akrishnarao

Tag: democracy

  • 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.”

  • Mid-Course Correction: Why Dharmendra Pradhan’s Exit is a Wake-Up Call

    ‘Today’s youth have not strayed from the right path. They are not acting without direction. One should engage in discussion with them, but not control them. They ask for reasons, not rules. They seek explanations. Curiosity is their trait. Rebellion is their nature’.. These words were spoken not by some Communist leader, but by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat. On July 24, as he was speaking these words at the Vishwa Mangalya Sabha held at the Ambedkar International Centre.. just one kilometer away at Jantar Mantar, an aggrieved group of youth was expressing intense anger. Exactly 24 hours later, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned from his post. ‘Though delayed, a good thing was done in the end..’ commented 92-year-old Murli Manohar Joshi. A day before Bhagwat made his statement, that veteran grandee commented that the lathicharge on students was atrocious. Joshi also justified that the students’ anxiety regarding the examination system was legitimate.

    Examining these developments closely reveals that it was not only the pressure from the youth, but also the pressure from internal forces within the BJP and the Sangh that led to Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation. It also becomes clear how much internal disquiet the intensity of the Cockroach Janata Party’s protest demonstration at Jantar Mantar created within the BJP, albeit belatedly. Sonam Wangchuk, an educator and environmental activist from Ladakh who strengthened the Cockroach Janata Party’s protest through his hunger strike unto death, was once a supporter of Modi. When Article 370 was revoked and Ladakh was separated from Jammu and Kashmir, he overflowed with joy. When the BJP promised to include Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule, he campaigned in favor of the BJP during elections. Wangchuk even turned down Rahul Gandhi’s invitation to participate in the Bharat Jodo Yatra. The BJP turned such a person against itself. Not just him, among the young men and women who came to Jantar Mantar, there were many who once admired Modi and the BJP and later turned against them. ‘I too voted for Modi along with my parents. When I was coming to the Jantar Mantar demonstration in Delhi, they did not raise any objection at all,’ said a young woman. BJP leaders themselves say that even in the houses of several Union Ministers and MPs, their children expressed solidarity with the CJP demonstration. In the Jantar Mantar demonstration, many engineers, fashion designers, MBA and law students, and children of farmer families were seen from several states along with Punjab, Mumbai, Haryana, and Telangana. Wearing loose jeans, t-shirts, various kinds of attire, and bands tied around their heads, these youth cannot be linked to any political party.

    It is surprising that these very students are deciding the Parliament’s agenda today. After the commencement of the monsoon session of Parliament, the Lok Sabha functioned smoothly for the first time on Tuesday afternoon after seven days. The students were the reason for that. They were responsible not only for Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, but also for the government hastily bringing a bill to prevent irregularities in exams, for the Prime Minister announcing this bill late at night, and for the opposition finally agreeing to a debate. From Smriti Irani to Dharmendra Pradhan, four education ministers have changed during Modi’s tenure. During every education minister’s tenure, there was some controversy or the other. But the situation of having to resign due to student pressure arose only for Dharmendra Pradhan. When Dharmendra stepped into the Parliament premises after resigning, BJP MPs gave him a grand welcome chanting ‘Zindabad’ to him. They crowned him. For what? On whose orders and why did they honor him? It is clear that this was done to claim that even when knocked down, their upper hand remains. Who suffers the loss due to this? Is it not them?

    Many people across the country connected with the young men and women who conducted a peaceful protest demonstration for over a month, demanding that the Education Minister take moral responsibility for the exam paper leak. When they marched towards Parliament and their heads were fractured by lathicharges, and pellet fragments penetrated the bodies of those youths, many felt deep anguish. If those in the CJP were anti-social elements, why did Union Ministers hold three rounds of discussions with their representatives? Why did they promise to discuss reforms in the education system with them as well?

    In reality, in every movement, some amount of violence and destruction keeps taking place. Even in the Sampoorna Kranti movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan, there were allegations that a conspiracy was hatched to blow up railway bridges with dynamite. Violence broke out during the anti-reservation movement as well. Many times, after police brutality occurs, this angle of anti-social elements is brought forward to justify it. That alone does not take away credibility from the entire movement. Portraying every protest as a crime might work for a while, but it will not work at all times. Those in the ruling system must learn to respect the anger of protesters. Otherwise, a permanent hostility towards governance systems will be formed. This wisdom is evident in the comments made by Mohan Bhagwat, even if belatedly.

    Actually, had Congress acted properly, the need for students to take to the streets would not have arisen. Congress did not raise its voice strongly until after seeing the response to the formation of CJP on June 6. After the paper leak occurred in the first week of May and the exam was cancelled on May 12, Congress did not make enough efforts to respond strongly and hold the government accountable. Rahul Gandhi, who organized a student rally named ‘Chatron Ki Goonj’ in Kota, Rajasthan on June 17, disappeared for the next 23 days and spent time in Germany. Rahul showed signs of movement again only after the founder of CJP entered Delhi and intensified their protest, with just three days left for the Parliament session to begin. It was proven that if there is no continuity and daily active presence in politics, the situation goes into someone else’s hands. Congress must realize that theatrically organizing dharnas and getting arrested as in the past will not gain public sympathy. Since 2014, Congress has been stalling Parliament and holding protests. What change has come in electoral politics or in the government’s stance? With just a month-long protest, the Cockroach Party was able to make the government back down. Why did Congress and the opposition lack such moral strength?

    Just because bills are introduced in Parliament, it cannot be said that changes will come in the education system. Just by opening new IITs and medical colleges, the quality in higher education cannot be improved. To this day, not a single Indian university finds a place among the top hundred universities in the world. Even though the size of the Union Budget increases enormously every year, the share allotted to education in the Union Budget over the last 12 years has decreased significantly. In 2013–14, 4.65 percent of the total Union Budget was allocated to education, whereas by 2025–26, that share has fallen to 2.5 percent. Priority in the country is decreasing not just for education, but also for research. Going into the pages of history reveals that during the Congress regime, BJP leaders like Murli Manohar Joshi, Arun Jaitley, Sushma Swaraj, Narendra Modi, and others heavily criticized educational standards, facilities in educational institutions, and the lack of connection between higher education and employment. So to what extent has the situation changed now? Despite test papers leaking multiple times, why did the idea of setting up fast-track courts not arise earlier until students came onto the streets? In 2024, re-examinations were not conducted in certain test centers until the Supreme Court intervened. Now, the entire examinations had to be cancelled. Moreover, they are promoting it as a grand achievement that they are organizing exams properly on a war footing without loopholes. Days might even come when they claim in election manifestos that they conducted exams properly without paper leaks!

    PM Modi described the intervening period until achieving Viksit Bharat by 2047 as Amrit Kaal. The protest by the swarm of cockroaches during this Amrit Kaal should be considered, in a way, an auspicious development that served as an eye-opener for the government. Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation need not be considered a humiliation. It should be regarded as an opportunity to engage in self-introspection over the developments that occurred and take appropriate measures. Perhaps realizing this very fact, Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani was entrusted with the responsibility of Chairman of the Task Force on NTA exam reforms. It was under his leadership during the UPA tenure that the Aadhaar project, which stood as the largest biometric identification system, took shape. He played a key role in the digital transformation currently visible in the country. Technical experts and intellectuals have no affiliation with parties. That is why Modi entrusted him with key responsibilities. If the government moves forward in this same direction and takes steps to bring key changes in the governance system rather than always focusing on politics, there is no one who would not appreciate it. There is an opportunity to take such mid-course correction measures in another three years. If that does not happen, the ruling party itself stands to lose!

  • The Uncontainable Anger of India’s Disillusioned Youth

    “A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history,” said Mahatma Gandhi. India now seems to be moving toward an indefinable change. The siege of Parliament on the first day of the Monsoon Session in the national capital on Monday by activists of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)—who have been protesting for a month demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, holding him responsible for the NEET question paper leak—must be called a monumental development in recent times. Despite setting up four-tier barricades, deploying large-scale forces of the Rapid Action Force, CRPF, Delhi, and Tripura Police, closing metro stations, and shutting down the internet, the Cockroach army, thousands strong, charged up to the gates of Parliament. Even as the police beat them severely, the young men and women displayed sheer daring. The young people lying with injuries at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital are direct witnesses to Monday’s brutality.

    It is clear that the Modi government, which remained unmoved despite a decade of attacks and criticism from the opposition, has been put on the defensive by this incident of the cockroach rebellion. A BJP MP said that it is not important how many people participated in the movement launched by the Cockroach Party, but how much impact it had. “My father is a very important leader in the BJP. However, the unfolding developments are not very healthy…” said a youth who participated in the Jantar Mantar protest. “Where politicians fail, children will question,” said a student.

    In reality, the Cockroach Janata Party is not an organization. It is a crowd of directionless young men and women in the country’s contemporary history. Those who came to the protest at Jantar Mantar or participated in the procession did not come because someone paid them. No one arranged buses or trains for their arrival. The discussion happening merely on social media made them set out for Delhi. They did not come raging only over the NEET question paper leak. The young men and women who came were simply fed up with the problems faced by youth—especially unemployment, meager salaries, systemic flaws, and the machinations of political parties. Those who came to the Jantar Mantar protest site did not have a specific goal. Youth aged between 14–28 cannot be fitted into the mold of Left or Right ideologies. The Emergency is not part of their experience. They do not know about Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan, who once united the opposition. They lack even the experience of the Mandal and Kamandal movements. They have no memories of events that happened three decades ago. Struggling with contemporary issues, unable to decide what to do, with an uncertain future, and arriving with various questions… they are not bound by any traditional rules. Over the past four weeks, this protest platform served as a space where they asked their own questions and provided their own answers. That protest was widely publicized on social media. Examining alternative media sources makes one understand how concerned the youth were about the health condition of environmental activist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been on a hunger strike for more than three weeks.

    Believing that the opposition lacked credibility, that there was no alternative to them, and that whatever they did would pass, the Modi government seems to have underestimated the emergence of the Cockroach Janata Party. The Modi government was easily able to deal with the long-drawn protests by farmers over farm laws and Muslims over the Citizenship Amendment Act. It did not listen even to the cries of female wrestlers who questioned the assaults committed against them. Whichever movement occurred in the country, it adopted various means to damage its credibility. It berated the protesters with various names. The Modi government thought it would be enough to treat the surge of youth protest as a law-and-order issue and suppress it. As the Cockroach Party protest was reaching its peak, Delhi Police Commissioner Satish Golcha was removed and replaced by Anurag Kumar, who until then served as Special Director (Intelligence). As the in-charge of the Jammu & Kashmir desk, he played a key role in dismantling terrorist activities in Kashmir. There is no surprise in such a person attempting to suppress the youth protest with the same mindset.

    During the UPA government’s tenure as well, young men and women flooded the streets against the Nirbhaya rape incident. However, back then, social media was not as influential as it is now. There is no doubt that social media today has become an alternative media for the public. In fact, when Modi came to power, the BJP IT Cell carried out various campaigns to mobilize people, especially to inflame the emotions of Hindus. In particular, it made extensive use of WhatsApp groups. Today, those IT Cell campaigns seem to fade before the social media in the hands of the Gen Z generation. This development proves that if any campaign is not aligned with the sentiments of the people, it will not last long.

    The current generation has not failed to notice that the promises with which Modi came before the people have vanished into the background, and emotional issues have become the main agenda. Leave aside the failure to create jobs; they are closely observing the inability to conduct even exams properly, the failure to provide quality education, and the resorting to numerous machinations and unrighteous wars solely for the sake of power. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to say that the current generation is placing the opposition, especially the Congress, on a pedestal. It is an undeniable fact that for a decade, the Congress and other parties have failed to ignite public anger against Modi. However, no one expected that youth would step up where the opposition failed. If the Congress party had acted as a strong opposition and reflected the aspirations of the youth, the Cockroach Janata Party would not have emerged. It is an interesting point that many forces that failed to confront Modi are now visible in the Cockroach army.

    Strangely, on the first day of Parliament’s Monsoon Session, people did not care about the bills the government intended to introduce or the issues the opposition wanted to raise. The ‘Chalo Sansad’ call given by the Cockroach Janata Party received immense publicity. In a way, this development questioned not only the existence of the government but also the existence of the opposition. Congress leaders, who had been silent all this while on the Cockroach Janata Party protest, making a hue and cry about the lathi charge on the youth, or Rahul Gandhi protesting in front of the Prime Minister’s residence, are all part of Congress trying to prove its own existence. Time alone will tell whether Congress will resurrect itself as a strong opposition learning from the experience of the Cockroach Janata Party. Even for Modi, it is fortunate for the opposition to exist at least to some extent. Otherwise, there are chances of more entities like the Cockroach Janata Party being born.

    Moral responsibility has become an unacceptable taboo in present times. Today, there are no leaders like NTR, who made the entire cabinet resign because the budget was leaked, nor are there ministers who take responsibility and resign for train and plane accidents. When Dharmendra Pradhan is constantly utilized to win elections for the party, how can he focus on his ministerial responsibilities? It is true that Dharmendra Pradhan, who efficiently strategized for the BJP’s victories in Bihar, Haryana, and Bengal, did not manage his ministry efficiently. However, that mistake is not entirely his. Treating their party’s victory in elections as a matter of life and death and diverting all energy and skill in that direction is the cause of the failure of leaders like Dharmendra Pradhan. Will the Modi government act with sincerity at least now to take responsibility for the mistakes committed and build public trust in system institutions?

  • Is India’s Judiciary Losing Its Autonomy?

    Supreme Court of India building with dome and scales of justice statue
    The Supreme Court of India building with a prominent scales of justice statue in front

    A boy died when a tanker hit him from behind while a father was taking his five-year-old son to school. That road had neither a footpath nor crossing markings to cross the road. Such incidents keep happening in large numbers in the country, but the apex court responded to this tragic incident in a rare manner. Supreme Court Judge Justice P.S. Narasimha issued directions that walking should be recognized as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21. He said that roads should be constructed not just for vehicles but in a manner suitable for pedestrians. He also reminded that walking has cultural, religious, political, and social value in India. Justice Narasimha cited historical events like the Dandi March and the Bhoodan Movement.

    A study has revealed that in this country, where walking itself has turned into a conflict, an average of 36,500 pedestrians die every year due to the lack of proper footpaths and crossings. These incidents are occurring because 80 percent of urban roads lack safe and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. In metro cities, 44 percent of roads do not have footpaths at all. Most of the existing footpaths do not comply with the regulations laid down by the Indian Roads Congress. To what extent are the government leaders—who talk about Viksit Bharat, a trillion-dollar economy, and global cities—aware of the plight of pedestrians in the country?

    On this occasion, Justice Narasimha questioned the failure to make laws in accordance with the fundamental rights of the people. He clarified that when the Motor Vehicles Act was made, the fundamental right of walking people was not recognized, and it appears as if this Act was made solely for vehicles. After Justice P.S. Narasimha, the second Telugu person who is set to become the Chief Justice next year, gave a judgment to recognize walking as a fundamental right, there has been an overwhelming response from the public. Reports are emerging about the lack of footpaths in many cities. The Supreme Court Bar Association responded positively to another judgment given by Justice Narasimha, stating that advocates should first know about the Rule of Law, independent stance, and standards, and build credibility. As suggested by Justice Narasimha, it has come forward to establish a National Legal Academy for advocates. Many also welcomed the judgment given by Justice Narasimha stating that merely chanting shlokas like ‘Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheshwara’ is not primary, proper salaries must be given to those teachers, and ordered that the minimum wage scale be applied to teachers in Gujarat educational institutions. In the name of the Green Energy Corridor, he prevented any threat to the Great Indian Bustard birds in Rajasthan and Gujarat.

    Like pleasant raindrops in the scorching summer, we cannot ignore some good judgments given occasionally not only by Justice Narasimha, but also by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Nagarathna, Justice Viswanathan, and others. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Surya Kant, stayed a judgment that allowed the demolition of the Aravalli hills if they exceeded a height of one hundred meters, following concerns raised by environmentalists. Although several notable judgments are coming from the Supreme Court on and off, the debate on whether the judiciary is functioning independently continues unabated.

    The fact that the role of the apex court in the country is becoming controversial day by day is becoming a topic of discussion. Even former judges and senior advocates are commenting that the Supreme Court is losing its identity, acting as if it is under someone’s control, and ignoring fundamental rights. Before the country could forget the incident where a shoe was hurled at the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a petitioner made obscene remarks against the CJI in full court last week. There are those who describe such incidents as signs of growing frustration and despair toward the apex court. On the other hand, in light of the incident where a huge amount of cash was found at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, Parliament is preparing to introduce an impeachment motion against him. Why would the government let go of an opportunity to put the judiciary on the defensive?

    Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant himself expressed the view at a conference held in Stockholm that the independence of the judiciary is essential to preserve constitutional values and prevent the abuse of power. He cited cases such as Kesavananda Bharati, which protected fundamental rights, and S.R. Bommai, which protected the federal spirit. These judgments have entered the pages of history. In the past, the Supreme Court intervened multiple times to ensure that investigative agencies like the CBI and ED function freely, smoothly, and without any external pressure. So, how many such wonderful judgments have come from the Supreme Court in the last few years?

    There is no dearth of instances where good judgments have come from some High Courts as well in recent times. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar of the Bombay High Court questioned whether externment (exile from the city) can be imposed for raising slogans against the government. He declared that people are not slaves to the government, and it is their right to protest and raise slogans opposing government decisions. Justice Madhav clarified that the police are servants to the people, not to the government. Questioning the blocking of the ‘Cockroach Janata Party’ X account, the Delhi High Court ordered that the ban on that account be lifted. The Madras High Court commented, “Judges are not holy cows, there are corrupt people among them too.” It responded in this manner to a petition filed seeking a ban on a movie that depicted a judge engaging in corruption. Ironically, because it was mentioned in the NCERT textbook that corruption exists in the judiciary, the Supreme Court opened its third eye and had that paragraph changed. The details previously mentioned regarding thousands of cases pending in courts were also removed in the new chapter. The textbook stated that the judiciary functions independently, beyond the executive and the legislature. Is that really happening?

    According to the World Justice Project report, India ranks 86th in terms of the Rule of Law. According to that report, prepared by an independent organization based in the US, the Rule of Law is not that great even in the US, finding that it ranks 36th in that regard. A report by the V-Dem Institute in Sweden stated that one-fourth of the countries in the world are sliding into autocracy, and America and India are also among them. The report noted that America lost its recognition as a liberal democratic country for the first time after fifty years. It revealed that systems are systematically collapsing in India. It goes without saying that if governments become autocratic, its impact will be directly felt on the systems.

    Sitting judges like Justice Narasimha, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Nagarathna, Justice Dipankar Datta, and others have been repeatedly warning about the independent status of the judiciary and the pressures coming from external forces. Present judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that the biggest threat to the independence of the courts comes from the courts themselves… Justice Dipankar Datta said that it is not enough to say the Election Commission is independent, it must appear to be operating independently. Among former judges as well, there are those who are expressing grief over the current situation. Justice Kurian expressed concern that the federal system is in danger. While Justice Madan Lokur said that thousands of people are languishing in jails without trial, Justice Deepak Gupta criticized that the Supreme Court is acting slowly in the matter of protecting fundamental rights.

    Senior advocates are also expressing similar opinions. Former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association Dushyant Dave said that the judiciary is unable to protect the people from the excesses of the government. He alleged that the leadership of the Supreme Court has failed the country and the judiciary over the last few years. Kapil Sibal, Prashant Bhushan, Indira Jaising, Sanjay Hegde, and others also frequently highlight the plight of the judicial system. In this country, it appears that governments are suffering from more insecurity and experiencing more intolerance than the people. There is no exaggeration in saying that disastrous consequences occur precisely when governments, which ought to focus on governance, project their intolerance and sense of insecurity onto the people and systems.

  • India at a Political Crossroads

    “Be extremely cautious while speaking about the theft of money from the donation boxes (hundis) at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. This incident has hurt the entire Hindu community and the BJP. It happened because of a few wrong individuals. The government will not spare the culprits,” BJP National President Nitin Nabin said two days ago at a meeting of key party leaders in Uttar Pradesh. His remarks themselves reveal how deeply the incident has shaken the BJP.

    In fact, the thefts in Ayodhya came to light just as Prime Minister Narendra Modi was preparing for a major reshuffle in both the BJP organization and the Union government, including appointments of office-bearers and changes in the Cabinet. Before the upcoming Parliament session, Modi had intended to give both the party and the government a fresh shape. Several rounds of high-level discussions had already taken place.

    The very fact that the Prime Minister was planning a large-scale Cabinet reshuffle suggests that he was not fully satisfied with the performance of several ministries. He held lengthy review meetings with Cabinet ministers and Ministers of State, both individually and collectively, signaling that changes were inevitable. Reports suggesting that key ministers—including the Finance Minister and the Education Minister—might be shifted indicate dissatisfaction with the functioning of their departments.

    It is also noteworthy that Morning Consult, which has consistently reported rising approval ratings for the Prime Minister, has now indicated a decline from around 75–78% to 68–70%. It is therefore understandable that Modi would want to proceed cautiously. However, whether because he felt the timing was not right or due to internal challenges, the proposed reshuffle now appears to have been postponed. According to official sources, several ministers who feared removal have, for the time being, breathed a sigh of relief.

    Ayodhya is not the only issue. One controversy after another continues to emerge across the country.

    A dispute has arisen over the University Grants Commission’s equity regulations. The prestigious NEET-UG medical entrance examination has been rocked by allegations of irregularities and repeated paper leaks. Supporting protesting students, a prominent educationist and environmental activist from Ladakh has been on a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar for the past eight days.

    The government’s E20 ethanol blending policy has also come under severe criticism. Opponents argue that the policy threatens food security and allege that certain ministers have vested interests influencing policy decisions.

    Meanwhile, the ₹90,000-crore Great Nicobar Mega Infrastructure Project in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands has become the subject of intense controversy between the Centre, environmentalists, and opposition parties. Critics claim that the project would require cutting down nearly 15 million rare rainforest trees, damage fragile coral reefs and marine ecosystems, and threaten the survival of indigenous tribal communities. Against this backdrop, the recent removal of several officials from the Union Environment Ministry has also attracted considerable attention.

    The opposition is likely to use all these issues to create disruptions during the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament. But the question is: where is the opposition?

    Major constituents of the INDIA alliance—including the Trinamool Congress, Shiv Sena, and Aam Aadmi Party—have been weakened by large-scale defections, raising concerns about their political survival. In Tamil Nadu, after Congress aligned with TVK, the DMK has reportedly distanced itself from Congress. Sharad Pawar’s NCP is also facing an internal crisis. The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha’s position has become uncertain after it supported the BJP-backed independent candidate in recent Rajya Sabha elections. The Aam Aadmi Party has already declared that it is no longer part of the INDIA alliance.

    In these circumstances, even if Congress and a few other parties manage to disrupt Parliament for a day or two, the BJP may face little resistance in advancing its legislative agenda afterward.

    Against this backdrop, the weakening of the opposition ahead of the Monsoon Session and the changing composition of Parliament represent significant developments in Indian politics.

    Even more important is the government’s reported intention to reintroduce the 130th and 131st Constitutional Amendment Bills. The opposition had successfully blocked these bills in April and again during a subsequent special session. But the situation is different now.

    If these two bills are passed, they are expected to bring significant changes to India’s political and constitutional framework. Alongside the Constitutional Amendment Bill providing women’s reservation, the government is also preparing to secure the required two-thirds majority for a delimitation bill.

    If passed, the delimitation exercise would proceed based on the previous Census rather than waiting for the ongoing Census. The bill may also specify the exact increase in the number of parliamentary seats. Furthermore, many observers believe that the Delimitation Commission constituted by the government could redraw constituency boundaries in ways that benefit the ruling BJP.

    The proposed 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill is equally significant. It would reportedly provide for the immediate removal of a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, Union Minister, or State Minister from office if they are arrested in a serious criminal case and remain in jail for 30 days. Many believe this provision is primarily aimed at opposition chief ministers and ministers.

    If the government succeeds in establishing dominance in Parliament and securing passage of these constitutional amendment bills during the Monsoon Session, there may be few obstacles left to passing other major legislation. Most notably, it would pave the way for legislation enabling simultaneous elections under the “One Nation, One Election” proposal.

    BJP chief ministers across the country have already declared their readiness for simultaneous elections. Party strategists reportedly believe that implementing women’s reservation alongside simultaneous elections would significantly strengthen the BJP’s prospects of returning to power once again.

    If that happens, it would mark a major transformation in Indian democracy. BJP circles also reportedly view this as an opportunity to postpone the Assembly elections due in Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan in 2028 until the next general election.

    This raises an important question: what will elections look like by 2029?

    The Congress does not appear to be taking seriously the possibility that the BJP could further consolidate its dominance in Parliament as several regional parties split or decline. Congress leaders seem to believe that if regional parties disappear, Congress itself will fill the vacuum.

    If that were to happen, India could gradually evolve into a two-party system. Whether the BJP or Congress, other parties could steadily weaken. Is such a development healthy for democracy? Would regional aspirations lose their place in Indian politics? These are questions that deserve discussion.

    The decline of Odia, Bengali, and Dravidian regional identity politics in electoral politics has contributed to these concerns. At the same time, another question must also be asked: have regional parties genuinely safeguarded regional aspirations? Or have parties willing to compromise anything for the survival of their leaders lost their credibility in the eyes of the people?

    It should not be forgotten that India has always functioned as a pluralistic democracy. Even when the Congress was the dominant political force, it was never the only one. During Jawaharlal Nehru’s tenure as Prime Minister, Congress won 364 seats with about 46% of the vote, but opposition parties together secured 54% of the vote and won 125 seats. They represented a wide variety of social groups.

    From the second general election onward, the number of regional parties steadily increased. Even Congress recognizes that this happened largely because of its own arrogance and overconfidence during its years of dominance. As a result, Dravidian parties, socialist parties, and various regional and identity-based political movements emerged, becoming symbols of India’s diversity.

    At one stage, coalition governments at the national level appeared to be the country’s permanent political reality. Leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee viewed regional aspirations as an essential expression of India’s pluralism and federal spirit.

    Today, however, history appears to be moving in the opposite direction.

    Whether this trend is dangerous or healthy is not the central question. More troubling is the fact that the number of voices willing to ask difficult questions is steadily diminishing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Constitutional Courts and Economic Power: A Tale of Two Democracies

    The recent ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States striking down former President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs has not only redrawn the limits of executive authority in Washington but also triggered diplomatic and political recalibration in New Delhi. At the core of the episode lies a constitutional constant shared by both democracies: the principle of judicial independence and the judiciary’s role in enforcing the separation of powers.

    In a 6–3 verdict, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the President had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing wide-ranging import duties without explicit congressional approval. Reaffirming that the constitutional power to levy taxes and duties rests with Congress under Article I, Section 8, the Court underscored that emergency powers cannot become a gateway for bypassing legislative authority. The judgment was widely viewed as a strong institutional assertion of judicial independence, especially given the political and economic stakes attached to the tariff regime.

    The ripple effects were immediate. The interim Indo-U.S. trade framework, announced earlier with provisions to reduce reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods from 25% to around 18%, was premised on the enforceability of the U.S. Executive’s tariff structure. With the Supreme Court invalidating the legal foundation of that regime, trade experts suggested that more than half of India’s exports to the United States could revert to standard tariff treatment. Although the U.S. administration subsequently invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose temporary global tariffs for 150 days, the long-term contours of the bilateral arrangement remain uncertain. Indian negotiators have reportedly deferred further talks to reassess the new legal landscape, placing the trade deal in a state of cautious pause rather than definitive rollback.

    Domestically, the ruling has intensified political debate. Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh questioned the timing of the interim agreement and called for it to be placed on hold until greater clarity emerges from the U.S. side. He urged the government to ensure that import liberalisation would not proceed without legally sustainable commitments and warned of potential adverse effects on Indian farmers cultivating crops such as corn, cotton, soybeans, and apples. Ramesh’s remarks framed the U.S. Court’s decision as an illustration of constitutional checks in action and suggested that India must exercise similar prudence in safeguarding domestic interests.

    The broader debate inevitably draws comparisons with India’s own judicial approach to major economic decisions. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, which upheld the 2016 demonetisation of ₹500 and ₹1000 notes, remains one of the most consequential economic rulings in recent years. By a 4–1 majority, the Court concluded that the decision-making process satisfied the requirements of the Reserve Bank of India Act and that economic policy choices fall within the domain of the Executive unless they violate constitutional or statutory limits. The majority emphasized judicial restraint, holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of policymakers in complex fiscal matters.

    However, the verdict also contained a powerful dissent. Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that such a sweeping measure, which invalidated 86% of the currency in circulation overnight, should have been carried out through legislation rather than by executive notification. She argued that bypassing Parliament undermined constitutional procedure and that the RBI’s recommendation process was not independent in substance. Critics of the majority judgment contended that the Court avoided a searching inquiry into the socio-economic impact of demonetisation, including hardship faced by small traders, daily wage earners, and rural populations. They also noted that no retrospective relief was granted despite the acknowledgment of widespread inconvenience.

    India’s judicial engagement with economic power can also be seen in its handling of high-stakes corporate and natural resource disputes. In the case concerning gas extraction from the Krishna-Godavari Basin, the Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Sudershan Reddy in Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010), examined the dispute between the Ambani brothers over gas supply from the KG-D6 block operated by Reliance Industries Limited. The Court held that natural gas is a national asset and that its pricing and allocation fall within the sovereign domain of the Government of India. It ruled that private family agreements could not override government policy or the production-sharing contract framework. The verdict reaffirmed that natural resources are held in trust for the public and that executive policy decisions regarding their allocation must align with constitutional principles.

    That judgment underscored an important dimension of judicial independence in India: the willingness to assert the State’s sovereign control over strategic resources while resisting attempts to privatise public policy through corporate agreements. At the same time, the Court showed deference to governmental policy prerogatives in determining pricing and allocation, thereby balancing judicial review with executive competence in economic administration.

    This contrast between the U.S. Supreme Court’s assertive invalidation of executive tariffs and the Indian Supreme Court’s deferential stance in demonetisation highlights differing judicial temperaments. While both courts operate within robust constitutional frameworks, the American ruling reflects a readiness to directly curtail executive economic power on separation-of-powers grounds. The Indian verdict, in contrast, underscored institutional restraint in matters of fiscal policy, even as dissenting voices articulated constitutional concerns about process and parliamentary oversight.

    Earlier landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala had established that judicial review and separation of powers form part of the Constitution’s basic structure, beyond Parliament’s amending power. Yet, the demonetisation ruling demonstrated that the exercise of judicial independence is often calibrated rather than absolute. The Court reaffirmed its authority to review executive action but chose a limited standard of scrutiny in economic governance.

    As the Indo-U.S. trade deal stands at a crossroads, these developments serve as a reminder that judicial decisions can reshape not only domestic governance but also international economic relations. The U.S. Supreme Court’s judgment has recalibrated trade diplomacy, while India’s own judicial precedents continue to shape debates over executive accountability in economic policymaking. In both democracies, the judiciary remains a central constitutional actor—sometimes assertive, sometimes restrained—but always pivotal in defining the limits of power.

  • Privilege, Politics and Policy: The Debate After Rahul Gandhi’s Speech

    The political storm following Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s speech in the Lok Sabha has shifted from economic policy to parliamentary privilege. The Bharatiya Janata Party is reportedly considering a privilege motion against him over remarks linking senior leaders to the so-called “Epstein Files.” Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri has firmly rejected the allegations as “baseless,” clarifying that his limited interactions with Jeffrey Epstein were in the context of an International Peace Institute delegation and unrelated to any criminal matters.

    Whether Gandhi’s remarks constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege is ultimately a matter for the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, who must interpret them within established rules and precedents. Parliament provides wide latitude for political speech, but it also imposes responsibility. That determination should be made institutionally and without partisan escalation.

    Yet focusing exclusively on the privilege question risks overlooking the larger policy issues raised in the speech — issues that warrant substantive engagement rather than procedural confrontation.

    The Strategic Context

    In his address, Rahul Gandhi framed the Union Budget and the India–U.S. trade understanding within a broader geopolitical narrative. He argued that the global order is entering a phase of instability marked by conflict, technological rivalry, and the weaponisation of energy and finance. In such an environment, he contended, India must negotiate from a position of strength.

    At the core of his argument was the assertion that India possesses three strategic assets: its population and digital data, its agricultural base, and its energy sovereignty. According to him, recent trade negotiations risk diluting these strengths.

    These are consequential claims. They deserve careful examination.

    One area of concern raised relates to digital trade rules. Has India altered its position on data localisation? Are cross-border data flows being liberalised in ways that constrain regulatory autonomy? Do trade commitments affect India’s ability to impose digital taxes or regulate major technology firms?

    Given the centrality of data to artificial intelligence and digital sovereignty, clarity on these points is essential. Trade agreements in the digital domain often contain complex provisions that are not easily understood without detailed disclosure.

    A transparent explanation of the Government’s commitments would help dispel uncertainty.

    Agriculture and Market Access

    Gandhi also warned that the trade framework could expose Indian farmers to competition from highly mechanised American agriculture. India’s agricultural economy is dominated by small and marginal farmers whose cost structures differ significantly from those of large-scale U.S. farms.

    The key question is whether tariff reductions or market access commitments contain adequate safeguards. If protections remain intact, the Government should clearly articulate them. If phased adjustments are planned, their timeline and compensatory measures should be made public.

    Food security is not merely an economic issue; it is a matter of national resilience.

    Energy Sovereignty

    Energy security formed the third pillar of Gandhi’s critique. In an era when sanctions, supply disruptions and geopolitical tensions influence energy markets, any perception that India’s sourcing flexibility is constrained can generate concern.

    Here again, clarity matters. If India retains full sovereign discretion over its energy imports, an unequivocal statement to that effect would strengthen confidence.

    Trade Balance and Industrial Impact

    Concerns were also expressed about tariff asymmetry and potential sectoral impacts, particularly in textiles. Trade agreements often produce winners and losers across industries. The role of government is to ensure that transitions are managed, vulnerabilities are addressed, and competitiveness is strengthened.

    A detailed presentation of expected gains and sector-specific protections would elevate the discussion beyond rhetoric.

    Democratic Accountability Over Escalation

    The controversy over alleged personal references and the potential privilege motion should not overshadow the importance of answering substantive policy questions. Democratic accountability requires both responsible speech from the Opposition and transparent explanation from the Government.

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi enjoys a strong domestic mandate and significant international stature. Supporters argue that his government would not compromise India’s interests in any negotiation. That confidence can only be reinforced through openness.

    Parliamentary debate is not an act of defamation; it is a mechanism of scrutiny. Equally, allegations must be supported by evidence. The health of democratic institutions depends on maintaining this balance.

    If a privilege motion is moved, it should proceed strictly within parliamentary rules. But beyond procedural action, what the moment calls for is clarity — on the nature of India’s trade commitments, on safeguards for farmers and industry, and on the preservation of data and energy sovereignty.

    In times of global uncertainty, trust in national leadership is strengthened not by silencing dissent, but by addressing it transparently.

    The Government has an opportunity to do precisely that.