing so, we affirm Indian literature as a living, evolving tradition—one that continues to question, inspire, and connect. In that aspiration lies the true realization of India as a literary and cultural force with global significance.

  • “Beyond the Uproar: Elections Will Decide All”

    Elections have been announced in a Union Territory. Now everyone’s attention is on the developments taking place in the election-bound states. For the past two days, parliamentary proceedings have been running smoothly. The government and the Speaker agreeing to lift the suspension of eight MPs who were suspended in previous sessions is an indication that some understanding has been reached between both sides. However, no matter how much uproar is created in Parliament, or how stubbornly the government behaves, ultimately both the ruling party and the opposition must prove their strength before the people, right? Unless public anger against the government erupts and is reflected in election results, there is no benefit in stalling Parliament. After Parliament discussed and rejected the no-confidence motion brought against him over two days, Speaker Om Birla, upon resuming his seat, remarked, “These two days of the House’s time have been wasted.”

    It is surprising that the opposition was not even ready for voting on the no-confidence motion they themselves introduced. Wouldn’t it have been better if a message had gone out that 233 opposition members in the House opposed Om Birla? Perhaps the opposition feared that it would give an impression to the public that they are not united. It is noteworthy that MPs from the Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress did not sign the no-confidence motion. Even so, adhering to opposition dharma, they spoke in favor of it. While a discussion was supposed to take place on the no-confidence motion against Om Birla, insisting on discussing West Asia and stalling the House suggests that Congress was not serious about its own motion and had its reasons. Yet, their opposition is directed more at Modi than at Birla, isn’t it?

    In fact, Parliament provides an excellent platform for the opposition to clearly present their views and attract public attention. In the past, leaders like Hiren Mukherjee, Indrajit Gupta, Piloo Mody, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, George Fernandes, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley, and Venkaiah Naidu made remarkable speeches while in opposition, which established them as national leaders. Compared to them, it must be said that Rahul Gandhi has not yet emerged as a powerful orator in Parliament. It cannot be said that Congress lacks good speakers, but since Rahul Gandhi is the Leader of the Opposition, politics revolves around him. He seems to have developed a style of creating commotion by bringing up topics like Nirav or Epstein just moments after beginning to speak. Perhaps he is missing the opportunity to present the same issues in a powerful, flowing speech that could captivate not only members but the entire nation. On the other hand, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, though she has delivered only a few speeches so far, has made them widely discussed. After she challenged, “Make all your criticisms against Nehru at once… let’s discuss them,” the ruling party’s criticism of Nehru in Parliament subsided. During the debate on the no-confidence motion against Om Birla, Trinamool MP and 33-year-old actress Sayoni Ghosh spoke so effectively and exposed the BJP’s stance in a way that no one had expected.

    The fortune of the Bharatiya Janata Party, especially Prime Minister Narendra Modi, lies in the fact that the opposition has not only failed to stand strong in elections but is also not effectively using Parliament as a platform. Even though there are many issues to criticize Modi on, Congress’s attacks are not reaching the public strongly. Interestingly, even in states where the BJP is not very strong, there are intellectuals who argue that Modi is extremely powerful. For example, in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana, the BJP is not very strong. Yet, if two people from these regions talk for ten minutes, Modi’s name repeatedly comes up in their conversation. There are more people overestimating Modi’s strength than perhaps necessary. It is said that a German leader once remarked, “Even criticizing me is a crime, and ignoring me is also a crime!” This situation is perhaps pushing Modi to consider simultaneous elections.

    Coming to the southern states, after losing in Karnataka in 2023, the BJP has not yet recovered and is struggling with internal conflicts. B. S. Yediyurappa has completed 50 years in politics but has made it clear that he is not ready to retire. Just as there is uncertainty at the national level about who will succeed Modi, in Karnataka too it is unclear who will lead after Yediyurappa. Even BJP leaders themselves cannot say whether the party will strengthen in Karnataka by the next elections. In Telangana, everyone knows the BJP is struggling to rise above the third position. In Kerala, which is heading into assembly elections, it is not easy to predict whether the BJP will increase its vote share or win even ten seats. In Tamil Nadu, the confusion within the BJP is evident from its own actions. Despite attempts to split the AIADMK or promote Annamalai, the BJP has not gained strength. Ultimately, it has had to ally again with the AIADMK and depend on the seats given by it, even resorting to moves like offering the Deputy Chief Minister post to actor Vijay, who is new to politics. No matter how much the BJP expands in northern India, the people of the southern states have not yet embraced it. It is leaders who are welcoming it with shawls, not the people!

    At the national level, the BJP’s strategy broadly includes consolidating Hindu votes, pursuing politics in the name of nationalism, and projecting Modi as a strong leader. However, in states like West Bengal, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry, where elections are being held, Hindutva politics is not as strong as in the north and west. A form of sub-nationalism exists in these states, similar to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Therefore, making BJP-style politics succeed in these states is a real test for the party and for Modi. The BJP knows that fighting regional parties is not as easy as fighting Congress. Moreover, in states where the BJP has won, even relatively unknown leaders have been accepted as Chief Ministers. But such a situation does not exist in the current election-bound states. When L. K. Advani was BJP president, strong leadership was built in every state, including leaders like Modi. Today, Modi does not have leaders at either the national or regional level who can stand beside him and draw public applause. This is both his strength and his weakness.

    In the southern states, apart from marginally increasing vote share and maintaining alliances, there is little the BJP can achieve. Winning West Bengal is a major challenge for Modi. Modi and Amit Shah are making every possible effort to defeat Mamata Banerjee this time. They are well aware that Hindutva politics alone cannot secure victory in Bengal. Efforts such as revising voter lists and allegedly removing over six million voters, replacing the governor with IPS officer R. N. Ravi, making administrative changes, conducting ED raids, and consolidating Hindu votes are all being undertaken. Addressing a rally at Kolkata’s Parade Ground a day before the election announcement, Modi expressed concern that Hindus might become a minority in Bengal. The BJP’s strength in Bengal is gradually increasing. However, Modi and Amit Shah failed to defeat Mamata Banerjee in 2016 and 2021. Now they are facing her for the third time. Although they could not defeat Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi in 2015 and 2020, they managed to secure victory in 2025 on the third attempt. Will they be able to repeat that success in Bengal this time? Can Bengal be compared with Delhi? In any case, past elections are one thing, and the upcoming elections are another. These elections can be seen as a trial by fire for the strategies Modi has pursued over the past twelve years. Will Modi be able to withstand the challenges emerging at both national and international levels, counter questions about his policies, and outmaneuver opposition strategies to stand tall like a formidable leader?

  • The Sharpened Voice in the People’s Throat – Vairamuthu

    At a poetry festival held in 1975 at Pachaiyappa’s College in Chennai, the then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi came and read poetry. At the same festival, a 23-year-old young man read his poems and said that from the age of 12, Karunanidhi had been his inspiration in poetry. Listening to those poems and the young man’s words, Karunanidhi was deeply impressed and suggested, “Why don’t you write for Kunkumam magazine?” From then on, a friendship developed between Karunanidhi and that young man. Whether Karunanidhi won or lost in politics, the friendship continued unchanged. Karunanidhi would even attend small programs for his sake. Out of the 37 books written by that young man, Karunanidhi himself released 18 of them. That young man is none other than Vairamuthu, who was selected for the Jnanpith Award, which is considered as the highest literary award in India. on Saturday. After C. Narayana Reddy, Vairamuthu is another writer who has received the Jnanpith Award as both a film lyricist and a literary figure.

    The Jnanpith Award is India’s highest literary honour, often called the “Nobel Prize of Indian literature,” awarded annually for outstanding contributions to literature by Indian citizens. It includes a ₹11 lakh cash prize, a citation, and a bronze Saraswati idol. Vairamuthu was selected for the 2025 (59th) award, becoming the third Tamil writer honoured

    Seventy-three-year-old Vairamuthu published his first poetry collection when he was just 19 years old. While he was still a student, that poetry collection became a textbook. Born in Mettur in Theni district, Vairamuthu, who belonged to the Kshatriya community, continued his education while doing agriculture. His poems express rural life, human relationships, the environment, and the dangers arising from globalization. Social problems such as poverty, a mother’s love, child marriages, and lack of freedom appear throughout his poetry. He says, “My poetry is the voice of those who remain silent.” Ancient Sangam literature has greatly influenced him. Blending ancient literary words with modern music is his specialty.

    After reading Vairamuthu’s poems, Bharathiraja gave him the opportunity to write songs for films in 1980, when he was 27 years old. His first song was sung by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam. From then on, he never looked back. Over the past 46 years, he has written about 7,500 songs. Directors and composers such as K. Balachander, A. R. Rahman, Ilaiyaraaja, and Mani Ratnam made his songs resonate on people’s lips. Singers like S. P. Balasubrahmanyam, Shankar Mahadevan, K. S. Chithra, and P. Unnikrishnan gave melodic beauty to his poetry. The song “Chinna Chinna Aasai” that he wrote for the Tamil film Roja later became a hit in many languages including Telugu. Not only songs, he also wrote screenplays and dialogues. At the same time, he never stopped writing poetry.

    Vairamuthu belonged to one of the 14 villages submerged because of the Vaigai dam; his novel Kallikkattu Ithikasam, which depicts the tears, blood, and suffering of the displaced people affected by modernization, received the Sahitya Akademi Award. Another novel, Karuvachi Kaviyam, about the life of a rural woman crushed by patriarchy, also became famous. Along with Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan, he has received many honors. As a lyricist, he has won the National Award seven times. Just as Viswanatha Satyanarayana is recognized as “Kavisamrat” in Telugu, Vairamuthu received the title “Kavisamrat” in Tamil. This title was presented when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister.

    No bird
    builds a nest
    and rents it out.
    No animal
    steals land
    that it does not need.
    O human, observe—
    the life that lives together
    without collapsing
    still exists in the forest,
    not in human society.

    Through such lines, Vairamuthu feels that the forest and the animals living there are nobler than humans.

    Even if you leave,
    your shadow
    still remains the same—
    waiting
    in the depths of my heart.

    In these lines, Vairamuthu continues searching for the woman he loved.

    I was like the distant sky;
    with your scarf
    you pulled me close.
    How did you capture
    the twenty-five years of my life
    in a single moment?

    He asks her.

    If life suddenly falls apart,
    where can I find her again?
    In the east and the west
    I search for her in vain.

    Like a tiny drop of dew
    she sits silently
    upon a lonely blade of green grass.

    As memories slip away
    like rivers unseen,
    the days themselves
    melt away
    in meaningless silence.

    He writes that humanity cannot flourish in a society that does not respect womanhood.

    Vairamuthu loves trees and nature deeply. He writes:
    “A tree is a painting drawn by creation, an exclamation mark standing on the earth, branches—hands rising to touch the stars in the sky.”

    And he says:
    “Alas, human! If you truly want to become human, come to the tree! Within every human there is a Bodhi tree.”

    In the poem Pilupu (“The Call”), a mother tells her child:
    “Even if a star sleeps among the clouds,
    even if the wind sleeps among the leaves,
    my eyes will stay awake all night for you.”

    Though Vairamuthu writes songs for films, he does not wait for them to appear in movies. He keeps writing continuously. They eventually flow into films as songs. In an interview he once said:
    “I keep writing pallavis day and night. What I give is actually the eleventh pallavi. The first ten pallavis fall into the dustbin of my mind. I clean the dirt from gold before giving it to directors. I can feed today the hunger that will come in the future.”

    I am privileged to be part of the Jnanpith jury panel led by noted writer Pratibha Ray, along with Madhav Kaushik, K. Srinivasa Rao, Damodar Mauzo, Prafulla Shiledar, Keshubhai Desai, and Janaki Prasad Sharma. Writers from across the country were considered for the award.. This time, many great writers from across the country were considered for the Jnanpith Award. However, in the last six decades, only two writers from Tamil Nadu—Akilan in 1975 and Jayakanthan in 2002—received this award. That means no writer from Tamil Nadu had received the Jnanpith in the past 24 years. Along with this consideration, Vairamuthu’s literary brilliance led to his selection.

    “My father M. Karunanidhi would have embraced Vairamuthu and celebrated with joy if he were alive today. I now stand in his place,” announced M. K. Stalin.

    Unfortunately, there have also been sexual harassment allegations made against Vairamuthu way back in 2018. There is no known criminal conviction or active police investigation. He has strongly denied these allegations and stated that they are false and motivated. He has said that if the allegations are true, those concerned can file a case and he is ready to face the court. Asking people not to judge him prematurely, he remarked that no one should decide whether he is a good or bad person until the court delivers its verdict, and that he will bow to the court’s decision.