akrishnarao

Tag: Rahul Gandhi

  • Modi’s Ascendancy and the Opposition’s Search for Direction

    On Monday, at the INDIA alliance meeting held in Delhi, Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee, who appeared with a faded face, was tightly embraced by former Congress president Sonia Gandhi. Who other than one woman can understand another woman’s heart? “Some scenes cannot be expressed in words,” remarked a senior leader.

    These two were once described by international organizations as the most powerful leaders in the country. While Sonia ruled the country’s politics for more than ten years, Mamata Banerjee ruled Bengal politics for 15 years. But they are not unaware that the present circumstances are different.

    After the results of the five state elections announced last month, anti-BJP forces met again in Delhi. Mamata Banerjee and the Left parties, forgetting that until yesterday they were also fighting Congress, have become ready to join hands with Congress at the national level. Mamata Banerjee also appears to have forgotten that Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, had only recently criticized her harshly over her anarchic and corrupt rule. She also may not now remember that in 2021 she dreamed of the Prime Minister’s post and declared, “Congress has become ineffective in the country. I alone will play the key role at the national level.”

    The tigress-like Mamata Banerjee, who rebelled against Congress in 1998 and launched her party by holding a rally in Kolkata while the AICC plenary session was taking place, now appears to have had her claws removed. Public representatives belonging to her party in both the Lok Sabha and the Assembly have declared rebellion against her. Her right-hand man Abhishek Banerjee, MP Kalyan Banerjee, and other party leaders are facing attacks on the streets. The same methods Mamata Banerjee once employed against her opponents are now being used against her by her rivals. While Mamata Banerjee and her followers are now crying in the wilderness on the streets of Kolkata, Congress leaders have become the ones standing by her. In this context, it appears that Mamata Banerjee has realized that Congress alone is her refuge if she is to face a mighty force like the BJP both in the state and in Delhi. Though Congress and the Left did not win many seats in the Bengal Assembly elections, they were able to damage the Trinamool considerably. In minority-dominated areas such as Murshidabad, Malda, and Uttar Dinajpur, the Congress–Left alliance ensured that Trinamool did not receive its traditional support. In 32 Assembly constituencies where Muslims constitute more than 50 percent of the population, Trinamool did not win even a single seat. In the Jangipur constituency, the Congress candidate secured 31,000 votes while the Trinamool candidate received only 10,542 votes. Likewise, in the Karandighi constituency, CPI(M) secured 39,000 votes, while the BJP candidate won with 20,000 votes. Perhaps the manner in which these results came has taught Mamata Banerjee lessons about her arrogance, authoritarian approach, and disregard for allies. That is why she is now seen on the streets of Delhi.

    Likewise, for the Left parties, whose ground is slipping from beneath their feet in the country, the streets of Delhi have also become a refuge. In the 140-member Kerala Assembly, the Congress-led UDF winning more than 100 seats, the BJP winning three seats, and the defeat of most ministers in Pinarayi Vijayan’s cabinet cannot be ignored. Analysts described the Left alliance’s defeat there as the result of Pinarayi Vijayan’s centralized and arrogant governance, severe disappointment among farmers, youth, and ASHA workers, dissatisfaction among party cadres, and public resentment against ten years of rule. Congress leaders such as Rahul Gandhi and Revanth Reddy criticized Pinarayi Vijayan, alleging that he was colluding with the BJP and encouraging corrupt elements. They questioned why central agencies had not investigated Vijayan. Be that as it may, the Left parties, which have reached a situation where they are not in power anywhere in the country for the first time in five decades, have realized that they have no option except to work together with other anti-BJP forces. Left leaders D. Raja and John Brittas, who attended the INDIA alliance meeting, have that clarity.

    The late CPI(M) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury, who passed away two years ago, understood the present situation in the country very well. When Congress inducted Prasenjit Bose, who had been expelled by CPI(M), Rahul Gandhi joked with Yechury, saying, “We have taken your comrade into our party.” Laughing, Yechury replied, “What is yours and ours? In this struggle, both of us are travelling in the same boat.” He had long ago understood the need for all anti-BJP forces to shed their narrow-mindedness and work together to confront the BJP, which was advancing unchecked across the country. Today, none of the parties in the NDA are fighting among themselves. But the parties in the INDIA alliance do not possess that level of unity. How much sincerity of purpose do the 23 parties that met at Delhi’s Constitution Club after nearly two years really have? What is the significance of the DMK and Aam Aadmi Party not attending? After the Emergency, in 1977, opposition parties contested against Congress under a single election symbol in the name of the Janata Party. How many parties today possess that same sincerity and fighting spirit? Can Congress provide leadership to other parties in the same way that the BJP has been able to guide even its allies along its ideological path?

    Two days after the INDIA alliance meeting, Prime Minister Narendra Modi organized a meeting of NDA allies on the occasion of completing 12 years in power. Though nominally an NDA meeting, it is in reality a BJP meeting. Leaving aside small states like Nagaland, Meghalaya, and Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh is the largest state where NDA rule is currently in effect. Until recently, Janata Dal (United) chief Nitish Kumar was the Chief Minister in Bihar. Now, even there, a BJP leader is Chief Minister. With his entry into the Rajya Sabha, the 12 JD(U) MPs in the Lok Sabha will have to regard Modi as their leader. While Trinamool has 28 MPs in the Lok Sabha, 20 MPs under the leadership of party chief whip Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar have decided to write to Speaker Om Birla seeking recognition as a separate group after rebelling against Mamata Banerjee. At some auspicious moment, they too may have no option but to join the BJP and wear the saffron scarf as BJP MPs. That means the BJP effectively already has a full majority in the Lok Sabha even without the support of the Telugu Desam Party. Moreover, seven MPs from Shiv Sena, five from Lok Janshakti Party, two from Janata Dal (Secular), two from Rashtriya Lok Dal, one from the NCP Pawar group, two from Apna Dal and Hindustani Awam Morcha, along with six MPs from northeastern states, are already supporting the BJP. Since Modi came to power, the Bharatiya Janata Party has earned the distinction of splitting several regional parties such as Shiv Sena, NCP, Lok Janshakti Party, Rashtriya Lok Samata Party, Aam Aadmi Party, and Trinamool, and also attracting many leaders from other parties into its fold. Not only that, during Modi’s tenure, parties such as BSP, BJD, DMK, and AIADMK have faced tests of survival, making their future uncertain. A situation has arisen in the country where many regional parties feel that their survival will be difficult unless they surrender to Modi.

    In this context, as Modi enters his 13th year in power today, no one can deny that his political strength is increasing day by day, despite social media commentary about how intense his politics may become, developments such as the “cockroach party,” the weakening of democratic institutions, allegations that the judiciary has surrendered, and the flood of criticism over the failure of institutions such as NEET and CBSE to conduct examinations properly. Without eliminating their internal contradictions and creating an equally compelling alternative vision, what change can opposition parties or other non-BJP forces achieve, no matter how many meetings they conduct?

  • Modi’s Political Dominance and the Challenges of Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The Lotus Emerging from Bengal’s Cultural Roots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • Telangana Checkmates BJP

    It was reported in the media that on December 11, 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a review meeting with his party leaders, expressed dissatisfaction with the performance of BJP MPs from Telangana. The meeting appears to have conveyed a clear message to Telangana BJP leaders: set aside internal differences, work as a united team, strengthen grassroots outreach, and make better use of social media to improve the party’s prospects in the state. Modi is said to have remarked that although the party has strong potential in Telangana, leadership weaknesses and internal factionalism are weakening it. Despite having eight MPs and two Union Ministers, the party has not effectively played the role of a strong opposition, he reportedly observed.

    But what happened in the recent municipal elections held for seven corporations and 116 municipalities in Telangana? The BJP, which emerged as the single largest party in neighbouring Maharashtra elections, secured third place in Telangana with just 15.68 percent of the votes. With eight MPs — half of the total Lok Sabha seats from the state — and an equal number of MLAs, the party won only 259 wards and not even a single municipality. The saffron party’s performance in other municipalities falling under the Lok Sabha constituencies represented by its MPs has been dismal. Though the BJP has the potential to grow in Telangana, especially after its good Lok Sabha results, it has not fully capitalized on the opportunities. However, strong local leaders have made some difference in places like Karimnagar and Nizamabad, but this will not be sufficient to give a tough fight in the next Lok Sabha elections.

    The municipal results followed strong performances in recent Panchayat elections, where Congress-supported candidates secured approximately 66 percent of Gram Panchayats statewide. In an Assembly segment-wise analysis, Congress secured majorities in 68 out of 81 constituencies where municipal elections were held. After forming the government on December 7, 2023, Congress also won the Cantonment by-election and the Jubilee Hills by-election. This indicates that both urban and rural voters are increasingly supporting Congress.

    The credit goes to Mr. Revanth Reddy, the Chief Minister of Telangana, who has been able to stop the juggernaut of the BJP in the state, despite the Prime Minister himself showing keen interest in Telangana. Under his leadership, the Congress party has demonstrated its strength convincingly. These elections were held at a time when there was widespread speculation in political circles that public dissatisfaction with the Revanth Reddy government was growing. The principal opposition, BRS, had been strongly criticizing the government and claiming that its end was near. Given that the government had completed two years, interest in the municipal results was high, and doubts were raised about Congress’ prospects.

    However, contrary to predictions, Congress performed well. Though leaders like KTR may not acknowledge the importance of the results, it is significant for a party like Congress, which is often known for internal dissent, to achieve this level of success. Revanth Reddy’s strategy ensured favorable outcomes across both North and South Telangana. Districts like Nizamabad, Adilabad, and Karimnagar, previously considered strongholds of BJP and BRS, saw gains for Congress. Even in his home district of Mahabubnagar, where BRS appeared strong, Congress made inroads.

    The Congress party attributes its success to development and welfare initiatives under Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, such as ₹17,000 crore spent on urban development, 200 units of free electricity for poor families, free RTC bus travel for women, issuance of 30 lakh ration cards, expansion of Rajiv Aarogyasri coverage from ₹5 lakh to ₹10 lakh, construction of 3,500 houses per constituency, and the Young India Integrated Schools initiative.

    Apart from its socio-economic agenda, it seems that Revanth Reddy adopted a clever strategy of not completely annihilating the BRS. He understands that if the BRS is finished, it would create space for the BJP to rise. He instead put the BRS on the defensive by exposing alleged corrupt practices such as the Kaleswaram project and the telephone tapping controversy. It is a strategy similar to the one adopted by KCR a few years ago, when he allowed the BJP to rise after sensing that Revanth Reddy was gaining momentum in the state as a Congress leader.

    The Telangana setback for the BJP has come at a time when the party is facing pressure from opposition parties at the national level over issues such as General Naravane’s book, Indo-US trade matters, and elections in five states. The political graph of Narendra Modi appears to be facing challenging weather, and the Modi-Shah duo are trying their best to prevent it from declining.

    Revanth Reddy has shown the Congress party a path forward. The Congress should not confine itself to parliamentary tactics alone; it must reach out to the people on issues such as farmers’ concerns, price rise, and unemployment, and strengthen the party at the grassroots level.

  • 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.

  • Trade ties and War controversies

    On the second day after the Union Budget was presented, immediately following the President’s address, Parliament plunged into severe chaos. This raises a fundamental question: do either the opposition or the government genuinely intend for Parliament to function smoothly? Conventionally, after the Budget is presented, discussion takes place on the motion of thanks to the President’s address, and only thereafter do debates on budget proposals begin. The President’s address to both Houses of Parliament is, in effect, a policy document of the government.

    The President’s address detailed the various welfare schemes being implemented by the Modi government, its programmes, and the priority being accorded to infrastructure development. Rising above political differences, the President called upon all national representatives to work collectively in the national interest in line with the goal of Viksit Bharat (Developed India). Ironically, the very next day after the Budget presentation, parliamentary proceedings became impossible due to intense confrontations between the ruling and opposition parties. Who is responsible for this situation?

    During the discussion on the President’s address that began on Monday, BJP MP Tejasvi Surya launched sharp attacks on the Congress. His remarks accusing the Congress of being opposed to Indian civilisation, culture, nationalism, and patriotism provoked the party. Would a Congress already seething with multiple wounds remain silent?

    Immediately thereafter, Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi entered the fray, strongly objecting to questioning Congress’s patriotism and nationalism. He began by saying, “Since the BJP’s young MP has made remarks about our patriotism and Indian culture, I would like to read out a few sentences.” He proceeded to read excerpts published by The Caravan magazine from Four Stars of Destiny, a book written by former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane on the 2020 border clash with China.

    As soon as Rahul Gandhi began reading passages written by Naravane about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, BJP MPs created an uproar. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju raised strong objections, questioning how excerpts from an unpublished book could be read in Parliament. Speaker Om Birla clarified that doing so was not permissible under Rule 342. Heated arguments ensued not only between ruling and opposition members but also between the Speaker and opposition MPs.

    The same situation continued on Tuesday. Rahul Gandhi submitted a written note to the Speaker asserting that the contents of Naravane’s book were authentic and resumed his speech. However, ruling party members obstructed him as usual. Every time the word “Prime Minister” was uttered, the Speaker intervened. Amid the chaos over Rahul Gandhi being repeatedly stopped, eight Congress MPs were suspended. Eventually, after several adjournments, the House was adjourned till Wednesday.

    Why did the situation deteriorate to this extent? Were Tejasvi Surya’s attacks solely responsible for provoking Congress? Why is the BJP preventing any reference to the contents of General Naravane’s book? In reality, the Centre has been blocking the book’s publication for the past two years. The Ministries of Defence and External Affairs have not yet granted permission to the publisher. Naravane himself stated, “I have written what I had to write. It is for the publisher to decide how to release the book.” He has neither commented on the controversy surrounding the book’s contents nor responded to The Caravan excerpts—suggesting that he stands by what he wrote.

    Border clashes between India and China are not new. Numerous books have documented the mistakes of the Nehru government that led to war with China. During that war, Nehru expressed anguish over possibly losing Assam, saying, “My heart goes out to the people of Assam,” a remark that caused a sensation. The Congress never attempted to conceal the failures, defeats, and mistakes that occurred during its rule. Those very failures are partly why Congress today finds itself on the defensive on issues of national security and unable to recover from electoral defeats.

    But under Modi’s tenure, even discussion of such matters appears impossible. Why is there a refusal to debate issues of national importance, even while minor successes are exaggerated and celebrated with excessive propaganda? Had Naravane’s book been released, it would have been debated for a few days and the matter would have settled.

    Naravane wrote that during China’s intrusion into the Galwan Valley, the Defence Minister conveyed that the Prime Minister told him, “Do whatever you deem appropriate.” What exactly happened at that time, how many discussions were held, with whom, and after how much deliberation the Prime Minister decided to leave the matter to the Army—these details cannot be explained transparently on the floor of Parliament. At the same time, completely suppressing the issue and preventing any voice from being raised in Parliament only fuels suspicion.

    In reality, budget sessions are meant for discussion on the Budget. A positive environment should have been created for debate on the so-called “mother of all agreements” signed with the European Union just days before the Budget. Instead, discussion on the Budget presented by Nirmala Sitharaman collapsed on the second day itself.

    This is the third Budget presented by the Modi government since returning to power for a third term. With revenues estimated at ₹36.5 lakh crore and expenditures at ₹53.5 lakh crore, the government plans to borrow nearly ₹12 lakh crore and raise the remaining funds from the public and through disinvestment. Allocating ₹12.20 lakh crore for capital expenditure, nearly half of it to roads and rail networks, supporting the manufacturing sector, announcing industrial corridors, attempting to curb food inflation, and preparing the country for free trade agreements with global markets—all these may appear impressive. However, none of this may be sufficient to dramatically revive the Indian economy. While the Economic Survey suggested structural reforms, the government appears to have limited itself to announcements suited to current conditions, avoiding tough policy decisions.

    Markets behave like flowing rivers. When blocked in one place, they find another route. The world was not intimidated by Trump’s tariffs. The U.S. was isolated as even its partner countries entered into their own trade agreements. The EU’s agreement with India introduced zero tariffs on many goods. China and Canada struck their own agreements as well. Consequently, Trump was compelled to revise his stance and reduce tariffs on India to 18% to stay competitive.

    However, Trump’s declaration that India would stop buying Russian oil and instead purchase $500 billion worth of agricultural products, energy, technology, coal, and other goods from the U.S. triggered debate over the agreement’s implications. Rahul Gandhi alleged that Modi compromised with the U.S. and that Indian farmers would suffer, while Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal asserted that this historic agreement would create vast opportunities for Indian citizens.

    Until the official details of the India–U.S. joint trade agreement are publicly disclosed, neither excessive optimism nor pessimism is advisable. Nevertheless, the Modi government has entered into two major international agreements at the beginning of 2026—an undeniable development. At the same time, it has become entangled in controversies such as Naravane’s book and the Epstein files. The consequences of these developments will become clear in due course.(4-2-2026)