akrishnarao

Tag: Delhi

  • From Delhi to Patna: How Student Unrest Reshaped Bankipur

    Even though more than a week has passed since the agitation ignited in the national capital, Delhi, by thousands of students and other forces under the banner of the “Cockroach Janata Party” subsided, its tremors have not yet died down. The situation has not completely settled even after the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The Opposition is stalling Parliament, demanding a statement from Union Home Minister Amit Shah regarding the lathi charge and firing of pellets on the students. It is gathered that the government, unable to introduce key bills apart from minor and insignificant ones, is planning to adjourn Parliament indefinitely as early as possible. Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant—who commented two weeks ago, “Why are you showing us scenes of lathi charge on students? Don’t waste our time”—is now enabling the government to withdraw FIRs against the students. Since the Centre itself approached the Supreme Court in this matter, he appears to be offering the government a way to save face.

    On one side, although his fans and BJP leaders are abusing the students with various words, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced with a very large heart that he has forgiven them. However, this announcement did not yield the expected positive results. Modi and Amit Shah are coming to Parliament, but they are not getting the opportunity to attend both Houses. Surprisingly, officials themselves say that the Home Minister is not coming to Kartavya Bhavan (the seat of the Home Ministry) at all, and is conducting one or two important meetings in his own room in Parliament. The only incident that made Modi very happy during this crisis was being entertained with songs, dances, and a torrential rain of praise on the occasion of the inauguration of Bhogapuram Airport in Andhra Pradesh. But as soon as he returned to Delhi, the situation returned to the same heat!

    It is unknown how long this troubled period will last, but many observers say that the results of the three Assembly by-elections held during this time indicate a coming change in the country’s politics—especially the election results of the Bankipur constituency in Bihar. Bankipur, a constituency under the Patna Sahib Lok Sabha area in the capital of Bihar, became the center of the Cockroach Janata Party agitation. Recently, when students took to the streets across several cities in the country during the NEET question paper leak, its intensity was seen severely in Patna. Demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, thousands of students residing in colleges and hostels centered in Bankipur marched out in a procession. Normal life came to a standstill on Ashok Rajpath and Boring Road, where a large number of coaching centers for students are located in the city.

    In Siwan and other key districts, the protest turned violent. Incidents such as lathi charges, stone-pelting, use of tear gas and water cannons, burning of police jeeps, and blockades of national highways took place. Videos of students being injured due to firing with AK-47s were circulated. Police barged into private hostels located in the narrow lanes of Bankipur, dragged out students who had come for coaching, and beat them severely. On the single day of the Bihar Bandh called on July 25, 690 people were detained. Murder charges were framed against many. The surprising fact is that while the Bankipur by-election was on July 30, the Bihar Home Department issued emergency orders on July 27 withdrawing all FIRs against the students. Yet, it was of no use.

    In March 1974, when Patna University students laid siege to the Assembly under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan, several students lost their lives in the firing and lathi charge carried out by the police. Afterwards, at a public meeting held at Gandhi Maidan in the presence of lakhs of people, JP gave a call for “Sampoorna Kranti” (Total Revolution). The statue of Jayaprakash built at the crossroads right next to the same Gandhi Maidan in Bankipur stands as a direct witness to recent events. In the surroundings of this area, known as JP Golambar, police once again pounced upon students. Before the Emergency, the JP movement spread from Patna to Delhi. Now, the Cockroach protest from Delhi echoed in the streets of Patna. It is no exaggeration to say that this echo decided the Bankipur election results.

    It goes without saying that in Bankipur, which had been in the BJP’s grip for the past three decades, the winner was not Prashant Kishor, leader of the Jan Suraaj Party that lost all its seats in the previous elections, but the students. It was only because he won five times from here that Nitin Nabin was able to become the BJP National President. The reason he gave up his MLA seat to choose the Rajya Sabha was that the top leaders of that party believed the BJP would win there effortlessly. The comment made by former Union Minister and Patna MP Ravi Shankar Prasad—”Even if a dog is fielded there, the BJP will make it win”—is proof of this. However, the BJP’s vote share plummeted from 62 percent to 34.4 percent in just one year! Because Kayasthas constitute 14 percent of the voters in Bankipur, Nitin Nabin used to win from there, as Bhumihars and Brahmins at 8 percent each, Rajputs at 7 percent, Kurmis at 5 percent, and Kushwahas at 3 percent also used to vote for him. In these by-elections, caste equations failed completely. These results must serve as an eye-opener to politicians who rely solely on caste equations!

    The Bankipur election results are merely a warning that the Bharatiya Janata Party must act with extreme caution hereafter in urban areas with high concentrations of middle-class and upper-caste populations. Bankipur made it clear that educated young voters in this country can influence election results. BJP leaders can no longer remain confident that urban areas like Lucknow, Prayagraj, Kanpur, and Noida in Uttar Pradesh, where elections are due in another seven to eight months, will remain their strongholds as in the past.

    Lekha Chakraborty, a prominent economist and professor at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) under the Union Ministry of Finance, attempted to scientifically analyze the students’ agitation. In a study, she expressed the view that just because individuals face similar problems, they do not fight spontaneously; when issues like paper leaks and job insecurity become strong motivators, combined with digital technology, youth unite on a massive scale. She stated that there is no connection between degrees and employment, and that only one-fourth of those with degrees get proper salaried jobs. One-third of the Periodic Labour Force lives on self-employment, and most of them depend on agriculture, earning low incomes.

    The ‘State of Working India 2026’ report released by Azim Premji University also confirms the study conducted by Lekha Chakraborty. It stated that although education has become accessible to sections that did not benefit in the past, meaningful opportunities to convert their qualifications into productive employment are not arising. These studies express deep concern over faculty leaving public universities, the decline in curriculum quality, and the falling value of degrees.

    They make it clear that advanced technology can reduce leaks and increase transparency, but it cannot create labor demand or restore the credibility of educational institutions. Economists themselves say that without increasing the education budget to 6 percent of GDP as recommended by the National Education Policy, and without properly building classrooms, providing teacher salaries and training, creating high-skilled jobs, and restoring the credibility of examinations, the problems cannot be solved. They warn that unresolved discontent provides continuous motivation to the people, and government suppression measures raise the danger level and strengthen collective unity.

    If politicians thought as scientifically as economists think, why would problems turn into crises and water flow under their rugs? Famous historian Will Durant did not remark in vain regarding the fall of the Roman Empire: “Great empires are not conquered from the outside; they destroy themselves from within.”

  • Freebies or Bribery? India’s Welfare State on Constitutional Trial

    The debate over “freebies” in Indian politics has now entered the constitutional arena, with the Supreme Court of India agreeing to examine whether pre-election promises of cash transfers funded from the public exchequer amount to a “corrupt practice” under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court said the petition will be heard in March. What began as a political accusation has evolved into a deeper inquiry into fiscal responsibility, democratic fairness, and the character of India’s welfare state. At stake is not merely the legality of campaign promises, but the broader balance between social justice and macroeconomic prudence in a competitive democracy.

    Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s announcement on February 13, 2026, implementing a major bonanza for women in the poll-bound state of Tamil Nadu—crediting ₹5,000 each to the bank accounts of 1.31 crore women family heads who are beneficiaries under the scheme Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thittam (KMUT)—has added further interest to the debate.

    The petition filed by BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay raises foundational questions. Can electoral promises financed from public funds distort the level playing field? Where does legitimate welfare end and electoral inducement begin? And should courts regulate what is essentially a political and fiscal policy choice? The Representation of the People Act identifies certain forms of bribery and inducement as corrupt practices, yet it does not clearly define whether manifesto promises of welfare schemes fall within that ambit. This definitional ambiguity has allowed successive governments across party lines to expand direct benefit transfers without clear judicial boundaries.

    The controversy gains urgency when viewed through the prism of fiscal sustainability. In Maharashtra, the Ladki Bahin Yojana reportedly costs approximately ₹46,000 crore annually—nearly 8 percent of the state’s total budget—at a time when the fiscal deficit exceeds ₹66,000 crore. Such recurring commitments constrain fiscal space for capital expenditure on infrastructure, education, and healthcare. The 2019 farm loan waiver of roughly ₹25,000 crore provided immediate relief but was widely criticized for restricting long-term investment capacity. Economists warn that debt-financed consumption spending can crowd out growth-oriented expenditure, raise debt-to-GSDP ratios, and increase interest burdens that future taxpayers must bear. The Reserve Bank of India has cautioned that excessive non-merit subsidies may affect macroeconomic stability, underscoring the long-term risks of fiscally expansive populism.

    Yet the debate is complicated by the absence of a universally accepted definition of a “freebie.” Economist C. Rangarajan has suggested distinguishing between subsidies on merit goods such as education and health and non-merit transfers that lack productivity linkages. But even this distinction is not always clear. Is free electricity for farmers a distortionary subsidy or a growth investment? Is free education merely welfare, or a constitutional obligation under the right to education framework? Is unconditional income support empowerment for vulnerable households, or an electoral inducement timed for political gain? The boundary between welfare and populism is not merely economic; it is normative and political.

    International comparisons add nuance but not easy solutions. Countries such as Germany and South Korea operate structured welfare systems in which benefits are often linked to employment search requirements, skill development, or contributory social insurance. These systems are embedded within stable fiscal architectures and high levels of formal employment. India, by contrast, confronts a large informal sector, weak employment absorption, and rising aspirations among its population. In such a setting, unconditional cash transfers are administratively simpler and politically more attractive than complex structural reforms.

    Electoral timing further complicates perceptions of legitimacy. In several states, welfare schemes have been expanded, advanced, or newly announced shortly before elections. Even when legally permissible, such timing creates the impression that public finances are being leveraged for electoral advantage. The criticism is not confined to one political formation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has warned against what he termed “revdi culture,” arguing that fiscally irresponsible promises burden future generations. Yet critics note that the Modi government is providing free food grains to over 81 crore beneficiaries under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) to ensure food security and reduce financial burdens. This initiative covers Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) and Priority Households (PHH) under the National Food Security Act, with a five-year budget of ₹11.80 lakh crore. Moreover, BJP-led governments in states such as Assam, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh operate substantial direct transfer schemes of their own. What emerges is less an ideological contradiction than a structural incentive within a competitive democracy.

    Direct transfers produce immediate and visible benefits to identifiable voters. Infrastructure projects, by contrast, yield slower and more diffuse gains that are harder to attribute to a particular government. In an electoral environment where tangible short-term relief can decisively influence outcomes, parties across the spectrum may feel compelled to adopt similar strategies. The result is a normalization of competitive cash-transfer politics, where the debate shifts from whether to provide transfers to how large and how frequent they should be.

    As the Supreme Court considers the legal framework, it faces a delicate institutional balance. An aggressive intervention could risk judicial overreach into policymaking and blur the separation of powers. A restrained approach, however, may leave fiscal populism unchecked in shaping electoral competition. The solution may not lie in absolute prohibition or blanket endorsement, but in greater transparency and accountability. Mechanisms such as mandatory fiscal impact disclosures in manifestos, adherence to medium-term fiscal responsibility frameworks, or the establishment of independent fiscal councils could introduce discipline without undermining democratic choice.

    Ultimately, the freebies debate reflects a deeper tension within India’s development trajectory—between redistribution and growth, between immediate relief and long-term investment, and between electoral competition and fiscal prudence. In a democracy committed to both social justice and economic stability, the challenge is not to eliminate welfare but to design it responsibly. Whether cash transfers represent empowerment or populism depends on their timing, targeting, sustainability, and measurable outcomes. The Court may clarify legal boundaries, but the enduring balance between welfare and responsibility will remain a political question, to be negotiated through informed public debate and accountable governance.