akrishnarao

INDIA GATE

  • When Democracy Falters: The Crisis of Institutions and Public Trust in India

    To understand what a police state looks like, one must currently try traveling through New Delhi. Within a radius of a few kilometers around Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s residence, the Election Commission, Parliament, and Jantar Mantar, police have erected barricades and deployed personnel at every step. Media personnel are not being allowed through unless they show their identity cards. Vehicles have to be parked somewhere afar, leaving people with no choice but to walk. Hearing the warnings broadcast through loudspeakers set up every few feet on the roads sends a chill down one’s spine. These loudspeakers warn that strict action will be taken under Section 160 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for acts aiding rebellion and incitement in the armed forces, and under Section 223 for defying or showing disobedience toward orders issued by government authorities. Warnings are also being issued to stay away from protesters and not to obstruct the measures taken by the police in the interest of law and maintenance of public order.

    This has been the situation ever since Gandhi Jayanti, when the Cockroach Party and opposition parties announced protests, alleging that the names of crores of voters across the country are being deleted and that vote theft is helping the BJP win. Security measures were tightened further on Tuesday to block opposition MPs from taking out a procession from Parliament to the Election Commission. Although a sit-in organized by CJP in Mumbai saw the participation of 10,000 people and ended peacefully, the imposition of prohibitory orders and the massive deployment of forces in the Jantar Mantar area of Delhi give it the feel of a war zone. It appears the government has realized that if protest demonstrations are permitted in the national capital, it will be difficult to prevent them from escalating.

    Why on earth is the government causing the situation to intensify? Ever since it was forced to rely on allies after coming to power for a third time in 2024 with 240 seats, the Modi government has appeared to be on the defensive. Opposition parties have successfully managed to raise doubts among the public regarding the manner in which the Modi government has won every assembly election held since then. While the opposition can easily be branded as anti-national, the protests have now outgrown the level of political parties. Following the emergence of the Cockroach Janata Party, the massive response from lakhs of youth is clearly visible. Now, with judges, former judges, former election commissioners, and various other sections joining them, anti-government sentiment is spilling over. Developments took another turn last week with news leaking that two election commissioners had also submitted multiple internal notes protesting the unilateral actions of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. There are also auto-drivers and other common sections expressing doubts about the BJP’s electoral victories. “We fought and won against Mamata Banerjee’s lawless rule in West Bengal, yet we cannot claim it was a genuine victory”—the anguish expressed by a senior BJP leader reflects how day by day, the government’s credibility is plunging.

    The primary reason things have reached this pass is the persistent attempt to bring institutions under one’s grip. Respect for the functioning of institutions eroded long ago when agencies like the ED and CBI were weaponized ruthlessly to crush opponents while ignoring criminals who joined hands with the ruling side, and when bodies like the CVC, CAG, and the Central Information Commission were reduced to toothless entities. In this process, the functioning of the Election Commission and the judiciary also became suspicious. While it is true that past regimes also used institutions, critics point out that the blatant and brazen manner in which all institutions have been utilized in the current tenure is unprecedented. Amidst all this, constructive discussions on the Modi government’s achievements or developmental actions are getting swept away by the wind. It is a paradox that these developments are unfolding precisely during the implementation of the Sewa Sankalp announced by Modi to mark 25 years of his governance. When he won 282 seats in 2014 and 303 seats in 2019, forming governments without needing anyone and turning a massive nationwide “Hindu wave” in his favor, no one blamed the Election Commission. But it must be said that many of the steps taken by the government out of the confidence inspired by those victories are responsible for the current state of affairs.

    Above all institutions, the higher judiciary in the country cannot escape blame. A situation where grand thieves are bred arises precisely because petty thefts were not stopped in the past. There are no longer judges like Justice Jagmohan Reddy of the Allahabad High Court—who courageously unseated an unquestionable figure like Indira Gandhi for six years for electoral malpractice—or Justice Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court, who stripped Indira Gandhi of her right to speak and vote in Parliament. Where are the judges who laid down through the Kesavananda Bharati judgment that fundamental rights in the Constitution cannot be touched, or the judges who struck down the 39th Constitutional Amendment designed to keep the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial review? Judges who give utmost importance to citizens’ voting rights by declaring criminals immediately disqualified and by introducing NOTA are also dwindling.

    In fact, a constitution bench headed by Justice Joseph delivered a bold verdict in 2023 stating that the appointment of Election Commissioners had been unilateral for the past seven decades and that they should be appointed by a high-powered committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India. But which government wants to lose its grip on Election Commissioners? The Modi government promptly enacted a law in Parliament removing the Chief Justice from the committee and replacing him with a Union Minister. This law cleared all hurdles for appointing Gyanesh Kumar as the CEC. Curiously, the Supreme Court did not even agree to place an interim stay on the legislation passed against its own constitution bench’s verdict. Moreover, the apex court did not strike down the bill designed to shield the CEC and the two commissioners from any civil or criminal action. Furthermore, the petition filed by various organizations alleging massive voter deletions was dismissed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, who stated that the maintenance of electoral rolls is an internal administrative exercise and that the court cannot interfere. It was only after this that CEC Gyanesh Kumar expanded the voter deletion program nationwide under the name of SIR. Even though the Supreme Court issued orders on paper, justice was not delivered to voters in West Bengal prior to the elections. Out of more than 2.7 million voters whose names were deleted, 22 lakh filed appeals with the 19 tribunals. Against these, CEC Gyanesh Kumar unilaterally filed 1.61 million counter-appeals. Buoyed by the soft stance of the Supreme Court, the audacity was taken to delete 13 crore voter names nationwide. The apex court did not feel the need to take stringent measures to make people believe that these deletions were carried out lawfully. On top of that, casual remarks made by Justice Surya Kant—stating that some youth have become idle like cockroaches and have made it a habit to attack everyone in media and social media—created a sensation. These very remarks led to the formation of the “Cockroach Party” and massive support for them from the youth. Those who initially forced Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan to resign are now joining opposition voices demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

    Now, the number of protesting sections is increasing day by day. “Whether it is a rickshaw puller or a millionaire, the right to vote is equal. No one has the right to take it away,” remarked Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan at a NALSAR event in Hyderabad, while another judge, Justice Rohinton Nariman, observed that the right to vote—the lifeblood of democracy—is in danger. Rohinton Nariman is the son of Fali S. Nariman, who was nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the Vajpayee government. Moreover, even past election commissioners appointed by the Modi government are protesting Gyanesh Kumar’s actions.

    Perhaps witnessing the remarks of sitting judges and the rising public agitation, the Supreme Court may have had a change of heart, as it has now taken up a petition filed against the removal of Gyanesh Kumar. It also rejected the Election Commission’s argument that changes to Form 6 were made with the Supreme Court’s permission. Whatever may happen, if the credibility of institutions is to be restored, there must be a change in the government’s attitude. Otherwise, the higher judiciary must intervene and salvage its own credibility, facilitating balanced, data-driven corrections. Failure to do so risks a scenario where institutions, gripped by insecurity and losing all sense of proportion, take actions that could plunge society into turmoil.

  • The Trigger, The Thought Police, and The Electoral Battleground

    “Even though the gun is in the hands of the police, the finger on the trigger that decides whom to shoot is in the hands of those above,” renowned novelist George Orwell depicted a terrifying dystopian world in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984). In the system he defined as the ‘Thought Police’, those who execute decisions lose the power to think independently. They become like robots that do whatever the person above tells them. The administrative system in India functions precisely according to this formula. Not just the atrocities committed against the people during the Emergency, but many anti-people decisions are implemented in alignment with this ‘Thought Police’ system.

    When The Indian Express leaked 14 notes on September 24 sent by two Election Commissioners to various departments within the Election Commission regarding key decisions taken without their knowledge under the name of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list, it sparked immense outrage among the opposition and various anti-BJP sections in the country. Demands were raised branding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar a traitor and calling for him to be hanged. Even a newly born cockroach party called for nationwide protests. Curiously, two days later, the very same Election Commission announced that all their decisions were taken collectively. They also released a photograph of the three Election Commissioners meeting to the press.

    However, no matter how much hue and cry the opposition and other sections raise, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah—who make the crucial decisions at the center—do not appear to be taking it all that seriously. Around the time the news broke in The Indian Express, Modi was holding a two-day high-level meeting with Union Cabinet ministers under the name of ‘Chintan Shivir’ at Sevatirth in Delhi. They discussed at length the administrative reforms they are going to undertake and the Viksit Bharat 2047 roadmap. On September 25, while the opposition was fiercely raging over the Express news, Modi participated in ‘Bhajan Clubbing’ on the occasion of Deendayal Upadhyaya Jayanti, singing devotional songs like Achyutam Keshavam and Radhe Radhe along with young men and women. Playing the kanjira himself, he immersed himself in devotion. Union Home Minister Amit Shah also participated in programs like the UP Trade Show, the launch of an LNG train in Ahmedabad, and an anti-terrorism conference, but did not respond at all to the opposition’s protests.

    No thinking intellectual would assume that the electoral system in the country is running properly simply because the three Election Commissioners announced there are no differences among them. Even Lavasa and Rawat—former Election Commissioners appointed during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tenure—severely criticized the manner in which the SIR is being conducted. While Lavasa criticized the method adopted for conducting the SIR as unconstitutional and flawed, Rawat opined that the way the Election Commission is functioning is not proper and dark clouds are hovering over its credibility. In fact, how did the notes sent by the two current commissioners to various departments reach the Mumbai correspondent of The Express? Internal sources say that collecting notes from individual departments is difficult, and it is possible that either of the two Election Commissioners leaked all the notes in their possession. Be that asit may, these three Election Commissioners finally washed their hands of the matter by issuing a press release claiming everything is fine. In fact, it is not hard to guess which covert hand aided these three officials—who had not laid eyes on each other from last May to August—in patching things up among themselves.

    Until recently, only Congress used to criticize vote theft. But after the notes of the two Election Commissioners came out, various anti-Modi forces across the country began responding differently. YouTubers everywhere started extensively denouncing Gyanesh Kumar. However, it is impossible to say how long any controversy in the country survives. The NEET paper leak controversy subsided. No one talks about the donation theft at the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. The levy charges on UPI did not get as much discussion as they should have. The ethanol-petrol controversy faded into oblivion long ago. Controversies keep coming and going one after another. Parliament sessions happening and getting disrupted has become normal. Now, it is hard to say how long anyone will talk about the irregularities happening in the electoral system. The less said about the judiciary, the better. When a judge spoke about the opportunity to appoint favored individuals as Election Commissioners, the Solicitor General retorted, “Aren’t you yourselves appointing people you like as judges in the collegium?”

    In the past, the opposition agitated fiercely over the Bofors scam for nearly two years, eventually leading to the fall of Rajiv Gandhi’s government. Regarding corruption during the UPA-2 regime, BJP did not rest until it carried out protests for over three years and brought Modi to power. The illegal deletion of 13 million voter names by the Election Commission, the unavailability of the central database to district and state officials, the CEC unilaterally filing appeals stating that the removal of 1.6 million voters was proper, and local officials being unable to restore deleted voters in the voter lists in Goa are indeed serious matters. But if the opposition cannot build a passionate public backlash against all these, there is little they can do. Why are the opposition parties—which argue that the BJP won the elections in Bengal, Bihar, and Haryana largely due to massive voter deletions—failing to organize public protests in these states? Can a situation capable of arousing public consciousness like the Bofors scam and the Watergate scandal ever arise regarding electoral irregularities?

    It is hard to say how many people are fighting for the right to vote in India. At least 3 million (3 crore) people in the country have not registered themselves as voters. Among those who registered, if we consider the names removed by the Election Commission under the guise of ‘SIR’, only 860 million (86 crore) voters remain out of the total 990 million (99 crore) voters. Even among them, based on the statistics of the last general elections, only 66 percent—meaning 330 million (33 crore) people—do not even show interest in casting their vote. In fact, the Election Commission’s job is to increase public awareness for voting. But enthusiasm is being drained away because of the ‘SIR’ process. Who has the interest to answer various questions and run around government offices? The population aged between 18-35 in the country is around 350-400 million (35-40 crore). But how many of them are voters? Do the opposition parties and intellectuals have the power to make the people, especially the youth, agitate to register themselves as voters? Will migrant laborers and youth traveling to various places and abroad for livelihood have the eager desire to vote? Even those who express opinions on social media in our country are doubtful to exercise their right. Even those who once told people to boycott elections are now talking about the right to vote.

    Perhaps knowing this is why Modi and Shah appear to be watching the ongoing debate as mere spectators. In this country, every party builds a voter base dedicated to itself and subjects them to promises, welfare programs, allurement, and emotional appeals accordingly. With the database under control, it is not impossible for the Bharatiya Janata Party—which devises a booth-level strategy—to know state-by-state who will vote for them and who will vote for their opponents. The party may believe that the deletion of votes resulting from the ‘SIR’ process undertaken by its own shop may not cause significant loss to their favorable majority votes. Furthermore, they might think that the more the opposition makes a fuss over the lost votes of a certain section, the more their own majority votes will consolidate. Amidst this squabbling for votes, no one cares about actual electoral reforms. No one is interested in the thousands of crores of black money flowing lavishly in every election. Nonetheless, it would be a welcome development if the protests built by the opposition and Gen Z on the functioning of the Election Commission bring even the slightest jolt to the system.

  • Narendra Modi: Anatomy of an Unchallenged Leader

    Poster text reads “NARENDRA MODI AN UNCHALLENGED LEADER” beside Narendra Modi overlooking a crowd with Indian flags.

    On October 1, 2001, Narendra Modi’s mobile phone rang in New Delhi. Modi was surprised by the question, “Where are you?” because the voice belonged to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

    “I am at the crematorium,” Modi replied.

    Vajpayee, shocked, asked, “What are you doing there?”

    Modi explained, “Congress leader Madhavrao Scindia died in a plane crash yesterday, and my friend, photojournalist Gopal Bisht, also passed away in the same crash. I have come for his funeral.”

    “Alright, come see me this evening,” Vajpayee said and hung up.

    When Modi met him that evening, Vajpayee smiled and said, “It looks like you’ve thoroughly digested Punjabi food in Delhi. You have no work here. Go back to Gujarat and do your work there.”

    At first, Modi did not understand what Vajpayee meant. He had already been serving in Delhi for six years as the BJP’s National General Secretary, handling responsibilities for other states.

    Modi asked Vajpayee, “Sir, what will I have to do in Gujarat?”

    “What else? You need to take up the responsibility of Chief Minister,” Atalji replied.

    Modi was ecstatic. He had never imagined he would be entrusted with such a massive responsibility. Modi said, “I have never even seen the face of the assembly until now. I have not stepped foot inside a Chief Minister’s office. I don’t know what has been happening there for the past six years.”

    Vajpayee quipped, “When I came to Delhi for the first time, I didn’t know anyone here either.”

    Walking as if in a dream, Modi immediately went to the house of his mentor, L.K. Advani. When Advani said, “Atalji must have told you everything,” Modi was surprised. He realized that the idea to send him back to Gujarat was not Vajpayee’s alone. Advani told Modi that he and Vajpayee had made the decision only after consulting the then RSS Sarsanghchalak K.S. Sudarshan, organizational general secretary Madan Das Devi, and senior leader Dattopant Thengadi.

    The next day, despite it being Gandhi Jayanti, the BJP office on Ashoka Road was bustling and vibrant. Smiling at the reporters gathered around him in the party office, Modi announced, “I am stepping foot in Gujarat again,” and shook hands with everyone. Back then, he shared a great relationship with journalists and used to compete with other leaders to speak at press conferences. I have never seen him speak with that much ease ever since.

    There were crucial reasons behind the BJP top leadership’s decision to send Modi to Gujarat as Chief Minister. Due to internal strife between Gujarat BJP leaders Keshubhai Patel and Shankersinh Vaghelas, Modi had been forced to come to Delhi in 1995. Following his intense efforts to lead the party to victory in Gujarat during the February 1998 assembly and Lok Sabha elections, party president Kushabhau Thakre appointed him as a General Secretary, alongside Govindacharya, Venkaiah Naidu, and Sumitra Mahajan. Even after Bangaru Laxman became party president in 2000, Modi was retained in his team.

    During this period, the party suffered severe setbacks in Gujarat. Keshubhai Patel’s poor governance, severe droughts, and the government’s failure to handle proper relief operations during the devastating Bhuj earthquake severely dented the party’s prestige. The BJP took a heavy beating in local elections, losing 23 out of 25 district panchayats. The party was also losing its grip on urban areas. In September 2001, the party suffered crushing defeats in two assembly by-elections, including Sabarmati, which fell under Advani’s constituency. Party observers Madan Lal Khurana and Kushabhau Thakre submitted a report stating that a leadership change was imperative. In the wake of these developments, following the decision of Vajpayee and Advani, Modi took the oath as Chief Minister on October 7, 2001.

    Vajpayee and Advani probably never imagined that the Narendra Modi who became Chief Minister on that day would hold the position for such a long tenure, go on to become Prime Minister, and complete a 25-year journey across both top offices. What is the secret behind Modi’s success, not just in securing a position, but in cementing himself within it and growing into an undisputed leader?

    The developments in Gujarat are proof that internal conflicts within the party were severe during Vajpayee’s era. In Delhi too, a public feud played out between Sahib Singh Verma and Madan Lal Khurana. When Verma even refused to take Vajpayee’s phone calls, he had to be sidelined, and Sushma Swaraj was appointed Chief Minister 50 days before the elections. Leaders like Uma Bharti and Kalyan Singh also frequently rebelled.

    The very first thing Modi did upon becoming Chief Minister was to crush internal party squabbles with an iron fist. Modi successfully managed to oust Sanjay Joshi—who was opposed to him—not just from Gujarat, but from the party entirely. This was because he realized that survival was only possible if he eliminated opposition through the classical political strategies of Sama, Dana, Bheda, and Danda (conciliation, gifts, division, and punishment).

    The experience of attending the RSS Shakha in his childhood—where one person gives orders and everyone follows them with discipline—left a profound impact on Modi’s mind. The working style of the Sangh Parivar became his DNA. He completely believed that whatever a leader says must happen, leaving no room for a second opinion. Many writers who have authored books on him observed that getting everyone around him to focus solely on him and listen strictly to his word became deeply ingrained in his philosophy.

    Gordhan Zadafia, who served as Minister of State for Home in Modi’s cabinet in Gujarat, remarked that Narendra Modi never tolerated his rivals. Not just Zadafia; even Keshubhai Patel, who could be considered Modi’s guru, ended up fading into political obscurity after founding separate parties in opposition to him.

    Modi adopted the exact same attitude as Prime Minister that he had practiced as the Chief Minister of Gujarat. L.K. Advani—who had stood by him during the Gujarat riots, saved his chair, and ensured the entire party supported Modi—along with Murli Manohar Joshi, who had taken him along on the Ekta Yatra, were both relegated to the Margdarshak Mandal (Advisors’ Forum).

    Be that as it may, for the past 12 years since Modi became Prime Minister, there has not been a single whisper of discord within the party. There has never been an instance where ministers or party members dared to utter a peep against the leadership. Whether appointing a Union Minister, a Chief Minister, or finally the National President of the party, there is no one left to question the decision. As an administrator, even if he appears to consult bureaucrats, he remains the absolute king of the political jungle. Whatever he says is gospel.

    It is a testament to how firmly Modi has cemented his grip that today, not just BJP leaders, but even NDA leaders who once opposed him compete with one another on his birthday to praise him and light lamps. When leaders who didn’t even bother to celebrate the BJP’s foundation day now celebrate Modi’s birthday, it is hard not to attribute it to the sheer uniqueness of his leadership.

    In the past, the phrase “Big Brother is watching” was used as a warning symbol of American hegemony and surveillance. Today, every BJP and NDA leader knows that this statement applies equally to Modi. Could Modi possibly not know who is lighting lamps, who is clapping, and who is praising him to the skies? Regardless, Modi has now joined the ranks of world leaders who have completed 25 years in governance, a list that includes figures like Putin, Castro, Gaddafi, Franco, and Tito.

    Another key element in Modi’s success is making sure everyone notices him and talks exclusively about him. Whether he is criticized, insulted, or mocked, Modi’s nature ensures that he remains the central focus of every debate. He has followed this style since his Gujarat days. Whether changing attire, acting dramatically, smiling, or hugging foreign leaders, Modi’s intentional goal is to keep everyone’s eyes locked onto him.

    Modi knows that this does not diminish his fan base or devotees; instead, it causes anyone who criticizes him to be met with redoubled, aggressive pushback. The ability to create a massive, deeply devoted following that remains enchanted by whatever he does is another reason for Modi’s success. No matter how many leaders there were from Nehru to Vajpayee, none of them possessed a devotional following quite like this.

    He likely calculates that as long as he ensures his core vote bank of Hindutva loyalists remains intact, no harm can come to him. An elderly man who worked for the Jan Sangh and BJP for a long time recently met Modi and reportedly told him, “I know the secret of your success.”

    “Let’s hear you guess,” Modi said.

    “Rahul Gandhi!” At the man’s reply, Modi reportedly burst into uproarious laughter.

    Rahul Gandhi, who has recently been making waves by moving extensively among students and mocking Modi, must secure at least one strong electoral victory over Modi if he ever wishes to change public perception.

  • From the Mahabharata to BRICS: The Politics of Power and Counter-Power

    ‘In this world, if a powerful man says it, even unrighteousness becomes righteousness. The same righteousness, however great it may be, when spoken by a weak man, will not be accepted by anyone,’ Bhishma says in the Kuru assembly during the episode of Draupadi’s disrobing in the Mahabharata. But Vidura warns in the same assembly, ‘The humiliation suffered by the Pandavas will, in the future, unite all the opponents against the Kauravas.’ Just as Vidura said that ‘an alliance of the weak, united by fear, is more powerful than the strength of the powerful,’ the Panchala, Matsya, Yadava, Magadha, Chedi, Kashi, Pandya, Chola, Kekaya and several other kingdoms all unite on the side of the Pandavas. Whether it was Chanakya or the Italian statesman Machiavelli, neither thought very differently from this. The diplomatic strategy of the Mahabharata was clearly reflected in the BRICS summit that concluded in New Delhi last week.

    The BRICS countries delivered a clear message to U.S. President Donald Trump, who considered himself the most powerful man, without personally speaking a word against him. The New Delhi Declaration strongly condemned unilateral coercive actions and tariffs that undermine trade. The atmosphere necessary for many countries seeking different interests to come together on the BRICS platform was inadvertently created by Trump. A turbulent democracy like India, authoritarian China and Russia, Gulf countries that have close security relations with the United States, and Iran, which is facing American attacks, were all provided an opportunity to share a strategic global outlook. The reason for this is that all these countries are facing pressure because of Trump’s aggressive policies. Even though Trump warned that the highest tariffs would be imposed on countries challenging the dominance of the dollar, he helped BRICS countries explore alternative payment mechanisms. The New Delhi Declaration supported the use of local national currencies for trade. This gave member countries an impetus to reduce their dependence on Western economic systems.

    Although it is an alliance comprising countries with different political systems and security interests, the ability to issue one of the most comprehensive and powerful unanimous declarations at the BRICS summit without any saber-rattling is evidence of the common understanding that has developed among these countries. The common perception that the present international system is being subjected to unilateral economic pressures brought all of them together. Since India hosted the summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi naturally became the focal point of the two-day summit.

    At present, India’s situation is like walking on the edge of a sword more than that of any other country. India had to simultaneously coordinate relations marked by several contradictions. These included border clashes with China and discussions with its leader in a cordial atmosphere despite the economic dominance of that country, continuing the strategic partnership with Russia, holding discussions with Iran amid turmoil in West Asia, and attempting to emerge as the voice of the developing countries and the Global South. Not only that, India made it clear that it would not give up cooperation with Russia in the defence and energy sectors under any circumstances. While joining hands with Western alliances, it declared strategic autonomy, making it clear that it would not ignore traditional allies. At the same time, Prime Minister Narendra Modi adopted a delicate diplomatic strategy at the New Delhi summit. India demonstrated the position that completely rejecting Western countries was not its strategy, and that it wanted to continue relations with those countries while simultaneously protecting the interests of developing countries. India attempted to present itself as a practical alternative between American pressure and Chinese dominance. At the same time, the special feature of these BRICS meetings was that the stronger Washington’s pressure became, the more India could say that it could develop mechanisms without depending on Washington.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech at these summits was the most powerful. ‘A world without rules is like an intersection without traffic signals. International rules should be formulated with the participation of all countries and should be the same for everyone. The principle of “might makes right” should have no place in international affairs. The countries of the Global South should collectively protect the rule of law in international affairs,’ he said. Russian President Putin declared that no one could change the idea of a multipolar world, and that attempts to turn the world into a beautiful garden for themselves and a wilderness for others would not succeed. He said that some old leaders were creating sanctions and obstacles to protect their slipping leadership, but that these were accelerating alternative and independent trade routes. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech also contained strong remarks. ‘We need to grow from being rule-takers to becoming rule-shapers,’ he said. He warned against using technology and critical minerals as weapons. He made it clear that if these resources were blocked, global progress would come to a halt and developing countries would suffer.

    The most important development at the BRICS summit was the nearly 45-minute bilateral meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Despite strategic differences, signals emerged that they were prepared to work for mutual economic interests. India showed willingness to forget the bitter memories of the Galwan clashes, establish peace along the Line of Actual Control, and restore economic and diplomatic channels.

    What developments does this episode indicate? Will the hostile atmosphere that has existed between China and India for several decades change? The Congress party questioned whether the restoration of India-China relations indicates a strategic compromise rather than a diplomatic victory. Some others believe that, rather than calling it a compromise, it may also be a historic necessity in the present turbulent international environment. It is not insignificant that Chinese Foreign Minister and Communist Party Politburo member Wang Yi said that the most important consensus between India and China had been reached at this meeting, and that the two leaders had held clear and in-depth discussions on strategic, long-term and directional issues. He said that their President had stated that India and China should use each other’s strengths and stand by each other. It is noteworthy that Chinese newspapers described these meetings as the beginning of the third golden decade of BRICS. They portrayed the summit as evidence of the strength of multilateralism and the growing importance of the ‘Greater BRICS’ system. The Chinese media’s main observation was that despite unilateralism and hegemonic politics continuing in other parts of the world, BRICS was moving towards a more equal and alternative international system. They carried Xi Jinping’s comments that India and China were not rivals but partners as banner headlines. These comments can also be understood to mean that, with China taking over the leadership of BRICS in 2027, it could achieve little by ignoring a powerful India.

    The American media also commented that the BRICS meetings indicated a changing world order and changes in international relations. The American media particularly analysed the fact that Iran, which has tensions with the United States, was given a prominent place in BRICS as reflecting changing alignments in the global order. The American media believed that the tariff policies followed by U.S. President Donald Trump themselves had acted as a binding agent that brought together countries with significant internal differences. ‘Bloomberg’ praised New Delhi’s diplomatic achievement in reaching consensus even amid internal contradictions.

    To analyse it clearly, it was America itself that created favourable tailwinds for BRICS. It cannot be said that American policies and international relations will remain this way permanently. It can be argued that the time has come for changes in the functioning of the Security Council, the IMF and the World Bank to accommodate a multipolar world; otherwise, BRICS could become a stronger alternative system.

    In Indian politics too, against this backdrop, leaders need to realise that our style of dealing with opponents determines their relative strengths. For the past few years, unable to withstand the aggression of Prime Minister Modi and his right-hand man Amit Shah, all the opposing forces have been attempting to unite. Recently, even NDA allies have expressed disagreement over the Uniform Civil Code. Will there be any change, at least after the BRICS experience, in Modi’s approach of directing the NDA parties to organise the ‘Seva Sankalp Abhiyan’ from September 17, his birthday, on the occasion of completing 25 years of his political rule? We cannot say.

  • The ‘Vishwaguru’ Ambition: Can India Master the BRICS Tightrope?

    What will ‘Vishwaguru’ achieve in BRICS?

    “I am also from the American South, and you are also from the Indian South,” U.S. President Bill Clinton personally called and told then Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao in 1994. This conversation took place after initiating sweeping economic reforms in the country and turning the attention of American corporate powers toward India. Following this, P.V. Narasimha Rao himself went to America and held extensive discussions with Clinton. In a sense of whether America pressured India on anything, reporters asked PV, “Whether your arm was twisted?” Showing his arm, PV replied, “It is intact. Your President didn’t even touch it…” Clinton immediately remarked, “I am very grateful to you, Prime Minister, for saying that.” PV, who opened a new chapter in India-U.S. relations, strengthened relations with Russia, China, Iran, and Arab countries quietly and effectively without much hulla gulla or blabla, while limiting relations with America strictly to investments and technology. Adopting strategic autonomy and multi-directional diplomacy, PV continued to pave the way for India’s missile program and nuclear tests. Vajpayee, who became Prime Minister after him, conducted nuclear tests undeterred by U.S. sanctions. Eventually, he created conditions where America itself extended a hand of friendship to India once again. The fact that U.S. President Clinton visited India for the first time in 22 years is evidence of this.

    What do these developments prove? They make it clear that no one can dictate to India in global politics, and if circumstances arise where anyone tries to dictate, India will follow its own path. “India has the natural strength to play a key role in international politics. India’s history, civilization, and geographical conditions are the reasons for this,” India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru declared back in 1949. As early as 6 million years ago, the spinal structure necessary for our ancestors to stand upright on two legs was formed. Today, we are facing a similar evolutionary crisis in international diplomacy.

    Even during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, India organized the Non-Aligned Movement as a guide for the countries of the world. Having played a prominent role in designing systems on numerous key international platforms thereafter, India played a crucial role in the emergence of BRICS (comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) a decade and a half ago in 2009 under the tenure of Manmohan Singh. True to his characteristic demeanor, Manmohan Singh never boasted of his achievements or made a big fuss about them. “We are facing many kinds of challenges. In these circumstances, we have got a meaningful opportunity to take collective action,” I had the opportunity to hear when Manmohan Singh declared this at the BRICS summit held in Durban, South Africa, in 2013. That same year, I also participated in a rare event on the outskirts of Beijing where the Chinese government had members of the Central Party School of their Communist Party take lessons through Manmohan Singh. It is a rare milestone for a foreign head of state to deliver lectures at this school that prepares future leaders of their country.

    Following the conditions of the World Bank and the IMF, the proposal to establish the New Development Bank at the BRICS summit held in 2012 under the aegis of BRICS was also made by Manmohan Singh. Without any conditions, massive funding continues to be available from the New Development Bank for numerous infrastructure projects in India such as metros, RRTS, and rural water sanitation.

    It is in this context that we need to understand the BRICS meetings being held in New Delhi between September 11 and 14. Although criticisms arose that after Narendra Modi became Prime Minister in 2014, he embraced America more excessively, departing from the multi-alignment direction established during the tenures of PV and Manmohan Singh, today India appears to have realized the need to correct its course. Today, BRICS has expanded to 11 countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt. Another 10 countries have been inducted as partner countries. Not only does this represent over 50 percent of the population in the world, but these countries also account for nearly 40 percent of global GDP. At a time when U.S. President Trump is upending the economic interests of almost all countries in the world through extreme policies in the name of tariffs, attacks on Iran, and America First, there is no doubt that BRICS is shaping up as a strong system. Today, neighboring countries like Canada as well as nations like North Korea are also resisting America’s aggressive stance.

    As a precursor to the BRICS meetings taking place in Delhi, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit was held in Kyrgyzstan at the end of last month. In fact, the SCO summit was scheduled to be held in Delhi in 2023, but since India was not in a position to clash with America, it had to strategically hold an online meeting. However, it must be said that India taking the initiative to pass a unanimous resolution in the latest meeting—condemning military attacks on Iranian territory and supporting West Asian stability—is a highly crucial development. It is not something to be ignored that India proposed in Kyrgyzstan that all countries in the world should have equal representation, developed countries should be given higher priority, and a multi-polar system along with economic self-reliance should be established.

    However, it remains to be seen to what extent India can influence Russia, China, and other countries alongside them at the BRICS summit in New Delhi. Persuading China and Russia at the BRICS meeting on its stance—that it should not be against the West, but at the same time, the West alone should not dictate to the countries of the world—is like walking a tightrope for India. India is also not in a position to accept the proposal to establish a BRICS currency to compete with the U.S. dollar. Since trade is already taking place among BRICS countries through local currencies, India is proposing to introduce seamless digital payments between countries through the integration of systems like UPI. India believes that there neither is the condition nor the necessity to strongly counter the dominance of the dollar. As usual, India is seeking reforms in the United Nations Security Council, the IMF, and the World Bank. There is a need to build consensus on these.

    Most importantly for India is balancing Chinese hegemony. There is no doubt that India will try to the maximum extent possible to prevent BRICS from completely falling under China’s influence. Moreover, through relations forged with China on the BRICS platform, India is trying to prevent tensions between the two countries and create peaceful conditions. The fact that Indian military officials have already held talks with Chinese military officials at the borders is evidence of this. The participation of countries like Iran and the UAE in BRICS will bring many benefits to India. It provides an opportunity to strengthen crude oil and energy security, maritime trade routes, and economic relations with Gulf countries. Furthermore, BRICS is likely to provide mutual cooperation on critical mineral resources such as lithium, rare earths, and nickel. This will contribute to the building of electric vehicles, batteries, semiconductors, and solar and renewable energy systems.

    By announcing a 7.8 percent growth rate himself just days before the meetings, it is clear that Narendra Modi wants to solidify his standing among developed countries. Having to face recent student agitations, inflation, employment issues, and other political headwinds in the country, successfully hosting a global-level summit like BRICS is extremely imperative for Narendra Modi. There is no exaggeration in saying that by hosting this summit in India, he will try to claim victory both at home and abroad. In this context, the BRICS summit cannot be viewed as a routine diplomatic platform by India. It is going to be a platform to test how far India can establish its independent position in global politics. Therefore, the New Delhi Declaration to be adopted at this summit is of utmost importance to India. Only when it grows into a force capable of playing a key role in shaping new values for the global system through our civilization, history, and moral values—not just achieving a balance between global powers—must India’s status as a Vishwaguru be deemed attained.

  • The Breaking Point: Modi’s Battle for Gen Z

    “To find one’s footing, stumbling is necessary,” a poet once said. Currently, the Modi government appears to be walking that very path. With the Supreme Court ordering the quashing of FIRs filed against students who participated in nationwide protests between July 20 and 25, and barring further investigations, the chaos scheduled to erupt in the national capital on September 5 under the leadership of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) can be considered defused for now. It is evident that the central government was forced to adopt an accommodating stance fearing a potential law-and-order crisis right ahead of the BRICS Summit scheduled to be held in Delhi on September 12 and 13. Over a month had passed since an agreement was reached with CJP representatives promising to withdraw FIRs and provide compensation to the families of students who died by suicide due to the NEET paper leaks. However, as the Centre dragged its feet on taking concrete action, the CJP announced a protest march from India Gate to the Delhi Police Headquarters on Teacher’s Day. In response, New Delhi police imposed Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, completely banning all unauthorized gatherings, and even had a retired police officer file a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a ban on the demonstration.

    Under ordinary circumstances, the Modi government possesses the capacity to deploy heavy forces, turn New Delhi into a fortress, suspend internet services, and crush student demonstrations. Harassing students through digital tracking even after striking an agreement exemplifies the Centre’s typical disposition. At that time, several organizations approached the courts over the use of pellet guns and other excessive force, necessitating the appointment of a high-level commission. Despite this, circumstances compelled the students to question the government’s sincerity. However, fearing that unrest, violence, and heavy-handed policing during an international summit would inconvenience foreign dignitaries and damage the nation’s global standing, the government had no choice but to show flexibility. A day after the Supreme Court made it clear that it had no intention of banning the protest march, the Centre and Delhi Police submitted applications to withdraw the FIRs against the students. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the government would withdraw the cases and disburse compensation within three months to the families of the deceased students. Consequently, with the Supreme Court exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the quashing of the FIRs and CJP representatives subsequently calling off their protest, tensions appear to be de-escalating.

    These developments make it clear that the tremors of the June–July student protests are still reverberating across the country. Going beyond the Delhi protests, the CJP launched agitations in several states on public issues. They organized demonstrations in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, and Delhi over demands for policy reviews, poor school infrastructure, paper leaks, flaws in examination administration, vacant teacher posts, unemployment, and ethanol blending in petrol. Visiting dilapidated schools in various parts of Delhi, they launched the “School Theek Karo” (Fix the Schools) campaign. Setting up a national working committee and embarking on nationwide tours under the banner “Kya Bolti Hai Public,” it is hard not to conclude that the CJP harbors an ambitious political agenda.

    Whatever the CJP’s ultimate goals or its future may be, it has become a pattern for the Centre to alter its stance only under intense pressure. Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan was asked to resign only after student unrest reached a boiling point. Now, the government relented on dropping the FIRs only after the threat of an India Gate march loomed large. Why stretch every conflict to the breaking point before walking back? The apex court cannot step in every time to save the government’s face; it has its own constitutional limits. Questions inevitably arise as to why the Modi government consistently miscalculates or fails to resolve issues proactively. Relying entirely on force rather than building an institutional intellectual apparatus for conflict resolution appears to be the core problem.

    Why is the Modi government, after twelve years in power, facing substantial resistance—and that too from students? The new generation questions every decision and calls out systemic shortcomings. Opposition forces, including Congress, are rallying behind them. Various Left factions, once thought to be fading away, are aggressively finding active relevance. These forces have banded together on social media to build momentum. The fact that not just student bodies like the SFI, but even a party fighting for survival in Bihar like CPI(ML) Liberation is using its student wing leader Neha Bora to corner the BJP indicates how the Left is mobilizing. It is hardly surprising that these groups are seizing the political opening. Whether they will succeed remains to be seen, but the ruling party has undeniably been pushed onto the defensive.

    The new generation does not view the country through conventional partisan lenses. They have moved past traditional identifiers like caste, religion, region, and gender to forge a distinct identity. Many traditional politicians fail to grasp their behavior, language, lifestyle, and genuine anxieties. Viewing this youth through obsolete mental models, politicians make clumsy, patronizing attempts to appeal to them—often ending up looking ridiculous. Instead of such superficial ploys, leaders must understand the issues this generation is actually raising: quality education, employment, accountability, functioning institutions, transparency, and the eradication of corruption. Born long after the implementation of economic liberalization, this generation is well aware of global realities. Perpetual lectures on communal politics or the misdeeds of past Congress regimes ring hollow to them. Far from knowing Nehru or Indira, they have not even seen Rajiv Gandhi. Narendra Modi is the only national leader and ruler they have grown up with. Therefore, the paramount duty of the current leadership is addressing what it is doing right now to secure their future.

    In 1988, Rajiv Gandhi lowered the voting age to 18 to engage the youth. Though he was only 40 when he became Prime Minister and framed himself as a youthful leader, the youth of 1989 voted his government out. The Bofors scandal, soaring inflation, rising unemployment, curbs on press freedom, and communal polarization triggered by the Shah Bano case brought him down. If Modi is to succeed where Rajiv Gandhi failed, he must genuinely win over the hearts and minds of this generation. That requires understanding changing social and political realities. If the ruling regime simply imitates the worst traits of the Congress and repeats past mistakes with double the intensity while constantly deflecting blame onto the past, the public is bound to push back.

  • From Ideological Politics to Personality Politics

    “Do you remember, twenty-five years ago, I came to your house on a scooter to meet your father?” Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, addressing a young leader from Gujarat. To another leader, he remarked, “When you came to assist the Ekta Yatra alongside Murli Manohar Joshi in 1991, you were just a boy serving us snacks.” To yet another leader from Andhra Pradesh, Modi said, “In 2014, before I became Prime Minister, when I visited Hyderabad, the youth conference at LB Stadium was organized under your leadership, wasn’t it? Even though entry tickets were charged back then, the youth turned up in massive numbers.” These exchanges took place during Modi’s nearly four-hour-long meeting with the newly appointed BJP office-bearers. Seating all the office-bearers around him and allowing nearly 50 of them to speak, Modi surprised them by intermittently recalling his personal bonds and past memories with them. A few even shed tears. “Modi’s memory is extraordinary,” remarked one leader. “A meeting of the new team was scheduled, sir. I requested the Prime Minister that it would be great if he attended,” said National President Nitin Nabin. “How can I refuse when the captain orders? Meeting all of you feels like being at home among family members,” Modi replied with a smile. Stalwarts such as former Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje, renowned ideologue Ram Madhav, and National General Secretary (Organization) B.L. Santhosh sat listening intently as Modi spoke. After the meeting, he posed for a group photograph with everyone and dined with them. Notably, Home Minister Amit Shah did not attend this crucial meeting.

    In the past, when Jagat Prakash Nadda appointed office-bearers after becoming party president, Modi did not act in such an extraordinary manner. Back then, they were summoned to the Prime Minister’s Office, photographed in groups, and sent off. What message did Modi intend to convey this time by personally visiting the party headquarters to attend this meeting? Modi implicitly signaled that he personally vetted everyone’s background before selecting them, making it clear that this is his own team. His intention may also have been to convey that he is the sole leader of both the government and the party, that he will steer both, and that he will not yield that space to a second-in-command. His remarks subtly indicated that he will also have a decisive say in assigning responsibilities to them in the coming days. In light of recent national developments, it is evident that Narendra Modi has resolved to bring the situation entirely under his control. Over the past few days, he has been holding extended one-on-one discussions with union ministers. Speculation is also rife that he is setting the stage for a major cabinet reshuffle in the near future.

    The fundamental question remains: does Modi intend to steer the party and the government in a new direction that strengthens them ideologically? Ideologically, he imparted very little to the office-bearers. He asked them not to dwell on current national controversies but to focus squarely on Viksit Bharat (Developed India). He urged them to connect with the public, win the trust of the youth, maintain simplicity, and focus on social media. As usual, he instructed the party to project his leadership among the people. On the occasion of his birthday on September 17, he called for an aggressive month-long series of programs under the banner of Seva Sankalp Abhiyan. Furthermore, he decided that celebrations should be held to mark the completion of 25 years since he first assumed office as the Chief Minister of Gujarat.

    There are no ideologues left in the BJP to answer why the party and the Union government are increasingly turning personality-centric. It is clear, however, that Modi seeks to project himself as the protagonist in both the party and the government, cultivating an aura of reverence. The primary resolution passed by the BJP in the office-bearers’ meeting was a commitment to protect the sanctity of the national song, Vande Mataram. The meeting strongly condemned the Congress Working Committee’s decision to sing only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram.

    Whether demanding the singing of Vande Mataram in its entirety will mobilize the masses and lead to the cultural nationalism the BJP envisions remains a matter of debate. It also remains to be seen how much emotional resonance a legal mandate to sing Vande Mataram fully—rather than limiting it to two stanzas—will generate among the public, especially Gen Z. Can national unity truly be achieved through legislation? Nevertheless, there is no doubt that this marks a sharp ideological divide between the BJP and the Congress. However, one must question whether either party is genuinely reflecting on this ideological standpoint with depth and sincerity.

    For the Bharatiya Janata Party, this may serve as an effective distraction from competitive exam paper leaks, student protests, and alleged financial irregularities in the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust in Ayodhya. The Congress, meanwhile, is striving hard to keep these issues alive. While the government attempts to defuse student protests using the Supreme Court as a shield through a committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge, Congress Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi created a stir at a police station questioning why an FIR was not registered regarding the use of pellets. To counter criticism over the Ayodhya episode, as the BJP pushed for a mandate to sing Vande Mataram in full, UP Congress President Ajay Rai visited Ayodhya directly and recited the Hanuman Chalisa at Hanuman Garhi. Meanwhile, in Pune, Rahul Gandhi accused the BJP of harboring a Manuvadi mindset.

    While the BJP seeks to question the patriotism and nationalism of the Congress, the Congress is doing everything possible to paint the saffron party as anti-youth and anti-social justice. Yet, the clarity either party holds regarding nationalism remains questionable. To what extent has the Congress succeeded in taking Nehru’s liberal nationalism to the masses ideologically? It is evident that Congress has failed to adapt Nehru’s ideology—which held that India’s identity is founded on cultural pluralism rather than religious dogma—to contemporary times. Concurrently, the BJP has long drifted away from the philosophy of Deendayal Upadhyaya, who advocated cultural nationalism and Integral Humanism. How many within the party adhere to his teachings, which emphasized formulating an indigenous (Swadeshi) economic policy distinct from unrestrained corporatization and foreign economic models, decentralizing power across all tiers rather than centralizing governance, and leading frugal, austere lives while treating politics purely as public service?

    Both parties are merely making tactical maneuvers tailored for electoral gains; neither shows evidence of genuine efforts toward ideological clarity within their ranks. Rahul Gandhi may be raising Manusmriti and the caste census with an eye on the Uttar Pradesh elections, but whether this will secure the votes of Bahujans and OBCs for the Congress remains doubtful. Even after making the caste census a central theme ahead of the Bihar elections, Congress failed to win a substantial number of seats. At the same time, one must ask whether the BJP can consolidate Hindu votes simply by branding the partial singing of Vande Mataram as treason and attacking the Congress. After Rahul’s criticism of Manusmriti, who can stop Hindu nationalists from questioning why he does not critique the Quran or the Bible with equal measure?

    While critics argue that the Bharatiya Janata Party revolves entirely around Narendra Modi and that he exercises total control, the exact same condition plagues the Congress. All Congress politics revolve exclusively around Rahul Gandhi and his speeches. Neither Modi nor Rahul consults others before making public pronouncements, nor do they demonstrate any interest in strengthening their parties ideologically. A healthy democratic transformation in the country will only be possible when both national parties move away from personality-centric politics and reconstruct themselves on ideological foundations.

  • The Sangh and the Saffron Party: A Struggle for Ideological Course Correction

    Has there been a shift in the functioning of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Union Government following the student protests in July that caused unprecedented shockwaves, the subsequent washed-out Monsoon Session of Parliament amid roaring slogans, and the trends seen in the by-elections across three Assembly constituencies including Bankipur? This has now become a major topic of discussion in the national capital. It goes without saying that the impact of these developments has also been felt deeply within the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Seemingly startled by the changes taking place in society, the RSS has suddenly plunged into a massive nationwide mobilization drive aimed at youth and students. Thirty-two affiliate organizations of the RSS, including the BJP, are attending the three-day RSS All India Coordination Meeting (Akhil Bharatiya Samanwaya Baithak) held at Gudilova on the outskirts of Visakhapatnam. In these meetings as well, the primary agenda is: “How to improve engagement with Gen Z and the youth?” The Gudilova meetings are taking place at a time when a major internal overhaul within the RSS is slated for completion by March 2027 to present a brand-new face to the public under fresh leadership. These sessions are set to play a pivotal role in the Sangh’s evolution, with the distinct possibility of catalyzing a transformation within the Bharatiya Janata Party as well.

    There is no doubt that the developments over the twelve years since the BJP came to power at the Centre have also influenced the RSS. While some within the Sangh might view the BJP as just one of its 32 affiliates, one cannot discount that the BJP, governing at the Centre under Modi’s leadership over this decade-plus period, has reshaped the Sangh itself. Having Sangh functionaries step into every Union ministry is one aspect; having the Sangh bear responsibility for the government’s missteps and transgressions is quite another. The Sangh once held the distinction of compelling veteran BJP leader L.K. Advani to resign simply for visiting Pakistan and paying glowing tributes to Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But does the Sangh still possess the power to exercise such moral and ideological authority under current conditions? This is the question now being debated. Having once played a central role in government appointments, alliance decisions, and candidate selections, the key issue today is whether the Sangh can question or confront the government. RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat has repeatedly stated that rulers must heed the concerns of students and youth, and that the Modi government must acknowledge mistakes made in policy decisions. Yet, to what extent is the government engaging in self-reflection? This cannot be ignored. Today, several opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, are dragging both the BJP and the RSS into the political arena and questioning their ideological clarity, effectively putting them on trial before the court of public opinion. It is not just the opposition; even the general public is increasingly finding it difficult to tell the Sangh and the BJP apart. Against this backdrop, it remains to be seen whether the RSS can redefine its future ideological role and reshape its affiliate, the BJP, to meet future needs.

    In fact, a stage had arrived where the BJP argued it no longer needed the support of the RSS. During the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the then BJP National President Jagat Prakash Nadda clearly stated: “In the beginning, when we lacked capability, we needed the RSS. Today, our party has expanded significantly and stands on its own feet. The BJP can run itself.” Thanks to Amit Shah’s strategic planning, the BJP emerged as the world’s largest party with 140 million members, constructing a massive apparatus capable of winning elections with ease. To make the BJP unchallenged, it succeeded in either subduing or splintering rival parties through persuasion or pressure. Consequently, despite securing only 240 seats in the 2024 elections, the leadership of Modi and Shah remained undisputed. Thereafter, by weakening opponents, it continued to win successive assembly elections, ultimately capturing Bengal as well. Many within the Sangh had little choice but to accept the leadership of Modi and Shah. Once a party emerges as an invincible force both internally and externally, which organization retains the ideological and moral authority to question its top leadership?

    Perhaps the emergence of the Cockroach Janata Party and the student protests provided an opportunity for introspection over these developments. For more than a decade, Modi crafted a political ideology and an accompanying vocabulary, unleashing it upon the world. The BJP maintained a well-oiled machinery to embrace this discourse and direct sharp attacks at rivals. Any doubt as to whether Modi created the BJP’s ideological foundation or whether it carried the Sangh’s blessings evaporated; in short, “Modi-ism” indisputably dictated the ideology of both the BJP and the Sangh. The same “ism” prevailed across all key appointments, from Chief Ministers and Union Ministers to the party’s National President.

    However, in the wake of the events in July, ideological analysts note a distinct Sangh imprint on the newly appointed team led by Nitin Nabin. Ideologue Ram Madhav, who remained distant from the BJP for nearly six years, was appointed as Vice President, while 11 out of 14 Vice Presidents and 11 out of 18 General Secretaries reportedly share a strong foundation in Sangh training. Furthermore, removing Amit Malviya—who headed the IT Cell for 11 years with a reputation for projecting any narrative as truth and launching aggressive attacks on opponents—and sidelining figures known for belligerent rhetoric like Tejasvi Surya are notable developments. Speculation suggests an effort is underway to steer the party away from Modi’s mindset and Amit Shah’s strategic style. Even so, will conditions return to the days when the BJP central office buzzed with healthy, regular interactions among party workers, media, and leaders like Venkaiah Naidu, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley, and Ananth Kumar? Turning back the clock is never easy.

    Surprisingly, during his 13th Red Fort address on the occasion of the 80th Independence Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi devoted little time to recounting the achievements of the past 12 years. He did not walk the path of Nehru, who spoke to a young India in the language of scientific temper and modern nation-building. He did not echo Lal Bahadur Shastri’s call of “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan.” Nor did he emulate Atal Bihari Vajpayee by adding “Jai Vigyan” to emphasize the primacy of science. He did not seek to unpack complex economic reforms in simple language like P.V. Narasimha Rao, nor did he discuss a knowledge-based economy like Manmohan Singh. Departing from all of them, Narendra Modi added a new phrase to the lexicon of Indian politics: Dimagi Naxal (an intellectual or ideological Naxalite). Yet, Modi offered no definition for the term. Do those who question an education system that fails to provide jobs, those who raise their voices against paper leaks and unfulfilled promises, and those who take to the streets not just at Jantar Mantar but in cities like Ranchi and Patna fall into this category? Modi knows how to battle legacy systems; in the past, he successfully branded rivals as “Lutyens,” “Andolan Jeevis,” or “Urban Naxals,” lumping them all under a single ideological label. But dismissing Gen Z with such tags will not be easy. Does warning the nation to stay vigilant against thoughtful, questioning citizens from within reflect the true national spirit? In an India recognized globally as an intellectual powerhouse that has produced CEOs for major global enterprises, who exactly is Modi worried about?

    After 12 years of uninterrupted rule, the new challenge Modi faces today is the inability to formulate an acceptable ideology and an appropriate vocabulary to match it. The primary reason is that neither the Bharatiya Janata Party nor the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has consistently built a robust, clear, scientific, and modern ideology suitable for the new generation, leaving room instead for a politics of slogans and abuse. What the country urgently needs today is not individuals who revel in having their names chanted, but an ideology that moves in step with the times.

  • Beyond Invincibility: Lessons from the Monsoon Session

    Once a wound is formed, it may heal in a few days. But politics does not let those wounds heal easily. If possible, leaders stand ready to create new wounds. Many people may have recovered from the injuries inflicted on July 20 by the police using various weapons against students in the national capital. But since then, parliamentary proceedings have been almost paralyzed. The Monsoon session in both houses was practically washed out as Congress leader Rahul Gandhi demanded that Union Home Minister Amit Shah personally clarify who incited the attacks on the students.

    On one hand, relentless rains over the past few days in the national capital disrupted normal life; on the other, political slogans froze the atmosphere inside Parliament. Opposition parties, who until yesterday chanted “Paper Chor, Gaddi Chhod” (Paper thief, step down), are now chanting “Amit Shah Jawab Do, Chanda Chor, Gaddi Chhod” (Amit Shah answer us, donation thief, step down). Surprisingly, ruling party members also stood near the Makardwar on Tuesday confronting the opposition, shouting “Rahul Gandhi Jawab Do…” The lathi charge against students in Jharkhand—ruled by JMM, a partner in the INDIA bloc—provided an opportunity for the ruling party members. Parliament security personnel had to stand like a wall between the shouting members of the ruling and opposition parties. Amidst the clamor of these ruling and opposition members, news related to the “Cockroach Janata Party” also seems to have been swept away.

    Those who expected miracles during the Monsoon session—believing the Modi government could pass the Delimitation Bill, Women’s Reservation Bill, FCRA Bill, and Viksit Bharat Shiksha Anusandhan Bill as planned—must be disappointed now. Narendra Modi’s team had set the stage to pass these bills. Exuberant after their victory in Bengal, they engineered a split of 20 MPs from the Trinamool Congress to join an obscure party. They poached Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena MPs to their side. Seven Rajya Sabha members from the Aam Aadmi Party were turned toward the BJP. In Tamil Nadu, after Congress supported Vijay’s party, negotiations took place with the DMK, which had backed out of the INDIA bloc. Talks were also held with Sharad Pawar’s NCP. Modi’s admirers swelled with pride, believing that Narendra Modi—who could split any party at any time and damage anyone—could achieve anything. Surrendered to Modi and terrified of his actions, several political parties concluded that he was unstoppable in this country and that there was no choice but to follow in his footsteps.

    With only two working days remaining in the Monsoon Session—and effectively only one full working day left for substantive business before the traditional sine die adjournment on the final day around noon—that sense of unstoppable momentum has hit a wall. The quality of parliamentary debate came under severe scrutiny; apart from the anti-paper leak legislation, almost no major bill saw sustained discussion as Lok Sabha proceedings repeatedly collapsed within an hour of opening at 11 am due to incessant sloganeering and protests.

    In reality, while Trump’s international actions had put Modi on the defensive regarding foreign policy for the past two years, several domestic developments over the last two months shattered the atmosphere of fear he had built. In particular, the emergence of the Cockroach Janata Party, the student agitation, children mocking Modi, and their questioning of his every action damaged Modi’s invincibility for the first time in the country. As a result of this agitation and sustained pressure from opposition parties following the police action against student protests at Jantar Mantar, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan was forced to resign in the very first week of the session. This forced a shift in a government mindset that previously dismissed everything.

    Following Pradhan’s resignation, the opposition intensified its confrontation. Rahul Gandhi alleged that the police action was carried out at Shah’s behest—an allegation the government categorically and repeatedly rejected—and the focus shifted entirely to demanding a statement from the Home Minister. Although the government offered to facilitate a statement by Shah along with a comprehensive debate on the student movement, the opposition remained unconvinced, leaving Shah’s statement as a central sticking point through the final stretch of the session.

    The student protest in Delhi created ripples across many cities, undoubtedly forcing the BJP and the Sangh into reflection. Those who thought this movement could be suppressed and quieted down like the farmers’ movement were left bewildered. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who had characterized them as parasites and cockroaches, began hearing the students’ cases. Although RSS leaders like Atul Limaye initially described the student protest as treason, Mohan Bhagwat later entered the scene himself, albeit late, attempting to properly understand the situation. “Even birds have the right to peck,” he recently stated. “We must listen to them. We must talk to them. That is why they protested,” he said. Prime Minister Narendra Modi also started creating Instagram content and Reels to appeal to the youth. Ministers began speaking in student slang, using terms like “delulu” and “fomo.” For the first time in six years, Narendra Modi attended the Delhi IIT convocation on August 8, calling on students to question thoughtless decisions and demonstrate courage for real solutions. Isn’t that precisely what students in the country did? If they hadn’t dared to question, a bill setting up fast-track courts for question paper leaks would not have been rushed through. If there was anything noteworthy in Parliament during this month-long session, it was only the passage of this bill.

    There is no need to remind BJP ideologues that questioning holds the most honored place in Bharatiya Sanatana Dharma. Upanishads like the Bhagavad Gita and Prashnopanishad assigned a pivotal role to questioning. Nothing in our culture is valued more than the freedom to question and search in the pursuit of truth. Yet until now, questioning wrong decisions, unethical acts, dismantled institutions, and corrupt activities brought fear. However, that situation now appears to be changing slightly.

    Whether the student movement calms down, erupts in new regions, or inspires other forces remains to be seen, but it has reinvigorated an opposition crushed by Modi’s surge. Dismayed by the BJP’s major victory in West Bengal and divisions within the INDIA bloc, the student agitation offered the opposition room to breathe. Shielding the students in the final stages of the protest, the opposition stepped in to expand the movement into Parliament and onto the streets. The massive student turnout at Rahul Gandhi’s “Chatron Ki Goonj” in Prayagraj can be considered a key development. The opposition will undoubtedly make intense efforts to leverage the anti-Modi sentiment generated by students in the upcoming elections. That is why they maintained heat in Parliament from start to finish, and now that heat is likely to spill onto the streets.

    Any gain above zero is good for Congress. But for the BJP at its peak, staying on top requires immense effort. For Narendra Modi, hitherto an unquestioned leader, the students and the opposition are not the only issues; he also faces internal challenges within the party and the Sangh. The party losing the seat vacated by Nitin Nabin, whom Modi appointed as BJP National President, is no small matter. In fact, discontent has been simmering within the party regarding several leaders Modi placed in key positions. Appointing Rekha Gupta as Chief Minister—who used to roam the party office in Delhi and wait hours just to meet a party secretary-level leader—caused severe dissatisfaction within the ranks. The world only realized someone was serving as Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh after the Ujjain land scam came to light. Except for chief ministers who switched from other parties in Assam and West Bengal, one would struggle to name the leaders heading BJP-ruled states. Aside from Chief Ministers, two Union Ministers recently became controversial. While Dharmendra Pradhan had to resign over the NEET paper leak, the PMO abruptly removed several people from Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav’s office without notice, with no official reason given regarding what corrupt activities prompted it. Although party leaders have claimed for six months that a Cabinet expansion would occur and Nitin Nabin would announce his team, these changes keep getting postponed. It is said these shifts stalled due to internal resistance within the party. Either way, anyone navigating Delhi’s official corridors realizes things inside the BJP are not as smooth as assumed. Additionally, the theft of donations at the Ayodhya Ram Temple has undeniably damaged the BJP’s moral foundation.

    Ultimately, when will the Modi government introduce the high-stakes Delimitation Bill and Women’s Reservation Bill? The push for Delimitation hit a complete roadblock during the session. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju held three rounds of talks with Rahul Gandhi on the matter; Gandhi insisted on an all-party meeting first, while Rijiju maintained that such a meeting would only happen if Congress committed to supporting the bill. With neither side yielding, the talks failed to break the deadlock.

    Similarly, will they manage to pass the FCRA Bill that emerged after the Kerala and Tamil Nadu elections? The bill became one of the central flashpoints of the entire session. Following objections by various groups, Amit Shah held consultations inside Parliament with representatives of the Christian community, assuring them the government would proceed only after consulting all stakeholders. Yet opposition concerns remained unresolved. With two days left, Congress and Trinamool Congress MPs demanded the bill’s complete withdrawal in the Rajya Sabha Business Advisory Committee, while others suggested sending it to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). Government sources indicate the Centre is considering referring it to a JPC, leaving its legislative fate shrouded in uncertainty.

    Is there any connection between US Vice President James David Vance’s phone call to Modi two days ago and the non-introduction of this bill? These questions remain to be answered. The issue is not merely failing to pass bills; pushing forward unilaterally without democratic efforts and dismissing those expressing concern over issues creates new problems. Modi’s style of functioning may be his natural disposition, but changing times show that such a temperament will not always guarantee victory.

  • 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.”