Ten days from now (April 20) is the 136th birth anniversary of the man who was chosen as Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” in 1938. The weekly magazine explained this controversial pick by famously stating : “He was chosen not as an endorsement, but as an identification of the person who most influenced news and world events.” The son of Alois Hitler and Klara Polzl is one of history’s darkest figures.

Disclaimer: Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or events from the past or present, are purely coincidental. The events, institutions, and settings described herein do not necessarily represent real occurrences unless explicitly stated as such. The columnist disclaims any intent to defame, misrepresent, or otherwise portray negatively any person, group, organization, religion, nationality, or community. Reader discretion (and wisdom) is advised.

Scene I

1935: Through the ‘Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor’ relationships and marriages between Jews and Germans or those of “kindred blood” were forbidden and outlawed.

2026: Twelve states have enacted laws against any manner of religious conversion. The laws passed in Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Haryana specifically criminalise conversion for the purpose of marriage, and declare any marriage performed for conversion as void. They also require state approval before an individual is allowed to change their faith.

Scene II

1935: Through the Reich Citizenship Law, citizenship was restricted to “German and related blood” and had to be proven through documentary proof of religion and identity of one’s grandparents. Documentary proof included birth certificates, marriage certificates, church baptism records and family registers, and was used to detect (and eventually exclude) any Jewish ancestry.

2019: The Citizenship Amendment Act provided for Indian citizenship basis religious identity. Migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan were provided fastracked Indian citizenship only if they were Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis or Christians.

Scene III

1933: The Reich Ministry of Public Engagement and Propaganda was established. Editors and journalists were expected to follow mandates given by the Ministry and detailed guidelines were given on what could or could not be reported, as well as how it could be reported.

2014: At least 15 journalists have been charged under Unlawful Activities Prevent Act, while 36 have been detained. Siddique Kappan was jailed for two years for reporting on the rape of 19 year old Dalit girl in Uttar Pradesh’s Hathras.

Scene IV

1933: A first ever official boycott of Jewish businesses was declared by the Nazi Party. The Nazi regime created lists of businesses they considered were Jewish. Graffiti was painted outside Jewish businesses to mark them as such, while non-Jewish business owners posted signs identifying their business as “German-Christian”.

2024: Uttar Pradesh Minister of State, Kapil Dev Aggarwal, says eateries and restaurants along the route of the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage should not use Hindu names if being run by Muslims. He also supported a police directive that required a public displaying of names of those who run and manage eateries on the pilgrimage route.

Scene V

1933: The Nazi Party burned thousands of books at a public square in the Mitte district of Berlin. These books included those written by Jews, on psychology, Marxism, democracy and liberalism.

2023: Three rounds of revisions or “rationalisation” undertaken for NCERT textbooks, leading to nearly 1334 changes across 182 books. In the most recent round of revision, references to the Gujarat riots of 2002, the Mughal era, caste system as well as social and political movements have been eliminated.

Strange are the times we live in.

(I write regularly for newspapers and digital platforms. It is their democratic right to decide to publish a column or not. When they refuse, it is my democratic right to post the column on my blog. UNCENSORED)

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was rushed through Parliament earlier this week. Why do I say “rushed”? Twenty years ago, six out of 10 bills were referred to parliamentary committees for scrutiny. In the last few years, that figure has fallen drastically. Only two out of 10 bills are now being sent for scrutiny.

Here is another interesting factoid. In both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, the BJP only used two-thirds of the total time allotted to it for speaking. Unusual. Did it not have enough speakers on the Bill? Or did it choose not to put up speakers to hasten the process of passing the Bill? In sharp contrast, MPs from the Opposition utilised every minute allotted to them to make some powerful interventions.

Renuka Chowdhury, INC: “When we become an MP, we have to identify our gender. We self-identify (our gender). Does any medical board endorse that?”.

Tiruchi Siva, DMK: “Transgenders are being abused, decimated, and insulted at every place, and now the Union government is criminalising them and trying to put them behind bars.”

Saket Gokhale, AITC: “A trans man is a man. A trans woman is a woman. Not a third gender. When this government does not comprehend even these basic fundamentals, what legislative competence are we talking about?”

And here is what the opening speaker for the BJP, Medha Kulkarni, said in the Rajya Sabha: “They beg and collect money at traffic signals all day… when they reach home, they are seen counting money, consuming alcohol and cigarettes”. Sigh.

Definition of transgender persons

The Bill passed in Parliament earlier this week makes sweeping changes to the 2019 Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act. The amendment is dangerous in intent and effect as it narrows the definition of “transgender person”, explicitly excluding any self‑perceived gender identities. For recognising a person’s identity, approval is needed from a medical board and a District Magistrate (DM). Self-identification will not do anymore. A tragedy. This raises constitutional issues because it shifts gender identity from a matter of personal autonomy to one of state approval. That shift creates unequal treatment (violation of Article 14) and restricts autonomy and dignity (violation of Article 21).

Right to privacy

The new Bill, which will soon become an Act, mandates hospital reporting of gender‑affirming surgery to the DM and authority, intruding on medical confidentiality. The Supreme Court, in Justice K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India, made it clear that privacy includes bodily autonomy, decisional autonomy, and the right to control personal information. Decisions about one’s body, including gender-affirming care, fall squarely within the zone of personal liberty. In a society where transgender persons already face prejudice, forced disclosure risks outing individuals without their consent, exposing them to discrimination in families, workplaces, and public life. A law that claims to protect transgender persons cannot reinforce the very conditions that make protection necessary.

Criminalising support systems and consent

The Bill greatly expands criminal penalties, which on paper aim to punish abuse, but use of vague terms like “allurement” and “undue influence” and the criminalisation of even consensual medical care tell a different story altogether. Fear of punishment will deter people from seeking gender-affirming care. Such vague framing of offences risks them becoming tools of harassment, penalising friends, families, and even medical professionals.

The Transgender Persons Act, 2019 and this Bill only recognise “sexual abuse” with a maximum punishment of two years. This is far less than the penalties prescribed for rape against cisgender women, which can extend to life imprisonment. This punishment is insufficient and discriminatory. The law on rape should be inclusive and extend its protection to transgender women.

Distorted in popular culture

When voices are excluded while framing laws, they are also often distorted in popular culture. Let’s take a cursory look at the trajectory of transgender representation in Hindi films. Rishi Kapoor in Rafoo Chakkar (1975) or Amitabh Bachchan in Laawaris (1981) have been treated predominantly as sources of comic relief rather than lived realities. Years later, films like Laxmii (2020) reproduce a similar discomfort. Characters like Kukoo in Sacred Games (2018) or Shilpa in Super Deluxe (2019) suggest a slight shift with more layered portrayals, after the recognition of transgender rights by the Supreme Court in 2014. Even here, trans roles are largely performed by cisgender actors. At a moment when representation is inching forward, the Transgender Bill, rushed through Parliament earlier this week, appears to move in the opposite direction.

[This article was also published in The Indian Express | Friday, March 27, 2026]

After you read this column, you may want to google Article 356 (1) of the Constitution of India. To put it in a sentence, under this Article, the Union government can assume powers and responsibilities of a state legislature, take over the working of the state and govern it through the office of the President. Which is why it is also known as President’s Rule.

In June 2021, Narendra Modi had tweeted, “The Dark Days of Emergency can never be forgotten. The period from 1975 to 1977 witnessed a systematic destruction of institutions. Let us pledge to do everything possible to strengthen India’s democratic spirit, and live up to the values enshrined in our Constitution”.

Empty words.

In the last one week, a Chief Minister and two former Chief Ministers have spoken up.

Omar Abdullah: “These sweeping transfers only happen in non-BJP ruled states & especially in West Bengal but that’s no surprise. However, West Bengal will once again prove what I have always believed to be true – officers don’t win elections for political parties, the leaders of political parties do. No amount of effort by the Election Commission to gerrymander will change the results. Come counting day Mamata Didi will win a thumping majority”.

Akhilesh Yadav: “The conspiracy the BJP is plotting by removing the DG of police, other senior officials in West Bengal, will not work. The people will vote for Mamata Banerjee”.

Arvind Kejriwal: “The BJP has turned the Election Commission into its weapon to win elections through deceit. What is happening today in West Bengal is exactly what happened in the Delhi elections as well. Names were struck off the voter list, the police administration gave free rein to the BJP’s thuggery, and the entire administration was engaged in ensuring the BJP’s victory. The very fabric of democracy was torn apart. Today, Mamata Didi too is fighting to save democracy. In this struggle, we stand with her”.

Then, on the floor of Parliament, your columnist said: “The Home Ministry should ensure they perform (their duties) in Parliament. But currently, the Home Ministry is more interested in doing an ‘undeclared Emergency’ in Bengal”.

All this is not hollow rhetoric. Here is what is happening. 

1. Transfer of senior officials of the state government: Within hours of the announcement of the elections in Bengal, the Election Commission of India (ECI) issued unilateral directions to transfer senior officials, without any rationale or explanation. These included the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the DGP, and hundreds of other officials from different departments at various levels. All this being done, without consulting the state government, is both unusual and unprecedented. Another example of the ECI being a law unto themselves.

• Electors, candidates under ‘adjudication’: At the time of writing, there is still no clarity on who is eligible to vote, and who is not. 60 lakh names in Bengal are up in the air. Even some candidates are in this list of ‘to be adjudicated’. With elections weeks away, when will all these pending claims be resolved? Why is the right of a genuine citizen to vote, or stand for election, under threat?

• Deployment of two lakh central forces: 480 companies of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) have already been deployed in Bengal. Indications are, that the ECI will deploy another 2000 companies. This will take the total number of CAPF personnel to over two lakh. 700 companies will be retained in the state, even after polling is completed. Unprecedented.

• Model Code of Conduct (MCC): The MCC comes into effect immediately after the announcement of election dates. Consider this: On 14 March, Narendra Modi visits Bengal and announces developmental projects. On 14 March, Narendra Modi visits Assam and announces developmental projects. On 15 March, the ECI announces the dates for the elections. What a glorious coincidence!

P.S. In August 1949, speaking during the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr Ambedkar said, “I do not altogether deny that there is a possibility of these articles (provisions of Emergency) being abused or employed for political purposes… the proper thing we ought to expect is that such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead letter”.

[This article was also published in NDTV | Tuesday, March 24, 2026]

Parliament is in session. There is a strong buzz in the corridors of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha that a clutch of Opposition parties will soon be moving a motion of removal against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). If the motion to remove the CEC is filed (as I think it will be), this will be a first.

In the last 75 years, India has had 25 Chief Election Commissioners. Neither House of Parliament has ever brought a removal motion against the CEC. Never. Is the current CEC all set to hold a dubious record?

Process of removal

For the removal of the CEC, 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha have to submit a notice to the Speaker or Chairman. If the notice is admitted, a three-member committee is formed to investigate the same. If the committee finds the grounds valid, the motion is taken up for consideration. It needs to be passed by a special majority (a majority of the total membership of the House and at least two-thirds of the members present and voting) of both the houses.

The Constitution prescribes that the CEC can be removed from his office on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court —“proved misbehaviour or incapacity”. The term “proved misbehaviour” has been interpreted to include deliberate abuse of powers, partisan exercise of constitutional functions favouring one political formation over others, and actions that undermine public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the CEC, amongst other attributes.

Independence of the ECI

During the Constituent Assembly debates, B R Ambedkar had said, “the election machinery should be outside the control of the executive government”. This was reiterated by the Supreme Court during the Anoop Baranwal v Union of India case of 2023, when it ruled that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) should be selected by a three-member committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

Disregarding SC

A few months later, the Union government cocked a snook at the SC and came up with the CEC Act. Section 7 of the Act fundamentally changed this structure by creating a selection committee consisting of the Prime Minister (chairperson), the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and, incredulously, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

This arrangement gives the executive a majority (two out of three members), allowing the Union to control appointments to the ECI.

A glorious past

The Election Commission has a long and famed record. Sukumar Sen, West Bengal’s Chief Secretary and later India’s first Chief Election Commissioner, was given the enviable task of conducting India’s first general election. More than 170 million Indians were eligible to vote. Of these, around 85 per cent were illiterate. 16,500 clerks, 56,000 presiding officers and over 2 lakh policemen were deployed. Bridges were built over rivers to reach villages in the hills. Naval vessels sailed to reach small islands. This was the largest democratic exercise in the world.

S Y Quraishi, the 17th CEC, expanded the Systematic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP) in order to achieve voter literacy. He also took categorical stands against the negative effects of the media boom such as paid news and opinion polls. The 23rd CEC of India, Sunil Arora, capitalised on technology to create a database of more than 930 million electors, and launched a nationwide phone helpline number.

A first

How, then, did we reach this day in 2026 when opposition parties are now unitedly considering taking the unprecedented action of attempting to remove the CEC? Even though the notice can be moved in just one House, it seems the Opposition is mulling moving it in both Houses. Strong messaging. Members of the Opposition are using every constitutional tool available to protect the sanctity of India’s glorious institutions. However, if the notice is not taken up by the Union government, doubts will be raised about a tacit understanding between the executive and the CEC.

In 1991, there was an uproar in Parliament to remove T N Seshan as the CEC. But no formal notice was ever filed. In 2006, the BJP-NDA submitted a memorandum seeking the removal of Navin Chawla as an Election Commissioner. Here, too, no parliamentary process was involved.

Are MPs sitting today in the Opposition on the verge of making history?

PS: In the first general election, 28 lakh women had their names struck off the electoral rolls. Why? Because they refused to share their actual names and instead identified themselves as “mother of A”, or “wife of B”. “The Times They Are a-Changin”— Bob Dylan.

[This article was also published in The Indian Express| Friday, March 13, 2026]

Parliament begins today. So let me begin by asking you: what do the early 17th Century Latin words for ‘out’ and ‘to prick’ have to do with Parliament?

Ten points if you said ‘expunge’. The word is derived from Latin expungere, meaning ‘to underline something with points or dots, to show that it should be deleted’, from ex- ‘out’ and pungere ‘to prick’. With the second half of the Budget Session starting today, keep an eye out for words or phrases that are expunged. And ask why.

The Rules

When a Member of Parliament (MP) gives a speech in Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, the Speaker or the Chairman has the power to expunge or remove parts of the speech. The book Rajya Sabha At Work says: “If the Chairman is of opinion that a word or words has or have been used in debate which is or are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified, he may in his discretion, order that such word or words be expunged from the proceedings of the House…”.

Redressal Mechanism

Here is how it goes. After an MP gives a speech in Parliament, the ‘uncorrected’ record of their speech is sent to them, usually within 48 hours. The portions expunged are marked by an asterisk. The MP can write to the Chair, requesting the remarks be restored, and specifying why they should not be considered unparliamentary. 99% of the time, or more, the comments remain expunged. An exception occurred in August 1993. Yashwant Sinha, speaking during Zero Hour, made certain remarks about then Finance Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh. Dr Najma Heptulla, who was presiding as the Deputy Chair, said that the remarks were irrelevant. However, the next day, Yashwant Sinha found that his comments were expunged from the ‘uncorrected’ records. He wrote a letter to the Chairman which was referred to the Deputy Chairman. The Deputy Chairman reconsidered and restored the expunged remarks.

Why Muzzle Opposition

Expunction of words/phrases/sentences made in speeches on the floor of Parliament is meant to be an exercise in impartiality. Why use it to muzzle members of the Opposition? The Chair has the power to even expunge speeches given by Ministers. On 29 July, 1998 LK Advani, the then Home Minister, spoke about the Maharashtra Government in relation to a case which was sub judice. When some MPs objected to this and raised the matter to the Deputy Chairman, who was presiding, he expunged the remarks. Would really appreciate it if any sharp researcher on Parliamentary proceedings finds us ten (or even three) such examples from the last decade!

How Social Media Changed the Game

The proceedings of Parliament are broadcast live on Sansad TV. Thereafter, speeches of individual MPs, after they are sanitised, are shared on Sansad TV’s YouTube channel. These clips, on average, get under one thousand views. There is a delay of four to five hours between the actual speech and when it is posted on YouTube. The brighter side: some dedicated digital news platforms and handles on social media who upload speeches in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, minutes after they are delivered on the floor of Parliament, garner tens of thousands of views.

Unparliamentary or Unfair

In the last decade or so, there has been a worrying trend where any word, phrase, or even entire paragraphs, critical of the ruling dispensation, is deemed unparliamentary and is expunged.

Much as I would love to, one cannot risk sharing specific examples, because as per the book Practice and Procedure of Parliament by Kaul & Shakdher, “It is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House to publish expunged proceedings of the House. In this regard, the Supreme Court has held: the effect in law of the order of the Speaker to expunge a portion of the speech of a member may be as if that portion had not been spoken”.

So, let me not directly quote any of the proceedings which were expunged. Instead, let me raise some questions. Is mentioning Donald Trump or Epstein unparliamentary? Are the surnames of India’s two richest families unparliamentary proper nouns? Why is it unparliamentary for an MP to call out a Chief Minister who openly asks citizens to practise economic apartheid of a community? What about naming the gym owner who stood up against communal hatred? Unparliamentary? Or the iconic brand of detergent, founded by the great entrepreneur from Gujarat, Dr Karsanbhai Patel, and immortalised in a catchy jingle? Sigh. This too was found unparliamentary. Washed away, expunged, from the records of a speech delivered by a member of the Opposition in Parliament.

[This article was also published in NDTV | Monday, March 9, 2026]

A few days ago, as the Moon was sighted, text messages popped up on our overscrolled mobile phones wishing us Ramzan Mubarak. Amongst all the warm greetings were two clips that the algorithm couldn’t push down. First, the Chief Minister of Assam calling for a community to be harassed to such an extent that they are forced to leave not just the state, but also the country. Second, a 28-second video where the Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly responds to a question about infrastructure development with a call for religious segregation. We have strayed really far from any kind of constitutional morality.

With the upcoming assembly elections in five states, the rhetoric will only get more toxic. The Muslim community has frequently been the target of virulent communal attacks. Today, let me focus on a subsect of the community in India, the Dawoodi Bohra Shia Ismaili Muslims. Recent estimates suggest the population of Muslims in India is 20 crore. Of this, only 5 lakh are Dawoodi Bohra Shia Ismaili Muslims. The Dawoodi Bohras trace their heritage to the Fatimi imams, direct descendants of Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad. Members repose their faith in the al-Dai al-Mutlaq, the spiritual leader of the community — a representative of the Imam who is today in seclusion. Intriguingly, the word Bohra comes from the Gujarati word vohrvu or vyavahar, which means “to trade”. The Bohras are primarily a mercantile community, deeply rooted in business and trading. They have a near-100 per cent literacy rate among members worldwide. Their presence might be minuscule, but they are a progressive community. Their per capita income is higher than that of other Muslim communities.

Why does a community that makes up 0.25 per cent of even the Muslim community matter to the world’s largest political party? As always, the devil is in the details. About half of all the Bohras in India live in Gujarat. The Prime Minister speaks their language. True to form, the BJP was quick to identify this link and use it to earn political brownie points. Days after the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Bill was passed in Parliament months ago, the Prime Minister contrived a photo-op with members of the community, with the delegation praising the Waqf law. Subliminal messaging: Muslims in India were backing the legislation. What the photograph did not tell you was that the hugely successful Bohra community comprises just 5 lakh of a 20 crore population.

That the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is fundamentally anti-federal and anti-minority is not lost on anyone. Muslim (and non-Muslim) Members of Parliament from non-NDA parties (including AITC, INC, AIMIM, SP, DMK, RJD) challenged the Bill foundationally. Interestingly, the Dawoodi Bohras made a representation to be excluded from the Mussalman Waqf Act as early as 1923. Their rationale was simple. The Bohras as a community repose their faith in the al-Dai al-Mutlaq — the sole trustee administering all the properties of the community. The minuscule minority requires that members be permitted to establish and manage properties in accordance with their beliefs. This autonomy is fundamentally challenged by the Waqf Board proposed by the Waqf Amendment Act. The big question then: Why did a delegation from the community agree to meet with the Prime Minister and thank him for backing a piece of legislation that they (and the larger community they are part of) were historically against?

That the BJP may have involved itself in the community’s internal functioning in trade for support on the Waqf Act is part of a subtle divide-and-rule strategy. Unlike the unabashed display of bigotry, bias and prejudice against minorities, this tactic is slightly more covert. A closer reading of events from the past 10 years might tell you this: The BJP is on a quiet mission to pit minorities against each other, amongst each other. With ears firmly to the ground, it identifies gaps in the internal functioning of these groups and offers “assistance” in order to eventually leverage it for support on matters widely controversial — most times against the very ethos of these communities.

After Indonesia and Pakistan, India is home to the third-largest Muslim population in the world. According to Census 2011, the community constitutes around 15 per cent of the country’s population. The “world’s largest political party” does not have a single Member of Parliament, elected on its party symbol, who is Muslim. (Gulam Ali Khatana was one of the 12 members in the Rajya Sabha under the “nominated” category. Within the six-month window, he wrote to the Chairman to be included as a BJP member.)

It gets more brazen. Twenty per cent of the population of Uttar Pradesh is Muslim. Even with the largest Muslim population — 4 crore — of any state in the country, the Yogi Adityanath government does not have a single Muslim MLA in the 403-seat Legislative Assembly. How could it? Not a single Muslim got a ticket from the BJP.

P.S. Bangladesh, with an 8 per cent minority Hindu population, recently elected a minister who is from the Hindu community.

This article was also published in The Indian Express | Friday, February 27, 2026]

“Ask no questions, and you will be told no lies”, an old proverb.

Last week, your columnist chose 12 questions from among the 4500 questions asked in the first half of the Budget Session. 2750 questions in Lok Sabha, 1760 questions in Rajya Sabha, were ballotted to be asked during Question Hour. The column got an overwhelming response, especially from students. So here are 12 more questions that MPs popped to the Union government.

1. Mukul Wasnik (Indian National Congress) raised a question on the allocation towards health research in the country since 2021. The government’s reply stated that the annual allocation of the Department of Health Research has been around 0.02% of India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 2021 to 2025.
2. Vijay Hansdak (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha) asked for the proportion of candidates from marginalised communities offered internships under the PM Internship Scheme. The government’s answer revealed that across both rounds of the PM Internship Scheme, less than 1% of the selected interns were persons with disabilities, 14% belonged to Scheduled Castes and just 5% were from Scheduled Tribes.
3. Abhishek Banerjee (All India Trinamool Congress) raised a question on the faculty strength in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) across the country. The government’s response was that two out of five faculty posts are vacant across all AIIMS.
4. ET Mohammed Basheer (Indian Union Muslim League) questioned the government on the outstanding agricultural debt. The government replied that the average amount of outstanding loan per agricultural household across the country is more than Rs 74,000.
5. Renuka Chowdhury (Indian National Congress) sought details on the extent of forest land diverted for non-forestry purposes. The government admitted that around one lakh hectares of forest land had been approved for non-forestry purposes in the last five years by the Union government.
6. Raja Ram Singh (Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation) raised a question on the shelter homes currently functional across the country. The government’s reply disclosed that no Shakti Sadans (an Integrated Relief and Rehabilitation Home for women in distressful situations) were functional in the states of Gujarat, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and the Union Territories of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, Ladakh, Lakshadweep Islands.
7. Saket Gokhale (All India Trinamool Congress) enquired about the number of cyber crime complaints registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and the financial loss incurred. The government’s answer revealed that the number of financial fraud complaints and amount defrauded has increased by 814% and 3983% respectively from 2021 to 2025.
8. Anand Bhadauria (Samajwadi Party) asked questions on the fund utilisation under various schemes under the Ministry of Jal Shakti. The government’s answer revealed that more than 65% of the funds allocated under the Atal Jal scheme, and over 75% under the Jal Jeevan Mission remained unutilised in RE 2025 as compared to BE 2025.
9. Karti P Chidambaram (Indian National Congress) asked a question on the cases pending on the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) SAMADHAAN Portal. The government admitted that just 12% of the 1.5 lakh cases filed by MSMEs for resolution of pending payments between FY 2022-23 till February 2026 on the SAMADHAAN Portal, have been disposed of.
10. Matheswaran V S (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) enquired about the number of complaints received by the Supreme Court against sitting judges. The government responded that over two complaints per day were received in the Office of the Chief Justice of India against sitting judges in the last 10 years.
11. Priyanka Chaturvedi (Shiv Sena-Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) questioned the government on the number of road accident fatalities on National Highways in the country. The government’s reply stated that 170 deaths per day had occurred in the last three years on National Highways.
12. Your columnist asked a question on the vacancies in the National Dam Safety Authority. The government’s answer admitted that seven out of 10 sanctioned posts in the National Dam Safety Authority are vacant.

On 9 March, the second half of the Budget Session will resume. Question Hour will be held everyday in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Following the Rules of Procedure, members of Parliament will again raise a few thousand questions. These have to be answered by Union Ministers, orally, on the floor of the House, or in writing.

“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth”, a famous Buddhist saying.

[This article was also published in NDTV | Friday, February 20, 2026]

Over 2400 years ago, Euripides, the last of ancient Greece’s three great tragedians argued: “Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing”.

Cut to 2026, the same words feel uncannily apt for the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament, now taking a three-week break. Of course Opposition parties, in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, will strive to hold the Union government accountable every day. During Question Hour, five days a week, the Opposition asks questions, the public looks for accountability, while the government ducks – very often giving unsatisfactory answers.

From the hundreds of questions put forth by MPs from the Opposition, here is a compilation of a dozen questions fired to the treasury benches.

1. Mallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress) questioned the government on road connectivity in tribal areas. The government’s reply revealed that just 23% of the sanctioned road projects under the Pradhan Mantri Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan (PM JANMAN) in areas inhabited by Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), have been completed.
2. Abhishek Banerjee (All India Trinamool Congress) asked for the number of airports developed under the UDAN scheme that are currently non-operational. The government reply stated that 14 of the 93 airports developed under UDAN are non-operational, including 6 in Uttar Pradesh. These airports had been developed at a cost of over Rs. 800 crore.
3. K.C. Venugopal (Indian National Congress) enquired about the utilisation of funds under the PM Internship Scheme. The government admitted that the scheme had utilised only 0.5% of the funds allocated in Budget Estimate 2025-26, and less than 35% of the candidates accepted offers in Round I of the scheme.
4. Neeraj Maurya & Lalji Verma (Samajwadi Party) asked questions on the number of National Highway (NH) projects that have not been completed within the stipulated time since 2014. The government answered that there are 653 under construction National Highway projects, started since April 2014, that have spilled beyond their original completion schedule, without attaining any of the various stages of project completion.
5. Dr. S. Jagathratchakan (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) raised a question on the onboarding of ministries and departments on the SHe-Box portal. The government stated that only 40% of the government departments and offices onboarded on the SHe-Box portal have updated their Internal Committee details till date.
6. June Maliah’s (All India Trinamool Congress) question on the Prime Minister’s international travel revealed a 500% increase in expenditure on the Prime Minister’s foreign trips between 2014 and 2025.
7. Rajeev Rai (Samajwadi Party) enquired about the functioning of schemes for the tribal welfare. The government’s answer stated that 31% of the Eklavya Model Residential Schools sanctioned are not yet functional across the country.
8. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (Indian National Congress) sought information on the number of film certification decisions challenged before Revising Committees and High Courts. The government response revealed that while the number of films certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had increased by 10% between 2021-22 and 2025-26 (till date), the number of such certification decisions being challenged before Revising Committees and the High Courts had increased by over 120% and 400% respectively.
9. Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha (Rashtriya Janata Dal) enquired about the percentage of farmers benefitting from Minimum Support Price (MSP) backed procurement. The government admitted that only about 15% of paddy farmers and 9.6% of wheat farmers sold their output to procurement agencies.
10. Dr. John Brittas (Communist Party of India-Marxist) asked a question on the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) equity inflow in the banking sector. The government stated that FDI equity inflow in the banking sector had decreased by 87% between 2022-23 and 2024-25.
11. Anil Yeshwant Desai (Shiv Sena-Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) enquired about the deportation of Indians, especially students from abroad. The government answered that 453 Indian students have been deported by foreign immigration authorities between 2021 and 2025.
12. Your columnist raised a question on the number of candidates enrolled and certified under the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana 4.0 (PMKVY 4.0). The government’s reply stated that over 2 out of 5 candidates enrolled under the PMKVY 4.0 were not certified.

When Parliament is in session, the Opposition is trying all it can to hold the government accountable. What is the government doing?

This article was also published in NDTV | Tuesday, February 17, 2026

This is one of the harder columns I have written. No insights on public policy. No breakdown of federal schemes. No analysis of ill-thought-out tariffs, examination of vote margins, or commentary on a session in Parliament. No, none of that noise. This column today is about silence. Silence that long existed deafeningly. Silence that was once broken courageously. And a silence that seems to have made its way back in… silently.

Eight years ago, women in India spoke out. They drew their breath in, steadied themselves and spoke truth to power. These truths were spoken with the hope that they wouldn’t just delete delusions, but tear down entire structures. The MeToo movement wasn’t simply a moment in time, but a moment of reckoning. But today, when predators masquerading as television panelists, among others, make their way back into the public mainstream, a moment of reflection seems imperative.

Senior Advocate Rebecca John fought the MeToo battle from the legal frontlines. She explained to me: “The MeToo movement was premised on the survivors breaking the veil of silence that sustained routine abuses of power in the workplace and elsewhere. Many women faced serious backlash, including being sued. However, even in those cases where survivors emerged successful, the men have faced no consequential loss of social or cultural power.

On the contrary, we have witnessed the quiet but seamless rehabilitation of these men within their circles of power. In some of the more prominent cases in the past few years, the survivors suffered abhorrent instances of sexual violence and made the hard choice to report them. However, their cases failed to meet the forensic standards of judicial scrutiny, owing to gaps in investigation that were either deliberate or stemming from incompetence. Simultaneously, the survivors have been subjected to public campaigns of relentless vilification, compounded by the unsuccessful outcomes of prosecution.

This experience of double victimisation — of violence and vilification — must account for two things. One, there is a staggering differential in social capital and class power between survivors and perpetrators. And two, the institutional culture in courts and investigating agencies has resisted any significant change.”

Critics often say that India has already addressed workplace harassment through the POSH Act. The Act was progressive in 2013, presuming a formal employer and fixed workplace. But large segments of today’s economy, including the gig economy, media and entertainment, operate through contractual, freelance or informal arrangements. An advocate of the Calcutta High Court who preferred to remain anonymous explained: “We’ve all faced this evil at some point in our work lives; the legal fraternity cannot be left far behind. Whether it’s been a gentle question being asked by a judge of the High Court why a woman advocate wears the ‘pants’, or being asked for lewd favours by chamber seniors for ‘goodies’ in return, who do we address our concerns to? The SHe-Box is missing. POSH training is avoided as it is perceived to give women ideas to exploit the law.”

There is no statute in India that addresses public disclosures of sexual misconduct in contexts of power. India did not respond to MeToo with a new legal framework. Instead, existing laws, particularly defamation, came to govern what followed. Against the backdrop of the current context, senior journalist Saba Naqvi added, “Men who build acceptability within the current system have quietly resurrected their lives”.

Entrenched patriarchal mores are the reason for the conspicuous absence of genuine outrage against those accused in the MeToo movement. Instead of anger, anguish or indignation, there is a certain smirking complicity, a nudge-nudge wink-wink acceptance, a sly laughing brush-off, as if incidents of assault are nothing more than a locker-room joke. Where is the civil society pushback and condemnation against someone powerful who thinks nothing of taunting and mocking women leaders in public? When those accused of serious assault on women are still invited to lit fests and elegant soirées, we are faced with a glaring truth:

Misogyny has been mainstreamed in our society today.

This article was also published in The Indian Express| Friday, February 13, 2026

This fortnight’s column could have been about the historic appearance by a sitting Chief Minister in the Supreme Court. Or, a piece on the tepid Union Budget presented by the Finance Minister which even the stock markets gave a thumbs down – Sensex saw its worst Budget-day fall in six years. Or, we could have written about how the Election Commission have completely botched up the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Or, crafted a column on the canine habits of women MPs who were, absurdly, accused of being all set to injure the Prime Minister if he spoke in Lok Sabha. But, instead, let me write about how a state government, poised to comfortably win the forthcoming Assembly polls, turned out a Budget for the State that was low on hype, and high on substance.

Here are 15 stats you cannot ignore.

• State finance. West Bengal’s Gross State Domestic Product grew almost five times in the last 15 years.
• Reducing unemployment. According to the Union government’s PLFS data, unemployment in Bengal, among the age group 15 years and above, has been cut by almost half in the last eight years.
• Jobs. 2.5 crore jobs have been created in the state across private sector, public sector, and self-employment.
• Youth. Banglar Yuba Sathi scheme, introduced for unemployed youth between 21-40 years, ensures that Rs 1500 is transferred into their bank accounts every month till they get a job. In contrast, for the PM Internship Scheme, where Rs 10,800 crore was allocated, only 5% of that has been spent.
• Industry. 93 lakh MSMEs, the second highest in India, operate in Bengal. The state also has the highest share of women-led MSMEs in the country.
• Information Technology. IT sector exports have recorded growth of a whopping 677% in the last 15 years.
• Poverty alleviation. Over 1.72 crore people have been brought out of poverty.
• Healthcare. Bengal’s Swasthya Sathi health insurance scheme was launched in 2016. The Union government’s Ayushman Bharat scheme followed two years later. 2.45 crore families in Bengal have been covered under the scheme, and more than one crore beneficiaries have availed services. The health card is in the name of the woman head of the family and parents of both spouses are included. Now, the scheme has been extended to gig workers as well.
• The girl child. Bengal’s Kanyashree scheme was launched in 2013. The  Union government’s Beti Bachao Beti Padhao followed two years later. You can put a hard number to the Kanyashree scheme: financial assistance has been provided to over one crore girls. In comparison, the Union government’s Beti Bachao Beti Padhao scheme has no data available to indicate how many lives have been touched.
• School transport. Students do not have to walk miles to reach school. The Sabooj Sathi programme has provided bicycles to one and a half crore students. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s Prathichi Trust, in their assessment of the scheme, notes “a perfect union of policy, based on ideological commitment, and a sound implementation mechanism makes the program unique”.
• Food security. Now ensured to nine crore people by providing them subsidised foodgrains.
• Women empowerment. The success of the Lakshmir Bhandar scheme,  where money is transferred directly into the accounts of women, has inspired many states to adopt similar models. Over two crore women will now receive Rs 1500 per month, a 50% increase from the existing payout.
• Housing. This financial year, 32 lakh households have been provided housing under the Banglar Bari scheme. Overall, one crore families have benefitted.
• Roads. Over two lakh kilometres of roads have been constructed, and another 30,000 kilometres are being built under Pathashree-Rastashree – one of the 95 schemes rolled out by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in the last 15 years.
• Water. Functional tap water connections have increased from two lakh in 2011 to nearly one crore households today.

Beyond these statistics, some stories are worth telling. A girl from a poor family being able to continue her studies because she is now provided with real financial assistance. A student from a remote village cycling to school on her  bicycle. A home-maker receiving money every month to augment her household finances. A farmer sleeping peacefully because he knows that schemes from the State government protect him. A professional being admitted to a hospital knowing her medical insurance is covered.

“But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep.”

– Robert Frost

[This article was also published in NDTV | Monday, February 9, 2026]