Accountability, Yes. Scapegoating, No.

Like many others, I believe the NEET-UG paper leak is a serious failure. The government deserves criticism. Dharmendra Pradhan, the Education Minister of India, must be questioned. He cannot shrug the responsibility and I do not think he is.

But is it fair to single him out?

Yesterday, I was talking to my friend - Kumar G Das - and he made some interesting points and arguments. He asked, 

"Where does the issue stem from?"

The answer seemed obvious. It is because of weak systems. Poor oversight. Failure of governance. However, he pointed that a paper leak exists because there is both demand and supply.

Much of the public debate focuses on the supply side - those who exploited loopholes, leaked papers, facilitated cheating, or profited from the scam. The culprits must be identified, investigated and punished. If there is involvement of coaching centres, faculty members, middlemen, officials, they must not be spared and should face the strictest consequences.

But what about the demand side?

Who is buying leaked papers? Willing to pay lakhs for an unfair advantage? Who is encouraging a culture where success matters more than integrity? The uncomfortable truth is that some parents and students are active participants in this ecosystem. Without buyers, there would be no market for leaked papers. Without demand, in most cases, there is no supply.

I completely agree. His arguments made me think. No one is discussing and questioning the demand side! 

At the same time and as mentioned earlier, it does not absolve the government. It is the responsibility of the government to build robust enough systems to prevent these things from happening. When an examination of this scale is compromised, the ministry cannot simply say that a few bad actors are responsible and move on.

But is accountability the same thing as resignation?

I do not think so.

If the Minister resigns or government takes any action due to the protest by a satirical online movement like CJP, a trending social media campaign, a group of Gen Z activists and some 'habitual and chronic protestors', we risk creating the wrong precedent. We know there are forces that mobilize and fund such groups. We have seen similar protest movements in Nepal and Bangladesh. The objective of these forces, in many cases, is to destabilize governments and ultimately gain influence or control.

Governments should act based on facts, investigations, evidence, and institutional processes, not on who can generate the loudest outrage online. If every institutional failure automatically demands the resignation of the person at the top, there will be no end to insane demands? It would open a hornet's nest.

If a major banking fraud happens despite multiple layers of regulation, should the RBI Governor resign? If there is a border infiltration, should the Army Chief resign? If a cricket match is abandoned due to a dangerous or unplayable pitch, should the BCCI President resign? If a stock market manipulation scam comes to light, should the SEBI Chairperson resign?

Leadership carries responsibility, but responsibility is not the same as sole culpability. Online or offline outrage cannot be a substitute for institutional processes. Public pressure is important in a democracy, but governance cannot be reduced to reacting to the loudest voices on social media or at Jantar Mantar (Kaikey in Ramayana had Kop Bhavan and modern day habitual protestors have Jantar Mantar!).

The objective should be justice, not symbolism.

Identify every individual involved in the leak. Punish corrupt officials. Shut down coaching centres found guilty. Debar students who knowingly participated. Hold parents accountable where evidence exists. Strengthen examination security. Fix the loopholes and the system. Increase transparency.

This MUST not happen again! 

Dharmendra Pradhan is being questioned, and rightly so. He should be questioned. He should be held accountable. But if our entire response begins and ends with demanding one man's resignation, we may satisfy our anger without solving the problem.

An Open Letter to the Prime Minister: Tourism Can Do More for India

Honourable Prime Minister,

I write this letter as a proud Indian, an optimist about India's future, but at the same time as someone who is concerned about the global economic environment and its impact on India.

In the last several years, under your leadership, few countries in the world have demonstrated the kind of momentum that India has shown. We are among the fastest-growing major economies, our infrastructure is improving rapidly, and our voice in international affairs carries increasing weight.

The global economy, however, remains uncertain due to geopolitical conflicts, supply chain disruptions, changing trade dynamics, inflationary pressures, volatile energy markets, and fluctuating capital flows. Ongoing tensions such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and instability in West Asia continue to impact commodity markets and energy supplies.

So far, India has managed these global challenges better than many countries. However, recent developments, and indeed some of your own public statements, indicate the need for caution. Concerns about foreign investor outflows, pressure on foreign exchange reserves, rising prices, weakening consumer confidence, and growing economic uncertainty highlight potential risks to economic stability.

In such an environment, it becomes increasingly important to maximize returns from every potential source of foreign exchange earnings. Sectors that can attract foreign currency, generate employment, strengthen India's global image, and stimulate economic activity deserve focused policy attention.

In this context, tourism merits particular emphasis.

Tourism is often discussed merely as a hospitality sector. In reality, tourism is simultaneously an economic sector, a foreign exchange sector, a soft power sector, a regional development sector, and an employment generation sector. It brings foreign currency into the country, supports a wide range of businesses and jobs, promotes regional development, and enhances India's international visibility and influence.

Although tourism's direct contribution to foreign exchange earnings may be modest compared to some major export sectors, its multiplier effects are significant. Every tourist supports airlines, hotels, restaurants, transport operators, guides, local artisans, small businesses, and countless service providers. Few sectors distribute economic benefits as widely.

For this reason, India should seek to maximize the returns from tourism and fully leverage its potential as a driver of economic growth, employment generation, foreign exchange earnings, and international goodwill.

The question is simple: Are we doing enough to maximize the returns from tourism?

I do not believe we are.

There does not appear to be a clear national roadmap to unlock the sector's full potential.

Broadly speaking, India attracts three categories of international visitors: business travellers, medical tourists, and general leisure tourists.

The flow of business travellers is closely linked to the overall health and growth of the economy. Increasing these numbers requires long-term efforts, sustained economic expansion, and greater integration with global business networks. Governments, industry bodies, and stakeholders can certainly organize conferences and international events, but their impact is likely to be gradual rather than transformative in the near future.

Medical tourism presents a more immediate opportunity.

India already attracts a large number of patients and their families because of its medical expertise, infrastructure, and cost competitiveness. Indian doctors are respected worldwide. Our hospitals perform highly complex procedures that attract patients from many countries. Most importantly, India offers a significant cost arbitrage compared to many developed nations, allowing patients to access high-quality treatment at a fraction of the cost they would incur elsewhere.

In countries such as the United States, medical treatment can be both prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. In several cases, a patient requiring a major procedure could travel to India, undergo treatment, stay in premium accommodation with accompanying family members, visit iconic attractions such as the Taj Mahal post recovery, and still spend less than they would in their home country!

Private hospitals, healthcare providers and some other industry stakeholders are already promoting medical tourism. However, I believe the opportunity can be approached more strategically.

Why should medical tourism begin at the hospital door? Why should it not begin at the Indian embassy?

Prospective patients could receive assistance with visas, travel planning, accommodation, treatment coordination, recovery support, and post-treatment tourism opportunities. Government-backed facilitation would increase confidence and make decision-making easier for patients and their families.

With the support and credibility of the Government of India, prospective patients across the world would find it easier to choose India for treatment. India should actively position itself as the world's preferred destination for high-quality and affordable healthcare. At a time when every source of foreign exchange earnings matters, this opportunity deserves far greater attention.

The greatest untapped opportunity, however, lies in general leisure tourism.

India possesses almost every ingredient required for tourism success. Few countries can offer the diversity that India offers within a single national boundary. A traveller can experience the Himalayas, deserts, beaches, hill stations, rainforests, wildlife reserves, historical monuments, spiritual destinations, tribal cultures, rural life, and modern metropolitan cities, all within one country. Many nations build global tourism brands around one or two iconic attractions. India possesses hundreds.

Yet despite these advantages, I often feel that India extracts only a fraction of the economic value these assets are capable of generating. The reason is not a lack of attractions. The reason is that we often underinvest in the systems and experiences that surround those attractions.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that India's challenge is not an attraction problem. It is an experience problem.

Due to the attractions that India offers, there is already an organic and automatic inflow of tourists. Howeverm, I firmly believe that many state governments are merely reaping the benefits of these natural and historical advantages while taking them for granted. There appear to be limited efforts to maximize the opportunity through long-term planning and execution.

To illustrate this point, I will use the example of Goa.

Goa Case Study

Goa is one of India's most recognizable tourism destinations. It possesses beaches, culture, cuisine, nightlife, hospitality infrastructure, and global brand recognition. It attracts millions of visitors annually and remains one of India's most important tourism destinations.

Yet despite these advantages, recent conversations about Goa increasingly revolve around problems rather than opportunities.

As someone who has visited Goa multiple times over the years, I have observed a noticeable shift in perception. I once considered Goa an easy and convenient holiday destination. One could travel there with minimal planning and still have a wonderful experience. Goa felt effortless. You simply could not go wrong with Goa!

Today, however, many discussions revolve around transportation issues, pricing concerns, environmental challenges, and the overall tourist experience. I say this respectfully but directly. The persistence of these complaints point towards a governance problem and a failure of long-term planning.

Transportation Issue in Goa

One of the most frequently discussed issues in Goa relates to transportation. Visitors regularly express frustration regarding mobility within the state. Taxi aggregator services such as Ola and Uber are not available in Goa. Local taxi operators (often called Taxi Mafia) frequently charge exorbitant fares for short journeys, and reports of tourists being harassed or intimidated are common.

There may be political considerations involved in protecting the interests of local taxi operators. However, the larger question is whether such policies are serving the long-term interests of Goa's tourism economy. Tourist footfall seems to have declined in recent years. 

Visitors driving into Goa from neighbouring states often feel harassed by frequent police checks. Vehicles are regularly stopped at seemingly random locations for 'document inspections'.

I experienced this personally during one of my visits. Google Maps directed me onto a road that had recently been converted into a one-way street. The road was outside the city, traffic was virtually non-existent, and there was no obvious indication that the traffic pattern had changed. Yet, several policemen were stationed at that exact location and immediately stopped my vehicle. When I requested that a formal challan be issued and asked for a receipt, I was informed that the offence could result in my immediate arrest. While I know it was a scare tactic, I finally bought my freedom for INR 300!

Renting a vehicle used to be easy but now it is also becoming slightly trickier and costly. A lot of the service providers do not have the required permits.  Complaints regarding operators demanding exorbitant payments for alleged vehicle damage, often shortly before a tourist's flight or departure, are common.  

Disappointingly, the public transport infrastructure in Goa remains inadequate for a destination that depends so heavily on tourism. Public transport in Goa is affordable and reasonably effective for daytime travel between major hubs. However, it lacks the frequency, flexibility, and late-night reliability required for seamless movement between beaches and tourist destinations. 

It is difficult to understand why transportation challenges that directly affect visitor experience have remained unresolved for so long. The government must take immediate corrective action to address these issues, including improving public transportation infrastructure, enhancing last-mile connectivity, and ensuring that visitors can travel within the state conveniently, safely, and at reasonable cost.

Water Quality Issues in Goa

This issue is one of the primary reasons why I now hesitate to go to Goa. As per reports, Goa’s coastal and river waters face a severe environmental crisis driven by high levels of faecal coliform bacteria from untreated human waste. It is because beach shacks and hotels are dumping sewage directly into storm drains, rivers, and the sea. That is disgusting and shameful. I do not think enough people know about the issue as I do not think people would like to travel to a destination to swim in a gutter! Dumping of waste in the water bodies must be stopped immediately.

Infrastructure in Goa

If my understanding is correct, beach shacks in Goa receive three-year permits through a government lottery. Operators must renew their permits annually before each tourist season.

There may be valid reasons for this arrangement. However, from a business perspective, it creates a potential disincentive for long-term investment. If operators do not enjoy sufficient certainty regarding the future of their business, their primary focus is likely to remain on maximizing short-term returns rather than investing in better infrastructure.

Due to this issue, one finds that most beaches and beach shacks do not have proper washrooms, parking spaces and other infrastructure. For example, when you go to Morjim Beach - near the Sea Turtle nesting site - you would find shacks either with no washrooms or temporary ones. The ones that do have washrooms remain extremely dirty and the waste is dumped in the sea!

The state government should step in and create the necessary supporting infrastructure. Basic amenities such as changing rooms, showers, clean washrooms, safe and organized parking facilities, efficient waste management systems, and even secure locker rooms should be considered essential rather than optional at major tourist destinations.

If the state government does not wish to become directly involved in creating and maintaining such infrastructure, it should reconsider the existing permit framework for shack operators. Operators must be provided sufficient certainty and incentive to make long-term investments, while at the same time being held accountable for maintaining adequate infrastructure, sanitation standards, and visitor facilities. 

Another issue relates to the temporary nature of beach shacks. Since these structures are legally classified as temporary, operators are required to completely dismantle them before the onset of the monsoon season.

While there are valid environmental and safety considerations behind this requirement, it is worth exploring whether a more efficient long-term approach is possible. Although beach activity naturally declines during the monsoon months, tourism does not come to a complete halt. The government could consider developing elevated permanent platforms or other suitable supporting infrastructure on which seasonal shacks and restaurants could be installed and operated.

Such an approach could reduce the recurring costs associated with annual construction and dismantling, encourage better-quality infrastructure, improve sanitation standards, and create a more sustainable operating environment for businesses.

Safety and Tourist Support

In India, and particularly in many tourism destinations, we often focus on attracting tourists without paying equal attention to what happens after they arrive. This is where every state governments, including Goa's, must accept greater responsibility.

India's greatest strength has always been its people. The overwhelming majority of Indians are welcoming, generous, and eager to help visitors. Countless tourists leave India with stories of extraordinary kindness shown by complete strangers.

Unfortunately, a nation's reputation is not shaped solely by positive experiences. A single horrific incident can undo years of goodwill.

The brutal sexual assault of a foreign tourist in Jharkhand, which attracted international attention, serves as a painful example. Similarly, countless videos circulating online show tourists being scammed, overcharged, misled, or harassed. Even isolated incidents can have disproportionate consequences in today's digital world.

The reality is that every tourist now possesses a global platform. A positive experience can encourage thousands of people to visit India. A negative experience can discourage them.

This is why the philosophy of Atithi Devo Bhava must evolve from a slogan into a system.

Every tourist should know exactly where to seek assistance when faced with a problem. Every major tourist destination should have visible tourist assistance centres and a dedicated multilingual helpline.

While I have not personally used the service, I understand that Indian Railways has made significant progress in addressing passenger grievances through responsive helplines and complaint mechanisms that often trigger prompt corrective action. A similar model should be replicated across major tourism destinations.  

To sum it up, with transportation, safety, hygiene, and environmental challenges still affecting many destinations, it is important to ask what impression we are creating for international visitors. Every inconvenience creates friction. Every friction point reduces satisfaction. Every dissatisfied tourist becomes a source of negative publicity. In an era where every traveller is effectively a content creator, a single negative experience can influence thousands of future travel decisions.

Goa and every tourist destination in India has significant potential which can easily be tapped with some concentrated efforts. There are issues but the solutions are well within reach. I genuinely feel that - by just using common sense and equipped with the right intentions - even I can come up with a project plan regarding how to make meaningful and measurable changes to Goa and other tourist destinations in India. So, I simply fail to understand that why the bureaucrats - who are among the smartest minds - and political leaders - who have the power to make meaningful changes - are failing to rectify the issues. 

In an era of global uncertainty, geopolitical instability, and intense economic competition, India cannot afford to leave a major source of foreign exchange earnings, employment, and international goodwill underdeveloped. Tourism is a key sector with enormous possibilities and opportunities. It deserves the same policy attention as manufacturing, technology, exports, and infrastructure. The solutions are largely known. What is required is vision, coordination, and execution.

India does not need more reasons for tourists to visit. India needs to deliver the right experience for tourists to visit again.

Respectfully,

A concerned and well-meaning citizen.

Patriotism Beyond Slogans

Recently, the Prime Minister made an appeal that many people found unusual. He urged citizens to avoid unnecessary foreign travel, reduce discretionary consumption especially gold purchases, and wherever possible, adopt work-from-home flexibility.

Predictably, the statement created caution in the markets and among people. But on closer observation, many understood the larger concern behind the appeal: growing global economic uncertainty, geopolitical volatility, pressure on fuel imports, and the importance of preserving India’s financial stability and foreign exchange strength in the coming period.

Among all the suggestions, the one that directly affects the largest number of people is work from home.

It made me curious and I wanted to see how other companies are reacting to the appeal. I spoke to a friend who runs a mid-size business employing a few hundred people. He is also a strong BJP and PM Modi supporter. When I asked whether he planned to offer employees some flexibility to work from home, to my surprise, his answer was a clear no.

His reasoning was practical: every business has to evaluate what is feasible for its own operations. That is fair to an extent. Not every industry or role can function remotely. Manufacturing, physical operations, frontline services, and several other sectors obviously require physical presence. He argued that the nature of his business does not permit it and, moreover, he believes that overall productivity would dwindle.

I disagree and I have a question.  

Is resistance really about productivity, or is it more about reluctance to accept change?

Personally, I have seen remote collaboration work effectively for years, long before COVID made it mainstream. Early in my career at Deloitte, I once asked my manager whether I could work from home on a particular day. He simply asked me two questions: “Do you have work on your plate?” and “Will you complete it?” When I answered yes, he casually replied, “Then I do not care whether you work from office, home, or Timbuktu.”

That stayed with me.

I disagree that productivity declines in case of work-from-home arrangement. In fact, both studies and personal experience suggest that productivity can improve while working from home. In a typical office environment, people are frequently interrupted by conversations, meetings, informal discussions, and constant movement around them. Working remotely, on the other hand, often allows longer periods of uninterrupted focus and continuity of thought. Ultimately, the issue is less about location and more about work ethics. Someone who lacks discipline may remain unproductive regardless of whether they are sitting at home or in an office. But professionals with strong ownership and accountability generally deliver results irrespective of where they work from.

Professional maturity is not about monitoring physical presence. It is about ownership and accountability.

When I was working in Malaysia, I collaborated daily with team members spread across Singapore, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Australia. Geography and physically being away from each other were never the obstacle. Clarity, discipline, and accountability mattered far more.

Even today, many large organizations have embraced hybrid flexibility. Interestingly, this includes companies like Infosys as well. Despite the public debate around the founder's appeal for 70-hours work week, Infosys allows employees a significant degree of work-from-home flexibility. Employees can work remotely for nearly half the working days in a month, and even on office days, the emphasis appears to be more on productivity and deliverables than merely spending long hours physically present in office.

That is why I believe the discussion today is less about whether remote work is possible and more about how intelligently organizations are willing to adapt wherever feasible.

And I also want to make a different point here.

Supporting a leader or a political party is easy when it costs us nothing. Real support is tested when adaptation demands some inconvenience, flexibility, or change from our side.

The Prime Minister knew very well that such appeals would attract criticism, political attacks, market nervousness, and uncomfortable public debate. Yet, he disregarded his interest and the interest of his party and still made the appeal because he believed they were necessary in the national interest.

If leadership is willing to take political risks for what it believes is good for the country, then as citizens, businesses, and professionals, the least we can do is honestly evaluate how much flexibility we ourselves can show. 

Not every company can implement work from home. Absolutely agree with that. Not every role allows it. Complete work-from-home and permanent changes are also not required. But many organizations can certainly reduce unnecessary travel, stagger attendance, enable partial remote work, or adopt temporary hybrid models wherever feasible.

Patriotism cannot remain only emotional or symbolic. It also reflects in whether we are willing to make reasonable adjustments when the country faces uncertain times.

There is a famous line often heard in India:

“भगत सिंह सबको चाहिए, लेकिन अपने घर में नहीं, पड़ोसी के घर में।" (Everyone wants a Bhagat Singh - the legendary revolutionary - but not in their own home, only in the neighbour’s)

Everyone admires sacrifice and national commitment - as long as someone else is making the adjustment.

Perhaps the real test of patriotism is much simpler:

When the country needs flexibility, responsibility, and collective discipline, are we willing to contribute even in small ways ourselves?

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