Bengal 2026: Why BJP’s Victory Was More Than Just an Election Result

There are some elections that merely change governments, and then there are elections that feel like larger political and social shifts. The 2026 West Bengal Assembly election belongs firmly in the second category. This was not just a routine transfer of power. It was the collapse of a political structure that had appeared invincible for over a decade and the rise of a party that, until recently, barely had any meaningful presence in the state.

Since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power at the Centre in 2014, it has been trying relentlessly to make inroads into West Bengal. For years, the state appeared politically impenetrable for BJP despite its rise across India. The party improved its numbers steadily, but Mamata Banerjee’s All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) continued to dominate Bengal politics.

In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, TMC won 29 seats while BJP managed 12. The contest had been much closer in 2019 when TMC won 22 seats and BJP won 18. In 2014, TMC had won 34 seats while BJP had managed only 2.

The same pattern existed in Assembly elections too. In 2021, TMC won 213 seats while BJP won 77. In 2016, the tally stood at 211 to 76 in TMC’s favour. And in 2011, BJP had won just 1 seat out of 294. 

All of that changed dramatically in 2026. BJP won 207 seats while TMC was reduced to 80.

That is not just a victory. That is a political earthquake.

Why Did TMC Lose And Why Was It Politically Significant?

In my opinion, the single biggest reason many people wanted TMC to lose in the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election was the unchecked and undocumented influx of Bangladeshi migrants into the state and the gradual deterioration of law and order that voters felt had followed over the years. And let us stop pretending this issue exists only in political speeches. It is a real issue. No border state can absorb illegal migration indefinitely without social, economic, demographic and security consequences.

A large section of voters in Bengal increasingly began feeling that the issue was being deliberately ignored or politically protected for electoral reasons. The concern was not merely about migration itself, but about the perception that successive political interests were more focused on converting undocumented migrants into dependable vote banks rather than addressing the long-term implications for the state and the country.

Whenever concerns regarding illegal immigration, demographic changes or border security were raised, discussions were often diverted into emotional or ideological territory while the actual concerns of ordinary citizens were dismissed. For many voters, this gradually became symbolic of a government that appeared unwilling to acknowledge uncomfortable realities.

Importantly, these anxieties were never viewed as limited only to West Bengal. Bengal increasingly became both a settlement zone and a transit corridor. While many undocumented Bangladeshi migrants stayed back in Bengal because of local political protection and support networks, many also gradually spread into other states through informal labour networks. Concerns regarding illegal immigration and demographic changes have repeatedly been raised in Assam by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, and similar anxieties exist in Tripura, Meghalaya and Mizoram. Reports and concerns have also emerged over time from Bihar, Jharkhand, Delhi, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. For many voters and BJP supporters, this therefore evolved beyond a state-level issue and became increasingly viewed as a governance issue, a border-security issue and ultimately a national issue.

The situation also contributed to growing dissatisfaction regarding law and order within Bengal itself. There were increasing complaints of intimidation, cadre dominance, political violence and localized criminal networks allegedly operating with political protection. Fear slowly became embedded into Bengal’s political culture, especially during elections and local political conflicts.

At the same time, many Hindus genuinely began feeling that their concerns, faith and cultural identity were being pushed into the background while minority appeasement increasingly became central to TMC’s politics. Festivals that should have been celebrated openly and proudly started becoming subjects of restrictions, permissions and political calculations. Complaints regarding Ram Navami processions, temple-related issues and communal clashes strengthened the perception among many voters that expressions of Hindu identity were often treated with visible discomfort by the ruling establishment. A secular government is expected to treat every community equally, not selectively appease one while alienating another.

Ironically, despite decades of so-called secular politics, very little genuine work has been done to improve the educational and economic condition of ordinary Muslims in India. Many political parties merely reduced them to dependable vote banks. If Muslims become educated, economically independent and politically aware, they eventually will begin questioning the very parties that claim to represent them.

Mamata Banerjee’s political approach over the years also deepened public frustration. There was a constant tendency to dismiss criticism as political conspiracy while avoiding genuine engagement with public concerns. Political violence became increasingly normalised, women’s safety emerged as a growing concern and many people gradually felt that the government had stopped listening altogether.

The R. G. Kar Medical College rape and murder case became a major turning point in that regard. The incident triggered outrage far beyond party lines and contributed significantly to the decline in support for TMC, especially among urban voters, women, students and sections of the middle class. The anger was not merely about one horrific crime. It reflected a broader frustration with the state of governance, administrative insensitivity and the perception that accountability had collapsed.

Eventually, accumulated public anger catches up. 

By the time the 2026 election arrived, anti-incumbency had become overwhelming. Fifteen years is an extremely long period in modern politics, especially when large sections of society begin feeling unheard, politically intimidated and disconnected from the ruling establishment. That is why the verdict felt less like a routine electoral defeat and more like years of accumulated frustration finally expressing itself democratically.

The election was also politically significant at the national level. Though regional, TMC had emerged as one of the strongest opposition parties in India. Even though opposition unity often appears inconsistent and opportunistic, regional parties collectively can influence national politics significantly over the long run. Weakening TMC politically therefore strengthens BJP and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) nationally. 

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

How Did BJP Win?

The situation in West Bengal had become extremely volatile over the years. Ever since BJP seriously began expanding in Bengal, there were repeated reports of attacks on BJP workers and leaders. Several BJP workers lost their lives in political clashes and violence over the years, and this created enormous frustration among BJP supporters both inside and outside the state.

Many BJP supporters across India - including myself - believed at several points that the situation justified President’s Rule so that the central government could restore order directly.

But one thing must be acknowledged about BJP.

No matter how frustrated its supporters become or how aggressively opposition parties behave, BJP generally attempts to pursue its objectives institutionally and constitutionally.

Whether it was Article 370, citizenship laws or electoral battles, the party has consistently tried to operate through legal and procedural frameworks instead of extra-constitutional shortcuts.

So what did the party do?

I had always maintained one thing about West Bengal elections: if there were genuinely free and fair elections in Bengal where people could vote without fear, intimidation or pressure, TMC would lose. And that is perhaps the single biggest reason behind TMC’s defeat in 2026. For the first time in many years, a large section of voters genuinely felt they could step out of their homes, walk to polling booths and cast their vote without fear of local intimidation.

In many parts of Bengal, that itself was the biggest challenge.

The massive deployment of central forces played a crucial role in creating that confidence. People sitting in television studios can debate politics endlessly, but ground realities are often very different. In several parts of Bengal, political fear had become normalized and violence had become routine. The visible presence of central forces changed that atmosphere to a significant extent and reassured many voters that this time they would not be left completely at the mercy of local muscle power. And once that happened, the results followed.

Secondly, BJP workers, RSS karya kartas and leaders deserve enormous credit for this victory. What BJP achieved in West Bengal was not easy. Bengal is not historically a BJP state. Yet, over the years, the party steadily built grassroots organisation, expanded booth-level presence and campaigned relentlessly in districts where it was once almost invisible.

For years, BJP workers and RSS volunteers kept working relentlessly across Bengal despite repeated failures, political violence and intimidation.

Election after election, they kept trying. Sometimes they gained a little ground. Sometimes they suffered setbacks. Many workers were threatened, attacked and in some tragic cases even killed. Yet the organization continued expanding patiently at the grassroots level.

In many ways, it reflects the spirit of Rabindranath Tagore’s timeless words:

“Jodi tor daak shune keu na ashe, tobe ekla cholo re.”

(If nobody responds to your call, then walk alone.)

And eventually, people did respond.

Another thing BJP did intelligently was absorbing local cadres and leaders from other parties - especially those deeply entrenched in Bengal politics but disillusioned with TMC. Politics is not won only through speeches from Delhi. It is won through local networks, local influence and understanding the pulse of specific regions. BJP understood that reality.

Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls also played a part and became a major point of political controversy. TMC alleged that the process unfairly removed minority and migrant voters from electoral rolls. 

Let me be very clear about my position. Even if illegal or duplicate voters were removed disproportionately, I DO NOT consider that problematic. TMC had to be defeated at any cost. 

The official objective of SIR was to remove duplicate or deceased voters, correct electoral rolls and update residency records. Opposition parties alleged that Muslim-heavy areas were disproportionately affected. Whether one agrees or disagrees politically, ensuring accurate electoral rolls is not undemocratic. In fact, it is essential for democratic legitimacy. Through SIR, election commission ensured that no bogus vote is cast.

And ultimately, blaming SIR alone for such a massive defeat sounds more like political excuse-making than serious analysis. A victory margin of this scale cannot be explained only through voter-roll revisions. The public mood had clearly shifted.

More Than Just Electoral Mathematics

This victory feels much larger than electoral arithmetic. It feels like the result of years of persistence, organisational expansion and refusal to surrender despite hostility and intimidation. For BJP workers and RSS volunteers who spent years building the party patiently in hostile conditions, this victory represents vindication as much as political success.

After all, Bengal is the land of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose - a man who believed courage and decisive action matter more than endless excuses.

“Freedom is not given, it is taken.”

Perhaps Bengal has finally decided to take back something fundamental. The confidence to vote without fear. The confidence to speak without intimidation. And the confidence to demand governance over political violence.

What Do I Expect From BJP?

Now comes the more difficult part. Winning elections is one thing; delivering meaningful change is another.

The new state government, along with the central government, now carries enormous responsibility because people have not voted merely for political change. They have voted with expectations - expectations of better law and order, safety for women, an end to political intimidation, and governance that functions without fear or violence.

One of the government’s biggest priorities must be restoring public confidence in the administration and policing system. Ordinary citizens should feel that they can live, speak, work, and practice their faith freely without constantly navigating political pressure, intimidation, or local muscle power. Bengal’s political culture remained excessively confrontational for years, and changing that atmosphere must become an immediate priority for the new government.

At the same time, the government must take border security and illegal immigration seriously. Illegal migration cannot continue unchecked indefinitely, especially in a sensitive border state like West Bengal. Borders require stronger monitoring, and people staying illegally in the country must be identified and dealt with strictly according to law. To put it clearly, kick them out.

For years, concerns regarding demographic imbalance, border security, and political appeasement were either ignored or dismissed. The new government will now be judged on whether it can address these concerns responsibly and lawfully rather than merely using them as electoral talking points.

However, governance cannot revolve solely around politics and identity issues.

Bengal desperately needs economic revival, industrial growth, administrative stability, and job creation. This is a state with enormous cultural, intellectual, and economic potential, yet for years governance remained overshadowed by political conflict and power struggles.

People now expect the government to move beyond slogans and finally bring stability, development and investment to Bengal.

Victory was the mandate. Governance is the test.

Language, Politics, and Education: Finding Balance in a Diverse India

I am not sure what I am writing about as I am covering two topics here. First is Language, which has become a hot and highly politicized topic evoking a wide range of emotions. There are debates over 'National Language' and India's 'Three Language Policy'. The whole country is now divided into 'Hindi-Speaking States or Hindi Belt' and Rest of India (largely the southern states). The Hindi-speaking states (largely northern states) do not understand the regional languages especially the languages spoken in the South Indian states and now, several people (not everyone) in the states in South India as well as the state of Maharashtra suddenly do not want to hear anything except their mother tongue. 

This is a highly politicized debate. I feel that when political parties run out of ideas, they start creating divide among people and resort to 'we vs. them'. For example, Raj Thackeray does not like people from UP and Bihar and wanted them to be kicked out of Mumbai. Why? As per him, people from UP and Bihar take away the jobs from Maharashtrians and also pollute the city, commit crimes and what not. Economically backward people in UP and Bihar migrate to bigger cities in search of opportunities and do odd jobs that help them feed their family. They work as security guards, sell vegetables, drive taxis, work as cleaners, plumbers, etc. Yes, some of them may be engaging in crimes, but are crimes committed by people from UP and Bihar only? When we look back at the history of underworld in Mumbai, the involvement of Muslims and Tamilians is significantly high. Why not speak against them? And as far as taking away jobs are concerned, Mumbai being the financial capital, attracts a lot of people from various parts of India - especially Gujaratis, Marwaris from various states. Why not speak against them? Mumbai is such a cosmopolitan city that you would find people from all parts of India. Then why single out people from UP and Bihar? Because they are poor, they do not have a voice, and they are soft targets. Such topics are raised by politicians without a meaningful and productive vision and they use it to get easy and quick mileage. Does not help much and for too long. Look where Raj Thackeray is.

Language debate is similar. Suddenly we hear about incidents in Karnataka, Maharashtra, etc. about arguments and even fights over mother tongue. A delivery boy from north-east India was beaten up in Bengaluru for not being able to speak the regional language of that state. My friend, travelling with his family, was asked to get out of a taxi in Bengaluru for the same reason. Another friend's car was hit by a biker in Pune and instead of apologizing, the biker started arguing about why my friend cannot speak Marathi!! So why is all this happening? It is because political parties are telling people that Hindi is being forced upon them, and they should only speak their mother tongue. 

I completely agree that people in South India (or in any non-Hindi speaking state) must not be compelled to learn or speak Hindi and they should have the freedom. Knowing Hindi would indeed help - especially if you are in transferrable jobs, administrative jobs (IAS), military etc. however, it must not be forced.

But is the story complete? Is it one-sided where only Hindi is being pushed down the throat of people in non-Hindi-speaking states? 

That brings me to the other topic that I want to cover. Education. 

I keep reading about how Indian education system is outdated. We are not promoting practical knowledge and as a result, today's generation is highly unemployable. In today’s day and age, when information is available at the click of a button, we should not compel our children to learn by rote. Instead, the focus should be on topics that would are relevant today and tomorrow. The focus should be on practical knowledge. The focus should also be on life skills.

But what are we doing? In several parts of India (especially the non-Hindi-speaking states), an entire subject is effectively being wasted, which is deeply concerning. Education is extremely expensive, and more importantly, a 'forced' subject could be replaced with something far more useful or better aligned with a child’s interests and aptitudes. 

You may be wondering what am I talking about? Okay, let me take a step back and explain.

Due to the politicization of 'language' (as covered above), several schools in Southern States (and few others. E.g. Maharashtra) are compelling students to learn regional language. For example, I stay in a Southern State and in my daughter's school, she has to learn English, Telugu and pick one between Hindi or Spanish. I could also argue that just like 'Hindi should not be pushed down the throat', regional languages should also not be made mandatory in the respective states. This is politics at the cost of education system and the future of kids.

I acknowledge that it is reasonable for children (native or non-native) within a state to be 'encouraged' to learn the regional language, as language plays an important role in culture, social integration, and local identity. However, concerns arise when such learning is made mandatory rather than encouraged. This issue is further compounded by the reality of frequent inter-state mobility driven by employment for many families.

For example, consider a boy who moves from Delhi to Pune and takes admission in Class 6. He is suddenly required to study Marathi and, understandably, struggles initially. Over time, he manages to cope and even develops some interest. Subsequently, his father takes up a job in Hyderabad, and the child enrolls in Class 7 at a new school. He is then required to study Telugu, and the struggle begins again. What does he ultimately gain? A limited knowledge of Marathi that he is unlikely to retain without continued practice or practical use. I do not even want to take this scenario further where the kid had to move to Delhi in class 8^th or 9^th because - even though it is an imaginary kid - I don't want him to commit suicide in my imagination!!! 

The point is that when each state (or some schools within the state) mandates its regional language as a compulsory subject, children who move often are required to repeatedly start new languages, which can limit continuity and result in only surface-level learning rather than proficiency. It brings me back to my earlier point regarding the broader concern about the relevance of education to future employability. Industry leaders regularly highlight the gap between academic curricula and practical skills. The focus should be on subjects that are relevant today and in the future. Emphasis should be placed on practical knowledge, as well as on the development of essential life skills. 

I hated it when my daughter was compelled to choose between Hindi and Spanish. I want her to know Hindi like people from South India would want their kids to know their mother tongue. At the same time, learning a foreign language is not merely cultural, but a functional/technical skill with clear value in a global economy. Restricting choice by forcing students to choose between Hindi and a foreign language reduces their ability to tailor education to their long-term goals. The impact of such policies is also uneven. For example, students native to a South Indian state can often study English, the regional language, and a foreign language, while students from outside that state must study English, the regional language, and then choose between Hindi and a foreign language. This creates an imbalance in opportunity.

Encouraging regional languages is important but making them compulsory without flexibility does not fully account for modern mobility or the need for choice. Instead, a more balanced approach would promote regional language learning while allowing families the flexibility to decide what best serves their children’s future. Though I am thinking on the go, policymakers and educators can think of giving some benefits or merit points for knowing a regional language that is not your mother tongue. Something like, if a student from Bihar knows Tamil, he/she would get an additional attempt in UPSC or would be considered for a slightly lower cut off or something like that. Some system can always be worked out, and it would definitely be better than the current one. 

In the end, I would only say that India’s linguistic diversity should make us feel proud and not divide us. We should not allow our languages to become a political instrument or a compulsory academic burden as it would only cause both social harmony and education to suffer. Language should function as a bridge, not a barrier created by short-term politics.   

Agneepath Scheme: Right Intent, Right Idea, Poor Positioning

 For leaders and policymakers, developing good ideas is essential, but effectively marketing and positioning those ideas is even more critical. Every idea has limitations, and it is vital to understand what to communicate and emphasize. Proper communication and marketing ensure awareness, engagement, and adoption by clearly conveying the benefits, building trust, and differentiating ideas in a crowded landscape. Effective positioning highlights the unique advantages and relevance, ensuring the idea resonates with the intended audience.

The ruling party in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is reasonably good at generating sound ideas. Many of their schemes, policies, and initiatives demonstrate vision and good intent. However, these ideas often face rejection or public backlash due to inadequate communication, marketing, or positioning. For example, the Farm Bill introduced in 2020 aimed to benefit farmers by increasing their earnings. Nevertheless, the lack of clarity and effective marketing allowed opposition and vested interests to incite massive protests, ultimately resulting in the bill's rollback.

Another example, a hot topic, is the Agneepath Scheme, which in a nutshell is a recruitment scheme for the Indian Armed Forces. It involves recruiting young people, called Agniveers, for a four-year tenure. After this period, a portion of Agniveers may be offered permanent commission, while others will leave with a severance package and skills training. The scheme aims to reduce the average age of the armed forces and provide youth with disciplined training and experience.

The Agneepath scheme has several drivers and benefits. It aims to create a younger and fitter force, as a youthful workforce brings more physical agility and adaptability. Enhancing the Indian Armed Forces' youthful profile ensures maximum risk-taking and effectiveness in battle. The scheme also focuses on skill development, with Agniveers gaining discipline, teamwork, and technical skills. Additionally, reducing the average age of soldiers significantly lowers the pension burden. Agniveers not retained after their service will benefit from practical military experience, discipline, and skills, along with a financial cushion of Rs 12 lakhs to start businesses or further their education. This scheme presents a unique opportunity for young people to serve their country and support nation-building, creating an energetic profile for the armed forces.

However, the scheme has some implementation issues and limitations. It would have benefited from a smaller-scale pilot before full implementation. Moreover, the current form is more suitable for the Army and less for the Navy and Air Force, where longer training durations are required. Concerns about job security and the impact on military ethos also arise, as a shorter service period might hinder the development of a strong military culture and camaraderie. While the scheme has its pros and cons, analysis and discussions with military personnel and experts suggest it is indeed a step in the right direction. It is a 'work-in-progress' and not a finished product yet. There is significant scope for improvement, which the central government acknowledges and is open to addressing. Various state governments are also introducing related schemes to help Agniveers find suitable employment opportunities after their service.

The focus here is not to debate the efficacy, implementation, or limitations of the Agneepath scheme but to discuss whether the scheme was properly marketed and positioned. I feel that the scheme could have been positioned differently and effectively.

India is grappling with a significant unemployment crisis, with the youth unemployment rate being alarming. According to the latest data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), an independent think tank, the unemployment rate in India stood at 9.2 percent in June 2024, a sharp increase from 7 percent in May 2024. This issue necessitates focused government interventions, skill development initiatives, and job creation to address the pressing challenge of unemployment. The issue of unemployment is being heavily discussed in parliament, public forums, social media, living rooms and is a key grievance against the current government.

On a separate note, I believe that the current government did not create the issue of unemployment; rather, it is the result of decades of negligence and a lack of vision and initiatives. Unemployment is more of a ‘by-product’ stemming from challenges such as uncontrolled population growth, high illiteracy, and a significantly inadequate education system at the grassroots level. While there are thousands of public and private schools, are we really preparing our children for the current and future requirements? The answer is a big no. Companies hire and then invest considerable time, resources, and effort in training new hires because they are often not sufficiently prepared to hit the ground running. A young individual with a degree but inadequate skills lacks employability.

While the current government inherited the unemployment problem, it is accountable for addressing it. It is another point that they are also not doing much to solve the root causes of the unemployment issue, so it serves them right!!

The Agneepath scheme, amid this backdrop, could have been positioned as a powerful tool for job creation. Instead of focusing on cost-cutting and demographic changes within the armed forces, the scheme should have been primarily positioned as an employment scheme with relaxed selection criteria, guaranteed employment for four years, along with a monetary benefit at the end and potential for future re-employment. That’s it. Plain, simple and effective. It would have resonated strongly with the target audience. This approach would have aligned with the nation's pressing need for job creation and could have mitigated some of the initial public resistance. Proper positioning of government initiatives is crucial in addressing complex societal challenges like unemployment.

Hopefully, some lessons have been learnt by the government and the bosses and in future, they would ‘read the room’!!

The Myth of Hindu Unity

In the grand tapestry of Bharat's socio-political landscape, one of the most enduring myths is that Hindus form a cohesive majority. Official statistics may indicate that around 80% of Bharat’s population identifies as Hindu, but beneath this numerical facade lies a complex web of divisions that belies this apparent unity. The notion of a monolithic Hindu identity often seems more like a political construct than a reflection of the country’s true socio-cultural fabric.

When we examine the internal dynamics of Bharat, the picture is far from unified. We are fragmented by numerous factors: geographical regions, ideological differences, economic disparities, caste, creed, and even fan loyalties. The nation's divisions are so pronounced that it is almost a given that we will find reasons to stay apart—whether by region (North versus South), political orientation (right wing versus left wing), or caste.

The historical narrative that Bharat remained a Hindu-majority country despite centuries of invasions and colonial rule often overlooks a critical issue: our internal disunity made us vulnerable. Additionally, while Hindu theology identifies kama (Desire/Lust), krodha (Anger), lobha (Greed), mada (Ego), moha (Attachment), matsarya (Jealousy), and alasya (Laziness) as key mental obstacles, many of us do not genuinely work to overcome these challenges in our daily lives. These factors highlight why we were subjected to rule by invaders (like the Mughals and British) and dynasts (such as the Indian National Congress) for so many centuries.

We take pride in the fact that, unlike many other countries that were religiously converted by invaders, Bharat remained a Hindu-majority nation. Statistically and on paper, this is accurate. However, what if the invaders did not exert significant effort to convert us? What if they considered us worse off remaining Hindus, or if they did not want their faith to be corrupted by our mindset?

Consider this: if Hindus were genuinely united, no one could have mocked us. No one could have taken things away from our plate in the name of appeasement. No one could have jeopardized Bharat’s medium to long term growth potential by playing vote bank politics. I am not at all suggesting that we should have been like a militant outfit and troubled others. Bullying others just because of the strength of numbers is cowardly. Saving cows is great, making Muslim drivers eat cow dung is not. Just a strength in character would deter people to not take us for granted.

Our divisions are laid bare during elections and in various other arenas, revealing a society where allegiance to caste and regional identity often outweighs national cohesion. The recent Lok Sabha elections offer a telling example. The ruling party, various other blunders aide, lost several seats due to the pervasive influence of caste-based voting. In certain constituencies, candidates were chosen based on caste affiliations rather than merit or party allegiance. It is actually good to not consider the religion while deciding who to vote for but then the consideration should be national interests, economic growth, integrity and not caste or freebies. This fractured approach to voting diminishes any party’s ability to implement substantial change.

In Bharat, the political and social landscapes are often shaped by fragmented vote banks such as Jats, Yadavs, and Bhumihaars. This fragmentation hampers the possibility of a unified and effective Hindu vote. In contrast, similar unity among other communities results in a more consolidated and influential political force. For instance, while Shia or Sunni vote banks may exist, they typically come into play only when the competition is between Muslim candidates.

Take the example of Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. Despite the BJP's reputation for Hindu-centric policies, the party allocated numerous houses under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana to residents of Rampur, which has a significant Islamic population. However, the BJP faced a significant defeat in this constituency. Why? Because, unlike the fragmented Hindu vote, the Muslim voters in Rampur were largely unified. While this unity helped them defeat the so-called 'Hindu party,' it came at a cost. Leaders who engage in vote bank politics rarely serve their constituents' best interests. Their aim is to keep people divided and perpetually dependent.

By failing to stay united and prioritizing caste-based interests and freebies over national and economic growth, we perpetuate a cycle of poverty and political myopia. Consequently, we later find ourselves lamenting issues such as unemployment, rising prices, and the loss of job opportunities, academic seats etc. Let us not play victim in a situation that we have created for ourselves.

Some Random Achievements/Certificates

Arguments against CAA and NRC: Are they valid?

A section in India is protesting against CAA and the 'yet to be drafted' NRC. In the past couple of weeks, I have had discussions with some people, who are against CAA and NRC. I have made an attempt to understand their reasons and reservations. Following are some key reasons that have been expressed during such discussions;

Reason # 1: CAA is against Indian Muslims and it would take away their citizenship

Fact: CAA is not about taking anyone's citizenship. Instead, it is about granting citizenship to minorities (not limited to Hindus) from certain countries in our neighborhood. There is no way that CAA would take away citizenship of existing Indians.

Reason # 2: Thousands of people would come to India due to CAA. In present economic environment, it is not advisable to bring in more people

Fact: CAA will not grant fast-tracked citizenship to anyone who comes to India today or in future. It is about giving citizenship to people who are already in India since 2014 or before. 

Reason # 3: It is derogatory towards other religions (for example Muslims) staying in those countries

Fact: There are documented proofs that the minorities under the scope of CAA have faced discrimination and religious persecution. Yes, others may also be facing issues in their countries. However, have they come to India? (Remember, India is not inviting people but fast tracking citizenship to certain people who are ALREADY in India). People who did come - e.g. Adnan Sami - receive citizenship after undergoing certain formalities. Some may even be fast -tracked, depending on the case. India is not saying that people from other faiths will not be given citizenship. However, they would have to follow the 'regular' process i.e., the process that has been defined by statutes and have been followed by all past governments. Now some of the those political parties are questioning it!! If they have an issue, why did they not change the law earlier? And even if the point that 'Why not Muslims' is considered, why are people *OPPOSING* CAA. Why are they not requesting for inclusion of Muslims? Consider this example. Suppose 100 people from different religions/faiths came to India from Pakistan in 2012. Out of that, 60 were Hindus/Sikhs/Parsis/Jains/Buddist/Christian and 40 were Muslims. CAA says that India would grant fast-tracked citizenship to 60 and would consider the request of remaining 40 in due course. Those 40 would go through the *usual (nothing additional)* documentation/formalities and depending on the case, they will either get citizenship or would be denied citizenship. That is the process. It is similar to getting a visa. Some people get visa, some do not. The first 60 would become citizens of India and would have documents to prove it. They can lead a normal life and also pay taxes. Now, if nothing is changing for 40 but you are making a positive impact in the lives of 60, why should anyone have a problem with that? If people want CAA to be rolled back then essentially means that they do not want positive changes in the lives of 60. If people want 'everyone' to be included in CAA then they should demand exactly that. But my question to them is *where were they earlier?* Were they talking about the remaining 40 before this? No, they never talked about them. They never protested or signed petitions to grant citizenship to those 40. Why is it an issue only NOW? Is it because non-Muslims are going to be benefited? If yes, then those protesters are the ones who are dividing India. But I do not think that is the reason for MOST. Most people are protesting against CAA because they have fallen for the false narrative that has been created by leftists, commies, Muslim fundamentalists, opposition parties and their sponsored media. And it is going on and on because (a) of recent decisions on 370, Ram Mandir, Triple Talaq and proposed Uniform Civil Code and (b) Delhi elections are round the corner. AAP will almost certainly win Delhi elections - most people know that. It is thanks to the freebies given by them. But now, when they do win, the narrative would be that Delhi has said no to divisive politics of BJP. One must understand that BJP is not the party in power in Delhi. It last formed a government in Delhi more than 20 years ago. So, they are not 'losing' the elections. However, that is the picture that the media and opposition parties want to paint for next elections and beyond.

Reason # 4: If not CAA, NRC would take away the citizenship of Muslims

Fact: Nationwide NRC has not even been drafted yet. Assam NRC is a different matter altogether. The need was different over there. Nationwide NRC would be nothing like Assam NRC. So, if people are protesting against NRC, they are protesting on the basis of speculation and fear-mongering. Someone even said "people are not scared of what would be there in NRC but they are scared about who (BJP) is proposing it"!!! That is absurd. If I see 10 Muslims sitting and talking in a corner and I attack them on the basis of a speculation that they must be planning a terrorist attack then people would say (and rightly so) that I am insane and bigoted. The argument that nationwide NRC, whenever it is drafted, would be against Muslim - just because BJP government would be proposing it - is equally absurd.

Reason # 5: Present government is fascist and is trying to silence the voice of students. The violence against students is uncalled for and is not acceptable

Fact/Response. Firstly, it is not a reason for opposing CAA/NRC but is a response to what happened afterwards. Police beat protesters in Jamia but they were burning buses and pelting stones. They pretty much invited the wrath of police. Reports suggest that the group of protesters included several non-students from nearby areas. So it was not an action against students. It was an action against vandals. Yes, may be some innocent bystanders may have got hurt but in such cases, we can not blame the cops. They cannot ask for student ids while lathi-charging vandals. And they have no way of figuring out who pelted stone or burnt the buses and who did not. If you be near a violent mob, there are high chances that you would become a collateral damage through one of the parties involved. What happened in JNU had nothing to do with CAA/NRC. It was a university fight and something which must not have happened

Happy Birthday Flying Officer Nirmal Jit Singh Sekhon, PVC (posthumous)

Today is the birth anniversary of Flying Officer Nirmal Jit Singh Sekhon, Param Vir Chakra (posthumous). He is the only PVC recipient from the Indian Air Force.

During a surprise attack by Pakistan, the Indian pilots in Srinagar were ordered to take shelter but Sekhon managed to take off in his Gnat. He single-handedly chased away a strike force comprising four F-86F Sabres of Pakistani Air Force's 26 Squadron (Black Spiders). "I am behind two Sabres. I won't let the bastards get away". Sekhon achieved his objective as the enemy aircrafts fled from the scene of the battle without pressing home their attack against the town and the airfield however, Sekhon was killed in the process.

Pakistan Defence website describes him as "His was a commendable effort indeed, as he had kept the field single-handedly to the very end" and "Some enemies are also respectable"!!!

I salute this true hero!!

Article 15: Does the director believe in it?

Recently watched the much talked about movie 'Article 15'. For the uninitiated, Article 15 of the constitution of India says 'Article 15 (1) and (2) prohibit the state from discriminating any citizen on ground of any religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them'.

The movie discusses the important topic of caste discrimination, which is rampant and is a major social evil in India. The plot is 'based' on a true incident but has been tweaked to suit the views of the maker. The movie has great actors and they have delivered powerful performances. Overall, the movie is interesting and I did not feel bored at any point of time.

However, such movies make you think. That per se is not an issue. Every movie on a real issue should make you think. But this one also makes you think about the intentions and motives. There is a background to it as well. I have watched the previous movie ('Mulk') of the director and have also watched several interviews. He seems to have certain views against the major religion in India and takes a consulting-like approach to narrate or weave the story. He develops hypotheses and then creates a narrative to prove that hypotheses. 

I really liked his previous film - Mulk. It talks about targeting Muslims and thinking that every Muslim is a terrorist. That is incorrect and it must be said. The film did show an Islamic terrorist but the director spent only few minutes on that. The rest of the movie showed how the family of the terrorist was targeted, asked to move to Pakistan etc. I would not say that it does not happen. I also agree (and firmly believe) that every Muslim is not a terrorist and that it should not even be discussed. However, the fact also is that >90% of the terrorists follow or claim to follow Islam (the reason I say "claim to follow" is because I firmly believe that most Islamic terrorists (and their handlers and religious leaders) do not even understand Islam). But it is a fact that over 90% terrorists are Muslims. Will the film-maker make a movie on that? No. Because then he would be scared of his life. 

These days when the critics appreciate a movie, I start doubting the movie and the intentions. These days it has become fashionable to talk against Hindu religion. Any movie which shows Hinduism or a certain political party in bad-light gets good reviews from critics. Take for example the movie 'Mukkabaaz'. It is a good movie about a boxer of lower caste fighting against the system for his career and love. However, there are two scenes in the movie that I found questionable. In one scene, the goons target the boxer and his coach by falsely accusing them for consuming beef. While I agree that there is an actual case which got a lot of attention from media, pseudo-seculars, so-called liberals and of course political parties. However, there is no case where someone from Hindu religion was targeted in such a manner. The goons could have targeted the boxer and coach in many different ways but the maker (another guy who seems to hate Hindu religion and was quite vocal about the case) chose this as it could  have given the movie free publicity. There is another scene in which the protagonist unnecessarily and repeatedly says "Bharat Maata ki Jai" while bashing the villain - who is a prominent local politician - in front of the cops. While the intentions were not absolutely clear but may be the film-maker tried to show that you can get away with anything by saying that. This in my opinion was a cheap tactic to garner free publicity for an otherwise good movie.

Article 15 also primarily bashes the Hindu religion or upper caste Hindus. I am not at all denying that in several parts of India, such caste-based discrimination is rampant. However, caste based discrimination is not specific to a religion. Have you not heard about the term 'Dalit-Muslims'? Although Islam does not recognize any castes, Muslim communities in South Asia (especially India) apply a system of social stratification. It is developed as a result of ethnic segregation between the foreign conquerors and the local converts. Why was that not correctly portrayed in the movie? Because it would not fit the hypotheses? 

It is important to make socially-relevant movies but it is equally (if not more) important to ensure that it is portrayed in a non-biased way. Else it would only stem (or rather further escalate) communal tensions. Such movies also suggest (or at least fails to suggest otherwise) that majority of upper-caste Hindus think like this. It is as wrong as thinking that majority of Muslim are terrorists. That goes against the very intention behind Article 15.

We Vote for Good Future, We Vote for India, We Vote for Modi

Is there an Ace up your sleeve?

In the last 3+ years, Modi government has taken several steps in the right direction. Some have started to pay dividends, some are in WIP stage (will pay dividends in future) and some probably missed the target. I am happy about even those steps that failed to achieve all the desired objectives because (a) they did not fail completely and did deliver on some counts and (b) they were steps in the right direction and were backed by all the right intentions.

Let us discuss the positives first. Following are some of the key achievements of Modi government (note: these include achievements as well as steps/plans);

1. Strategic relationships with several nations
2. Make in India initiative
3. Swachh Bharat Mission
4. Jan Dhan Yojana 
5. River linking project
6. Fast tracking of defence purchases
7. Smart Cities (100) project
8. Surgical strike
9. Demonetization*
10. Implementation of GST*
11. Program for divestment of public sector companies
12. Direct Cash Benefit Transfer Scheme 
13. Initiative to link Aadhar Card with other systems

* Have been discussed under positives as well as negatives

Now let us discuss the negatives;

1. Alliance with PDP in Jammu and Kashmir: (Though there is no place for emotional decisions in politics and it is a fact that politics is game of numbers, this alliance either should not have happened or BJP should have better handled the alliance with clearly laid out terms and conditions)
2. Demonetization*: Though I firmly believe that demonetization delivered several benefits (e.g. reduction in terror/naxal funding, increase in number of tax payers, even winning the UP elections), it is being argued that 'black money' did not 'go out' of the system. It is being said that 99% of the money found the way back. Having said that, the argument from the government also sounds valid. If the expectation was that the black money that was stored in cash would disappear as the culprits would not find a way to legalize that money then probably it was a failure. However, the government argues that though it is probably true that most of the money came back into the system, that is also a major positive. As per the government, the money moved from "No. 2 economy" (i.e., the black market) to the "No.1 economy". If that is true, it means that the money is no longer black money and has come back in regular circulation. It has become legal money and would help in strengthening the economy. Hence, technically the 'black money' did 'go-out'. Having said that, since demonetization failed to catch the culprits, it did miss the mark as it failed to deliver ALL the desired benefits. Hence, it has (also) been discussed under the negatives
3. Implementation of GST*: Though it is certainly a move in the right direction, the Finance Minister and GST Council could not have done anything more to complicate  matters. In most countries where GST has been implemented, there has been a single tax for everything. India has separate taxes for various good and services and the tax rate depends on the type of goods or service. To make the matter worse, VAT continues to exist on fuel!!! There is a significant and urgent need to simplify GST.

So, where do we stand? While I feel that Modi government could have done better, I am not unhappy at all. I see, acknowledge and appreciate the right intentions. And I do understand that 'Rome was not built in a day'. I am prepared to show patience. In any case, I do not see an alternative. Modi, by far, is the best bet for 2019 and for India.

But am I concerned? Little bit. While I hope that most people would make a rational decision in 2019, I do feel that people are losing patience. Though the steps are indeed in the right direction, the fact that the steps are yet to deliver quantifiable results worries me. Some voters may be tempted to try something new.

It must also be noted that the judiciary has done everything possible to step on the cake. Every decision/bill/policy/move has been questioned by the SC. They are pissed with the government as the government wanted a say in appointment of judges. However, this is also something that people would not consider in 2019. 

Hence, I believe that Modi government needs an impactful 2018. It should have something for everyone.

Do I mean that the government should distribute freebies? Certainly NOT!!!

There is a need for a thorough cost benefit analysis. In my opinion, the government can consider the following;

1. Changes in Income Tax laws. While Dr. Swamy says income tax should be abolished in India, I am not sure if that is feasible. Though only about 1% of Indian population pays income tax, it is still a high source of revenues for the government. With all the infrastructure projects planned, I am not sure if government can really afford abolishment of income tax. However, the threshold can be changed. For example, if the bar is raised to something like 1 crore per annum, it would give a relief to a large chunk of people in middle class. It would definitely have a negative impact on the revenues. It should also be noted that it is unlikely to have a major impact on sentiments as only about 1% of Indian population would be benefitted. Hence a cost-benefit analysis is required.
2. Lowering the fuel prices. High fuel prices impact a large chunk of Indian population and if the government manages to lower fuel prices by removing state taxes, it would do wonders to the sentiments. Again, it should not be a freebie and a thorough analysis of the pros and cons is required.
3. Scrapping of Article 370
4. Removal of MFN status given to Pakistan
5. Strong actions and retaliations on Pakistan border

There are several other actions that come to mind and are really important. However, the idea for 2018 should be 'Maximum Impact, Minimum Controversies'.

Modi and Shah are smart and they must have planned for some quantifiable actions for 2018. 

I just hope they have a real Ace up their sleeves!!!

Bahut Yaraana Lagta Hai!!!

There is this girl in the office. She started in a different team but - owing to insufficient work in that team - she was transferred to our team. Not sure if the move was purely due to insufficient work or it performance issue also played a part. In our team, she started with another reporting manager and continued for ~1 year. Later, I was asked to manage her efforts. I could detect some performance issues but more importantly, I spotted serious issues with attitude, behavior and discipline. I let the concerned people know about the issues. I was feeling that - after already trying to  accommodate her in multiple teams  - they would probably outcounsel her. However, to my surprise, they are prepared to try her in another team! I asked a colleague why such a long rope is being extended in this case. As per the colleague, there are other - unofficial & unprofessional - reasons involved.

From now on, I'll call her Arun Jaitley!!

Was Demonetization Successful?

I have been asked that question on several occasions. It amuses me. I am no expert in economics and people know that. Yet, they ask me that question because as per them, I am a "Bhakt". Well.....I do not deny that. I am a Desh Bhakt and so I am also a Modi Bhakt. They ask me this question as they feel here is an opportunity to pin me down.

Though I have already put a disclaimer that I am no expert in such matters, I do feel that Demonetization missed the target. When the move was announced, I was really excited and there were several reasons behind that excitement.

Firstly, I was proud that "my leader" has the balls to take such a step. It was not easy but Narendra Bhai had it in him to go for it. That's what I like about the man and it gave me an immense sense of pride that my country has such a bold leader.

And there were other reasons. The move was targeted at stopping/curbing black money, terror financing, funding the stone pelters in Kashmir and so on. I must say that, with my limited knowledge of the facts, my perception is that black money was indeed impacted but it has found its way back. And same goes for terror financing and other targets.

Could it have been planned and rolled-out better? No, I firmly believe that such a move required an element of surprise and hence, it was announced suddenly.

Then why did it fail?

Well....I believe that one of the main reasons that it failed was because several of us made it fail. I personally know at least couple of people who told me that their clients wanted help in converting black money stacked in their house. I am not sure whether they were just making stories or did it actually happen...and I do not know whether they did help their clients in converting the money or not...but several people did that. Now, these very people are questioning the success of the move!!! That is like insult to injury. First you do your bit in making the initiative fail and then you question the initiative!!! Well done!!!And there were several others. Politicians, bank employees, administrators, agents....they did their bit in making the initiative fail. Certainly not generalising the whole thing and pointing fingers at everyone but you know who you are and you know the others around you who played a part.

Having said that, I don't think that it is fair to put the blame entirely elsewhere. I do wish that the initiative was handled better by EVERYONE. It could have paid rich dividends.

Does this put a question mark in my mind regarding the effectiveness of Modi? ABSOLUTELY NOT. I still firmly believe in Narendra Bhai. My first and foremost reason behind getting excited about Demonetization is still intact. I am still pretty much proud of my PM. It would require a major screw-up for that belief and trust to go away. I firmly believe that the move had the right intentions. It just did not achieve all that it was set to achieve. That happens.

I believe that any initiative towards an all encompassing growth in India requires NaMo at the top. And for that BJP (though I do not like the party) needs to have an absolutely majority in both houses. So even if the only good thing about demonetization was that it helped BJP in winning the election in UP, I can live with that....happily!!!

I am prepared to be patient. Change would not come in a day. It does not matter whether things have completely improved or not. What matters is whether we are heading in the right direction or not. And we are indeed heading in the right direction. There are some speed breakers/bumps/turbulence that we are encountering but did we expect the journey to be absolutely smooth. A democracy with over 1.2 billion is moving.....ground is bound to shake.

And to everyone who is criticizing Modi....I know that you would continue to do so. No amount of reasoning or facts are going to change that. Some of you have religious reasons to criticize him and some of you do it just for the heck of it. Modi is the popular opinion and some people like to irritate others. So do continue with it....whatever is your reason. But do answer, one question. If not Modi, you would you rather have at the top? Rahul, Kejriwal, Mamta, Lalu, Sharad Pawar, Owaisi, Uddhav, Raj Thackeray, KCR, Mulayam, Akhilesh, Mayawati...whats your alternative? Answer that honestly - not to me but to your yourself.

Bye Malaysia, Hello India

Last 5+ years in Malaysia were great. Thank you Malaysia/Kuala Lumpur for treating us so well. And thank you B-9-6 Mont Kiara Pelangi, our address for the last 5 years. I have never stayed in one house for so long. Ananya grew up in the house/city/country and there are so many memories. It will always have a special place in our hearts.

Though Malaysia is a great place to live and we enjoyed our stay in the country, there is one problem with the place....it is not India and so, it is not home.

It took a while to find a way back to India. It was a long and difficult process. When we finally figured a way, we realized that there was an easier/simpler way, which was always there/available!!!

Nevertheless, I am back where I belong. INDIA. Though we (Roshni and I) have jumped right in the middle of the 'cash crunch', we are looking forward to every bit of it. The returning NRI in me does kick in from time to time. "So much pollution", "look how that bugger is driving..oh there is one more....wait...everyone is driving like that!!!" "Power cut!!!" But I am so happy to be back!!!

Pune will be our new home. Its a city that has always attracted me. I had an option to pick from Gurgaon, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore, Kolkata and Pune. It was an easy decision. A new city, a new adventure. Have some friends in the city and others are a visa-less travel away :)

#JeenaYahaanMarnaYahaan #India

"Diplomatic moves to isolate Pakistan"

This has been heard so often that it sounds nothing more than mere rhetoric. Of course, there is no harm in trying all that. However, Pakistan would not learn a lesson if a world leader snubs their PM (he, in any case, does not have any importance) or if Bangladesh boycotts the SAARC summit in Pakistan. It is time for some strong actions. 

If India (read government) wants to avoid full-fledged military action then find other ways to teach Pakistan a lesson. Hit them commercially. Ban direct or indirect exports to Pakistan. Put more taxes on multi-nationals who operate both in India as well as Pakistan and make them choose one market. It is okay to take a blow to deliver a knock-out punch. Throw away the Indus Water Treaty. Do something significant.

Yesterday, a minister made a statement that "our patience is running out". Well....you are not the only one.

#UriAttack

Happy Republic Day Fellow Indians

A Case of Wrong Information & Premature Ejaculation

This the post and picture that AAPtards were sharing a couple of days back. They were suggesting that, while Modi is busy with foreign trips, Yugpurush and his men have already taken action against Sheila Dikshit and have filed a FIR.

Till then, their law minister had only made a recommendation to his bosses to file a FIR against Dikshit and no FIR had been filed yet. But AAP, like always, started giving a wrong picture to the public and AAPtards started to have premature ejaculation.

Anyways....since then I have been eagerly and anxiously waiting for an action by AAP and today they did take an action. They removed their law minister!!! :P

They may still file a FIR later against Dikshit to avoid further bashing but they prioritized the action against their Minister!!! After all, how dare he suggest an action against the real bosses in Congress!!!!

AAPtards bhaiyon, maan gaye....aapke yugpurush aur aapki mand-buddhi....donon ko!!!