Tag: Salman Khurshid

Is There Any Hope From the Courts in the Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case?

We look at Salim Malik’s story that echoes countless others trapped in a labyrinth of injustice, including Umar Khalid. Each day spent in confinement erodes hope and corrodes faith in a fair judicial process.

Imagine this. Everyone around you is very angry with the government for passing a new law. Your family, friends, and many others are upset and you feel the same way. So, you decide to maybe organise or join a local protest camp.

Soon you find yourself attending meetings to plan the protests better. You discuss ideas and interact with hundreds of people and sometimes, some may suggest little violent ideas, but you always say no. You want the protest to be peaceful and orderly.

But one day, things go wrong. The protest turns violent, into a riot. You take shelter for the time being but days later, when riots are over, the police knock on your door and say you’re a “terrorist” for conspiring with others to cause the riots. You’re shocked and scared! They put you in jail but you are hopeful that the courts will come to your rescue. The truth is on your side, right? But time passes by, days turn to weeks, months, years. The trial in your case is nowhere in sight. Worse, courts don’t even give you bail. It feels like a never-ending nightmare.

What may be simply a figment of imagination to you is the lived reality of some of the many accused persons in the 2020 Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy’ case.

So what is this “larger conspiracy case”?

If you remember, starting December 2019, most of India was protesting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Citizenship Amendment Act—the CAA. This law law is predominantly anti-Muslim since it only fast-tracks citizenship of undocumented persons from non-Muslim religions from neighbouring countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

In Delhi, by mid-February 2020, many pro-CAA persons, also Modi government supporters, began agitating against anti-CAA protesters and by 23 February, a targeted and organised violence against Muslims was unleashed in the city which continued for three days.

Some BJP leaders like Kapil Mishra were recorded to have instigated the riots. Incidents of hate-speech mixed with feelings of religious nationalism led to targeting of Muslims by far-right fundamentalist groups.

53 people died in these deadly riots. Over two-thirds of them were Muslim. Over a dozen—Hindus. 700 others were injured. Dead bodies were being found in open drains, many Muslims went missing. Numerous mosques were set on fire and razed to the ground. Many Muslim families left the area and never returned. Many lives changed forever in those three days of bloodshed.

A recent report in The Times of India from February of this year states that the Delhi Police had arrested 2,619 persons in cases relating to the riots.

The cases are being investigated by three units of the Delhi Police – one, the Northeast district police, which is investigating non-fatal cases like loot, arson, etc. Two, the Crime Branch which is investigating 62 cases, including the 53 deaths that occurred. And three, also our area of interest, the Special Cell of the Delhi Police that is investigating only one case—the larger conspiracy case, looking at characters that apparently operated from behind-the-scenes and conspired to instigate the deadly riots.

Let’s get a little more detailed about this larger conspiracy case.

The Delhi Police’s Special Cell accuses 21 individuals of conspiring to incite the riots.

Some of these accused are political activist Umar Khalid, student activists Sharjeel Imam and Gulfishan Fatima, other activists like Salim Malik and Devangana Kalita.

Since September 2020, the police have so far filed five chargesheets, totalling 25,000 pages. A chargesheet is a formal document prepared after an investigation is completed and charges the accused of crimes uncovered during the investigation.

The 21 individuals stand accused of using protests against the CAA to organise chakka jams – Hindi for roadblocks, spark communal unrest, planning to “bring the government of India to its knees” and defaming India when US President Donald Trump visited on 22-23 February that year.

On the other hand, many of the accused argue that they neither made any provocative speeches nor are responsible for the riots that took place. They state that they only held peaceful protests as is their fundamental right. The accused have been seeking bail from the courts and only 9 of the 21 accused have succeeded so far.

The rest, majorly Muslim accused, including Umar Khalid, continue to run pillar to post asking the courts for bail. All of them have been denied bail from the lower courts, and some, as we will see in this video, were also denied bail from the Delhi High Court.

But why is it that the courts are hesitant to grant them bail? Especially since they’ve already spent more than 3-4 years in jail?

Well, the police have charged the 21 under the draconian anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), infamous for its widespread misuse against journalists, activists, and anyone who criticises those in power. Apart from this, 25 sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 2 sections of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, and 2 sections of the Arms Act. Very serious charges.

Let us understand how the UAPA and the judgements by the Supreme Court of India has led to its great misuse and possibly unjust jail time of individuals. We will look at this through the help of the case of Salim Malik. By the end of this video, I will also tell you why, despite the law being so strict and arbitrary, it is still possible for the courts to identify its misuse and come to the rescue of an individual.

The Case of Salim Malik

Very recently, on 22 April, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Salim Malik in this larger conspiracy case. Malik is a young Muslim man from North East Delhi whose crime was participating in the protests. Let’s look at how Malik’s case progressed in the courts.

Salim is an accused in three cases – one case, which relates to the incident of violence at Chand Bagh protest site. Second one which relates to vandalising a Maruti Car showroom. And third one, of course, the larger conspiracy case. In the first two cases, Salim has received bail from courts. But he continues to be in jail because his bail pleas have been rejected in the third case. So what really is happening in the third case?

A complaint was filed by one of the police officers against Umar Khalid and one Danish alleging that they conspired with many others to hatch the deadly riots. So the complaint got converted into an FIR. The Special Cell of the Delhi Police started looking into it. They then started making many other activists as accused in the case, including Salim. The police invoked the UAPA and a number of other IPC sections like I already told you.

The Police filed the first chargesheet before a lower court in September 2020. The police have also filed four supplementary chargesheets ever since. A supplementary chargesheet is a continuation to the main chargesheet and is filed when new facts have come up against the accused during further investigation.

Salim continued to be in jail, waiting for the right moment to seek bail. Because you know, courts are hesitant to grant bail when an investigation is ongoing, especially in UAPA cases.

So, after a long wait of one and half years in jail, Salim filed his bail plea before the trial court, in November 2021. 

The police argued against granting him bail. They told the court:

  1. That the riots were a “deep-rooted conspiracy”. Okay fine, substantiate.
  2. Several organisations were involved. Fine. But they were not banned organisations or terrorist organisations, right? So how is that a crime?
  3. Salim was an organiser of a protest site where violence took place. Where is the proof?
  4. 23 protest sites were created in Muslim-majority areas. Well, the CAA was pre-dominantly an anti-Muslim law so you can fairly expect the protests to be planned in Muslim-majority areas. What’s the problem here?
  5. The accused learned lessons from the December 2019 riots that took place, which were at a smaller scale but they were able to plan better this time. Fine. This sounds like a good story but where is the proof?
  6. Their idea was to escalate the protests to “chakka jam”. Again, fine. The courts have held that chakka jams are not illegal. They are a very normal mode of protest. So?
  7. There was a conspiracy to move people from protest sites to designated locations on main roads, highways, block them, create confrontational situations with the police, attack non-Muslims, damage property by using petrol bombs, firearms, stones, and arranging finances to fund this. Okay. “There was a conspiracy” to do this. Where is the proof? You can’t just shout conspiracy, conspiracy and jail people. You see, the gap between what you say and what has actually happened cannot be filled by speculation that there was a “conspiracy”. Where is the proof?

These are the main allegations of the Delhi Police. Serious allegations with little proof.

Salim on his part argued that he was not a part of any WhatsApp groups which the police show as evidence of conspiracy. He argued that if he was an organiser of a protest site, like the police allege, why was he not part of any WhatsApp groups? It would be natural for an organiser to be kept in the loop right? Even if he was an organiser, would it qualify as [is it a “terrorist act”? He said that he was only there to cook and distribute food to protesters. He made no provocative speeches. The Call Data Records (CDRs) did not show his location in any of the places where violence took place.

The Police’s version sounds very flimsy. So you would expect the police to show concrete proof of this so-called conspiracy, right? Well, that’s the bit the police are perhaps struggling with.

So what do they do? Well, they massively rely on “he said, she said” statements. What do I mean by that? If you read the chargesheets, a number of statements from “protected witnesses” will be found supporting the police’s claims. Protected Witnesses are witnesses whose names and details are not revealed so as to protect them against any kind of intimidation or threats of violence. They have testified to seeing many of these accused, including Salim, conspire in “secret meetings” to kill 100-200 people, cause riots, buy arms, acid, petrol bombs, arrange funding, etc. If you read the court’s orders, you will see how heavily even the court relies on these witness statements to deny Salim his bail.

Now you would ask what are Salim’s lawyers doing if the case is so flimsy? For he is represented by one of the top lawyers in the country – Salman Khurshid.

Well, that is where the UAPA comes to the police’s rescue.

UAPA and Salim’s Case

Listen carefully. The UAPA is a great law, for the prosecution i.e. the State. You see the law is framed in such a manner that it becomes extremely difficult for the courts to grant bail to those accused of “terrorist acts”.

The UAPA punishes two things mainly – unlawful acts and terrorist acts. In the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the 21 individuals, including Salim, have been accused of committing both.

Section 43D(5) of the UAPA is the bail provision and is very problematic. Note that this strict bail provision is only applicable for “terrorist acts” not “unlawful acts” for which the normal bail conditions are applied.

This strict bail provision requires the court to grant bail to a terror accused only after 2 strict conditions are met: one, that the public prosecutor i.e. the state will be given an opportunity to be heard at the bail hearing before the court decides the bail request (which is fine, it can be easily satisfied). But the draconian condition is that when the court, the judge reads the case diary, chargesheet and the material collected by the police, the judge should be of the opinion that the allegations are not prima-facie true. Prima-facie means at the first impression.

Now this is a very risky conclusion for the court to reach at the bail stage. If the police say that we are still probing the case even after filing the chargesheet, which judge would say that no case is made out against the accused? That’s a very tough conclusion for a judge to reach at the bail stage. And remember, terror charges. What if the court sets an actual terrorist on bail? That’s it for the judge right? That’s how this UAPA works.

Now one way that existed for the courts to grant bail to those unfairly charged with the UAPA was to carefully go through the material submitted by the investigative agency and try to find faults in them. For example: if the judge finds that the police is heavily relying on a witness statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. 161 CrPC statements are statements given to the police and are not admissible as evidence in court because the police can coerce and pressurise persons to give XYZ statements. Only the statements recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC are admissible in court. Now if the judge found that the police’s version heavily relies on 161 CrPC statements, it could’ve said that no admissible evidence exists and grant bail to the UAPA accused. So this was one way of check and balance despite a draconian law.

But thanks to the Supreme Court of India, this practice was barred. In the Watali case of April 2019, courtesy Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi, the Supreme Court asked the courts to not go into the merits or demerits of the case. So the courts can’t say that a particular material submitted by the investigators is not good enough as evidence. The judgement asked the courts to take the police’s version at face value. No need to apply too much mind into what is being submitted at the bail stage.

So of course, the police can possibly introduce any material, which may not even qualify as evidence later. What do I mean by this? Well, what is evidence, what is not evidence, whether evidence was obtained legally, illegally, all this is decided at the trial stage, not at the bail stage. And you would know, in every criminal case, arriving at the trial stage takes years, sometimes decades. So if a person is kept in jail until the day of judgement, say on the basis of a witness statement given to the police, which during the trial phase will obviously be discarded since it cannot be an evidence, and as a result, the police’s case falls flat and the accused is absolved of all charges, wouldn’t that be a great travesty of justice? That is exactly what the UAPA and the Supreme Court’s Watali judgement enables.

One more thing, the defence i.e. the accused individual cannot introduce any material supporting his request for bail. For example, Salim said that the call data records did not show him at any of the locations where riots took place. But despite this evidence, he cannot rely on it at the bail stage. The court is not supposed to take this into consideration, again, thanks to the Supreme Court’s Watali judgement which says that only material submitted by the investigative agency should be looked into and any justification for granting bail has to be on the basis of what is in the material.

Now this is a herculean task. What if the police are very effective, very careful at not including any material that may be in the favour of the accused. What if there is a witness statement that shows the accused is innocent? Well, the police will make sure not to include that in the material. And the accused also cannot introduce any new material. So, the court is only and only left with what the police are feeding it. What a terrible law, isn’t it?

The Supreme Court had an opportunity to fix the law but instead these two judges made it more draconian and possibly perpetuated a cycle of injustice and unfair incarcerations. The game is rigged from the very beginning.

What was the Supreme Court trying to achieve through this anti-liberty judgement in a country where lying in courts and fabrication of evidence by investigative agencies is so common? Prosecute the terrorists by all means, but a fair hearing is a fundamental right. Tying both hands of the defence and gagging them at the bail stage hardly helps advance this fundamental right.

Salim was denied bail by the lower court in October 2022, almost a year after he filed his bail application. The lower court heavily relied on witness statements to agree that there is a “prima-facie” case against the accused. Salim mounted a challenge to this order before the Delhi high court the same month, and after almost one and half years, his bail was again rejected by a two-judge bench of the Delhi high court last month, in April 2024.

If one reads the order of the High Court, the court again heavily relies on prosecution witnesses, some of whose statements will not make it as evidence during the trial and cross-examination.

Interestingly, the online news website Scroll had tracked down two of these protected witnesses who confessed to being pressured by the police to give statements and one of them even revealed that the police asked them to name one of the organisers of a protest site in Northeast Delhi.

What can the court do?

Well, the Supreme Court’s Watali judgement restricts courts from applying too much mind. Yet, a 2-judge bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court granted bail to 3 of the 21 accused in the same larger conspiracy case – Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha.

The judgement was a landmark for liberty and a saviour against unfair use of UAPA by the state. The judgement, authored by Justice Bhambhani, said that there is a line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity and that in the mind of the State, this line is somewhat blurred. The Court’s judgement narrowed down the scope of the UAPA, stating it can only be invoked against acts that have an impact on the ‘Defence of India’, “nothing more and nothing less”. On the three’s alleged roles in the riots, the court said that none of their actions could be considered a ‘terrorist act’ or a ‘conspiracy’. The three were set free.

Such a great order, so it had to be stayed immediately right? And so comes the Supreme Court of India. Immediately after Justice Bhambhani’s judgement, the Delhi Police obtained an effective stay against the observations narrowing the scope of the UAPA from the Supreme Court. Although the three accused were allowed to remain out on bail, the bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Ramasubramaniam asked courts to not rely on this judgement for other cases. As a result, none of the other accused in the larger conspiracy case and countless other unspoken Indians could benefit from this progressive order of the Delhi High Court.

So is there still some hope from courts?

Well, despite the UAPA being so strict and Watali judgement completely tilting the law in the state’s favour, higher courts have gone into the material submitted by the investigative agencies and concluded that they don’t constitute “terrorist acts” and therefore, the strict bail condition is not applicable in such cases. Remember that the strict bail condition is only applicable for “terrorist acts”. If the court says that the allegations against the accused do not constitute “terrorist acts”, the strict bail condition will naturally not apply.

As a result, they have released some UAPA accused on bail. Example: Bhima Koregaon accused Anand Teltumbde, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Shoma Sen, and others. But all of them had already undergone long jail times of 4 or 5 years.

But the Watali judgement asks courts to not go deep into the merits of the material submitted by the police right? So how are higher courts still granting bail after carefully looking at the material? Well, that’s an example of how justice is a lottery in this country. It really depends what kind of judge you have. Law is a game of interpretation. Some judges interpret laws liberally, some more conservative. A litigant is therefore left wondering agar lottery lag jayegi.

In the recent past, in February 2024, the Supreme Court openly pronounced that for special laws like the UAPA, “jail is the rule, not bail”. In a country where hardly anyone is punished for misuse of law and authority, where 77% of prisoners are undertrial, waiting for their trials to start, the Supreme Court boldly pronouncing such an anti-liberty rule is highly irresponsible to say the least. Fine, make jail the rule, but will you also guarantee a speedy trial and judgement for all the UAPA accused? If not , then why the need to make such a statement?

Salim’s request for bail on the grounds of delay in trial and the long incarceration already suffered by him were not dealt with by the Delhi High Court’s bench.

On 10 May, Salim challenged Delhi high court’s rejection of his bail before the Supreme Court. The matter was listed before a bench headed by Justice Bela Trivedi who was not willing to entertain the challenge. On sensing this, Salim’s lawyers withdrew his bail petition from the Supreme Court.


Consider the toll on Salim’s life—arrested at 39, he may not see freedom until he’s 40 or even 45 years old. Who will restore these stolen years, these shattered dreams? His case is a heart-rending example of the deep-rooted injustice brought about by the Supreme Court’s judgements, which prevent a thorough examination of the evidence presented by the police in UAPA cases.

It’s been over four agonising years since Salim’s incarceration began. If Salim is ultimately acquitted, who will bear responsibility for these lost years in jail? The court that failed in ensuring a speedy trial? Or the prosecutor that shied away from telling the police they have no case? Or the police who are shouting conspiracy without any concrete proof? Or the political masters, who wield power over the police? Or the Supreme Court, that enabled this gross abuse of law and continues to propound theories like ‘jail is the rule’? Perhaps no one will be held accountable.

Salim’s story echoes countless others trapped in a labyrinth of injustice, including Umar Khalid and the other 7 Muslims in the larger conspiracy case, where each day spent in confinement erodes hope and corrodes faith in a fair judicial process.

US Indictment of ‘Grave Concern’, Indian Probe Needs to Be ‘Sincere’: Congress Leaders

Congress leader and former external affairs minister Salman Khurshid told the Indian Express that the US government’s allegations are especially worrisome given that India-US relations have been warm recently.

New Delhi: Responding to the US government’s allegations that an Indian government official directed the assassination of a US citizen on that country’s soil, senior Congress leaders said the claim was a “matter of grave concern” and that the Indian government must address it with “absolute sincerity”.

Former external affairs minister Salman Khurshid told the Indian Express that the issue not only concerned India’s security but also its relations with the world’s democracies.

“All I can say at this stage is that the government must address this with alacrity and with absolute sincerity. Because it is not an issue limited to the security of our country. It is also an issue which concerns our relationship with democracies in the world and therefore we have to be absolutely clear and direct in finding solutions to this,” IE quoted Khurshid as saying.

He added that the Indian government’s investigation into the matter must persuade opinion both at home and abroad.

“You have to probe. The probe must be a credible one because it is not just a matter of convincing your own people but it is a matter of persuading world opinion. Therefore, the probe must be good, transparent and sincere, so that we can carry conviction with people across the globe,” he said according to IE.

An indictment by the US Department of Justice unsealed on Wednesday (November 29) said that an Indian government official directed a plot to assassinate an unnamed, pro-Khalistan political activist on US soil.

US officials had reportedly said earlier that their government had thwarted a plot to kill Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a pro-Khalistan activist and lawyer of US and Canadian citizenship.

Also Read: From Nijjar to Pannun, Modi Government’s Recklessness is Undermining National Interest

The indictment says that the unnamed Indian government official worked with a man named Nikhil Gupta to orchestrate the victim’s assassination. Their alleged bid failed as their contacts, including the proposed hitman, were working with or for US law enforcement agencies, the indictment says.

It adds that Gupta suggested to the undercover officer that Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was murdered in Canada in June, was also a “target” of his associates.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in September that his government was pursuing “credible allegations” that Indian government agents may have been linked with Nijjar’s murder, sparking a diplomatic standoff between Canada and India.

Khurshid told the Indian Express that while Canada-India relations had experienced their ups and downs, the US’s recent allegations were “worrisome” owing to better relations between it and India.

“When it happened with Canada, we [India] reacted and said this is nonsense, this is rubbish, but there was a concern that the Five Eyes were sort of agreeing with Canada that there was need for some clarification and need for some investigation,” he told IE.

“But in isolation one incident and one event in Canada etc … can be understood that there may be a difference of perception and that is causing this trouble. But now this is coming from the US … It is worrisome,” Khurshid added.

“Unlike our relations with Canada, which have been a little strained and stressed in the past, our relations with the US have been very smooth and very good.”

The former minister also said that while there are concerns about pro-Khalistan activists operating from abroad, allegations that Indian officials are “proactively trying to interfere with what the Western democracies consider to be entitlements and rights that citizens have” are a “very troubling thing”.

“And I do believe that we should have been extra careful about this. That we should not have allowed anybody to raise any questions about India’s conduct and India’s uprightness. Why this is happening is worrisome,” IE quoted him as saying.

Another Congress leader, Lok Sabha MP and former minister of state for external affairs Shashi Tharoor, also told IE that the allegations were “a matter of grave concern that warrants a comprehensive internal inquiry”.

In his first post-indictment reaction, external affairs spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said that the US government’s allegations were “a matter of concern” and were “contrary to government policy”.

Qatar Death Row: Modi Govt Failed to Act in Time with Seriousness, Alleges Manish Tewari

The Congress Lok Sabha MP on Friday, October 27, shared on X (Twitter) the letter external affairs minister S. Jaishankar had written to him in response to his speech in Lok Sabha (on December 7, 20220), which highlighted the incarceration of former naval officers in Qatar.

New Delhi: Congress MP Manish Tewari has said that had the Government of India taken the issue of the death penalty handed down to eight former Indian Navy officers in Qatar seriously, the situation would not have become so grim.

Tewari on Friday, October 27, shared on X (Twitter) the letter external affairs minister S. Jaishankar had written to him in response to his speech in Lok Sabha (on December 7, 20220), highlighting the incarceration of former naval officers in Qatar.

“Had Dr. Jaishankar or the Ministry of External Affairs been serious then things would never have come to this pass that the 8 Navy men would have been sentenced to death for an alleged offence whose details are still unknown. The NDA/BJP government for all its muscular nationalism has completely failed to protect the dignity, honour, and lives of our ex-Servicemen,” he slammed the government.

With things coming to such a pass, he said more than legal intervention, diplomatic intervention at the highest level – by Prime Minister Narendra Modi – is required to remedy the situation. He also goes on to say, “A fog of opacity surrounds this incident. It is incumbent for the Indian government to put out all facts in the public domain.”

Senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid expressed his sadness over the development and called for diplomatic measures. “We cannot say anything until everything will come in front… I can express sadness for what has happened… It is not possible for us to accept that the personnel have done anything due to which they are getting punished…When there are relations between two countries, diplomatic ways can be created…This is an important thing for us because the message goes to the whole world,” Khurshid said, according to The Times of India.

Eight former Indian Navy officers, who had been detained in Qatar for over a year, were handed the death penalty on Thursday, October 26. The men were working for a private firm, Dahra Global Technologies and Consultancy Services, which provided training and related services to Qatar’s armed forces. They were detained without charges in August 2022. Media reports say they had been charged with espionage. Their bail pleas were rejected multiple times.

The verdict was passed on Thursday by the Court of First Instance of Qatar. The eight men are Captain Navtej Singh Gill, Captain Birendra Kumar Verma, Captain Saurabh Vasisht, Commodore Amit Nagpal, Commodore Purnendu Tiwari, Commodore Sugunakar Pakala, Commodore Sanjeev Gupta, and Sailor Ragesh.

“We are deeply shocked by the verdict of the death penalty and are awaiting the detailed judgement. We are in touch with the family members and the legal team, and we are exploring all legal options. We attach high importance to this case and have been following it closely. We will continue to extend all consular and legal assistance. We will also take up the verdict with Qatari authorities,” the statement by the MEA read.

Why the Election Commission Should Not Just Be Neutral but Also Transparent

The PMO’s summoning or ‘inviting’ of election commissioners in December 2021 was in violation of the Constitution, irrespective of how important or urgent the issue.

On the morning of 17 December 2021, I woke up to a shocking headline in the Indian Express that said the chief election commissioner and the two election commissioners were summoned by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to attend a meeting with the principal secretary to the PM.

My memory went back to 27 June 2006, when I received a call from Pulok Chatterji, principal secretary to the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, informing me that I was being considered for appointment as an election commissioner and asking if I would accept it. Postings in the government are not optional; you are just appointed. Why this question, then? The reason was made clear by Chatterji. I would have to resign from the IAS.

S.Y. Quraishi
India’s Experiment With Democracy: The Life of a Nation Through Its Elections
HarperCollins India (October 2023)

Why was my appointment as an election commissioner conditional on my resignation from the IAS? Therein lies the important constitutional principle of distancing the EC from the executive/government. Importantly, a wall was built between me and the PM who had appointed me.

As a secretary to the government of India, I was at the mercy of the PM, but as an election commissioner, I was independent, neutral and distant from him. There was no question of his calling/summoning me to see him or with any request, let alone give me any direction or instruction. He could appoint me but could not order me or remove me because of the constitutional scheme of things. An independent Election Commission of India is a gift of the Constitution to the nation. Free, fair and credible elections are sine qua non of the ECI. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed this point, calling the Commission part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The PMO’s summoning or ‘inviting’ of not just the CEC but the full bench is in violation of the Constitution, irrespective of how important or urgent the issue is. Let alone the principal secretary to the PM, even on the part of the mighty PM it would be an unacceptable act. Can you imagine the principal secretary to the PM issuing such summons to the CJI, to come over with the full bench of the court and attend a meeting with him on judicial reforms? The secretary would be running for cover with a contempt of court case against him.

In my opinion, there is no difference between the neutrality and independence of the Supreme Court and of the ECI in this context. Both are independent constitutional authorities, deliberately separated from the executive. Forgetting the summoning of the CEC and ECs, the principal secretary to the PM cannot even call on the ECI without public knowledge of the meeting and what transpired in it. Politicians of all hues visit the ECI regularly with petitions, complaints or suggestions, but with full transparency. I never met any of them alone, insisting on the presence of my two colleagues. Transparency is the key word here, and perception of transparency is equally important.

Now, let us talk about the protocol in this matter, though that is secondary. The CEC is very high in the warrant of precedence— ninth—while the principal secretary to the PM is twenty-third. How can such a high-ranking constitutional functionary be summoned to attend a meeting with an officer, howsoever high and mighty? The law ministry, which advises the government on all legal and constitutional matters, should have known better than to convey that it was okay for the PMO to ‘expect’ the CEC/ECs to attend a meeting at the office.

I recall another event. One day, I got a call from Veerappa Moily, the then law minister: ‘Mr Quraishi, you have been raising the issue of electoral reforms. Why don’t you come for a cup of tea in my office so that we discuss them?’ I was in a fix, but only for six seconds. My going there would have been in violation of the spirit of the Constitution. I declined the invite. Instead, I told the honourable minister, ‘Sir, thank you for your kind offer but why don’t you come over instead? I will introduce you to my brother commissioners and senior officers.’ Gracious as he was, Moily came over the next day with four of his top officers. What was expected to be a short semi-courtesy meeting went on for over three hours. He asked whether we would like to join the ministry in hosting seven regional conferences to build a national consensus on electoral reforms. We readily agreed. When all the regional meetings were over, the law minister came over to the Election Commission a second time to discuss the arrangements for the final, national meeting.

Just as the reforms were materializing, Moily was shifted to another ministry and replaced by Salman Khurshid. I called up the PM to protest—just when Moily had built up a national consensus, you have transferred him, undoing all his and our work of six months, I told him. He said, ‘Don’t worry. Salman will carry forward this work. I will send him to you.’ Note that the PM did not say, ‘Go and meet him.’

Sure enough, Khurshid came over to the Commission’s office within a week and reassured us about taking the reforms forward. It’s a different matter that the proposal fizzled out. The important thing is that the Union law minister, who heads the ECI’s administrative ministry and sanctions our budget, visited the ECI thrice in four months, in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.

The initial reaction of horror and disgust on the part of the CEC and ECs at being called over to the PMO was most heartening, and I salute them. But why they got persuaded to attend the ‘informal interaction’ subsequently puzzles me. A meeting with the principal secretary to the PM, formal or informal, online or in the PMO or at the ECI office just before elections raises unnecessary suspicion. Who knows what was discussed. The election dates? Or something else? This incident is a transgression that should not happen again. The arm’s-length distance envisaged in the Constitution for interactions between certain institutions is sacrosanct. It should not only be maintained but also ‘seen’ to be maintained.

This is an excerpt from former chief election commissioner S.Y. Quraishi’s book India’s Experiment With Democracy: The Life of a Nation Through Its Elections, published with permission from HarperCollins India.

Serious Challenges Confront the Muslim Community With BJP-RSS Intent on Polarisation

Seeking to appease the BJP via ‘dialogue’ by certain Muslim ‘representatives’ may not be the answer. The community needs to work towards a correct prognosis of its condition, before it decides on steps that will provide a cure.

Amongst social groups that are being singled out for discrimination in a variety of ways are Muslims, who are at the forefront of loss in many parts of the country. Personal security and dignity score the worst. Yet the scale of pain and indignity being inflicted on innocent people in Manipur tells us that worse can come.

Forbearance and fortitude have been conspicuous in the reaction of ordinary Muslims, but hopefully as a sensible survival crisis strategy and not defeat or surrender to circumstances beyond control. The public strategy to react on behalf of all vulnerable victims rather than identified Muslims hopefully works to underscore the demand for relief without causing further hostility. But there remains a constant danger of ordinary folk losing faith in persons from whom clear advocacy is expected. Self-conscious silence – no matter how strategic – can be demoralising for the intended beneficiaries.

Fortunately, there are innumerable non-Muslims who conspicuously speak their minds. Mewat mayhem is the latest example. Hindu voices of sanity and secularism have kept the faith alive in our common humanity. The sympathy and solidarity expressed by Jats and Sikhs for Muslim brethren is a valuable addition to the annals of communal harmony that is the essence of our nationhood. Despite the ugly scars of the heinous conduct of misdescribed faithful, all is clearly not lost for generations to come. Mewat is a historical symbol of national unity that defied the Partition on Mahatma Gandhi’s appeal. It has once again rejected division.

Also read: With Mewat in Flames, Remembering Gandhiji’s Visit to the Region in 1947

The state’s response by demolishing houses and establishments speaks volumes of the deliberate violation of the rule of law. We do not know the communal scorecard of demolition, but the high-handed response of the administration does little credit to it. Fortunately, the Punjab and Haryana high court stepped in with suo moto proceedings to stay what appeared to be select community-targeted action.

To be honest, one must publicly appreciate the ruling party MP and Minister of State, Rao Inderjit Singh, who showed courage to question the carrying of weapons by participants in the Shobha Yatra procession.

Vehicles torched by the mob are being collected at the bus stand in Nuh. Photo: Atul Ashok Howale

In Haryana’s Mewat, as elsewhere, attempts to raise communal temperature have been going on for a while. Apportioning blame might not be effective or appropriate, but the root cause, to the extent local, must be addressed on priority. It has caused widespread fear and disruption of normal life in a place that has never seen such violence or communal hostility in the past.

Way forward for the Muslims

On the larger picture, the red line has to be firmly drawn to curtail the erosion of values in the public space. Who else can do that but the Supreme Court? It has been trying to keep unwholesome proclivities in check through periodic orders, but some of its interim decisions such as the survey of Gyanvapi mosque may be encouraging people in unimagined ways. Of course, it is a tough job to keep all parties to litigation satisfied with fairness and natural justice. Yet, it might not be ultimately rewarding for the country to be encouraged to believe that in the matter of places of worship, the status quo of decades and centuries might be changed.

The Ayodhya judgment outcome has been accepted by all parties although many people continue to find fault with the legal reasoning. Be that as it may, even as it stands, it does not permit fresh challenges elsewhere having been decided strictly on principles of adverse possession and limitation. To keep the pot boiling, in the hope that with the passage of time, a negotiated settlement might be possible is patently contrary to the lessons of recent history. Some necessary accommodation to address the sense of disquiet – legitimate or otherwise – of the majority makes sense, but continuing down that path to rewrite history will be disastrous for the idea of India – that we the people, captured in the Indian constitution.

Understandably, there is talk amongst minority citizens about what short-term and long-term communication strategies to adopt for a working relationship with the government and the majority they claim to represent. Periodically some people have taken the initiative to join dialogue with high functionaries of the government and leadership of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) with uncertain results beyond photo ops and well-meaning press statements. Others have gone further to secure membership of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and have even been nominated to the Upper House in Uttar Pradesh.

Also read: Muslims Must Dialogue with All Indians, Except Those Who Dream of Their Disenfranchisement

This adds to the support the BJP establishment has had for some time from conspicuous political persons, as indeed the incumbent governor of Kerala. Muslim institutions whose heads have shown implicit or explicit support for the BJP have added precious little to a larger conversation as the bulk of the institutional following are cynical about such efforts, dismissing them as opportunist overtures.

The top minority universities are willy-nilly showing compliance to the wishes of political bosses. It might be too early to estimate the cost of all this in terms of quality and integrity of thinking of faculty and student body. Meanwhile, protests have become difficult, if not impossible, as many students discovered in the wake of the CAA-NRC demonstrations in different cities of the country.

One cannot reject dialogue entirely and hope that both sides engage in it with honest intentions and sincerity. Better understanding of each other is the purpose of dialogue and that might reduce suspicions and misplaced fear. But for successful inter-faith dialogue, an element of internal dialogue in the community might be essential.

We cannot forget that our present condition is largely caused by the absence of internal dialogue ensured by the political ambitions of individuals and political outfits. Of course, before venturing to resume dialogue within the community, we may first need to reassess the performance of those we trusted over the months and years past.

Where have we been let down? Who has failed us and why? Unless we get the correct prognosis for our condition, we cannot take the steps that will provide a cure.

Salman Khurshid is a member of the Congress party, a senior advocate, a former MP, and a former Union minister of Law and Minority Affairs. 

Madhya Pradesh: In Quest for Power, Is Congress Ready to Compromise on Secularism?

As assembly polls in the state draw near, the state Congress unit has announced that the Bajrang Sena has merged with it. The Sena is a Hindutva organisation that demands a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, spews venom against minorities and supports those who glorify Nathuram Godse.

“The progress of the country is possible only with the creation of a Hindu Rashtra. Keeping in mind the ancient culture and tradition of this nation, declaring it a Hindu nation is the biggest need today.”

These words were spoken not by a leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) or an organisation affiliated with it, but by the person who runs the organisation which recently merged with the Congress in Madhya Pradesh amid a lot of fanfare and publicity. The organisation is Bajrang Sena and it was its national president Ranbir Pateria who uttered the words above.

On June 6, many people might have mistaken the office of the Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC) in Bhopal for the BJP. It looked like a Hindutva fortress with saffron flags, loud slogans of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and incantation of the Hanuman Chalisa. Amid such fanfare, the Bajrang Sena rallied towards the Congress office and was welcomed by Kamal Nath, the former chief minister and state Congress president. Nath was presented with a mace, or gada, by the Sena chief. Soon after, the Sena’s merger with the Congress was announced.

The merger must be seen in the context of assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh, slated for the end of the year. The Congress apparently wants to play the Hindutva card to match the politics of the ruling BJP. The party and Kamal Nath have actively been part of religious activities for a while now.

It appears that the party has abandoned the ideas of secularism or even ‘soft Hindutva’, which the Congress was promoting to outwit the BJP’s ‘hardcore Hindutva’. In its quest for power, it appears the party is eager to embrace the hardline version of Hindutva.

Seeking support from the Bajrang Sena, an outfit whose very existence hinges on building a Hindu Rashtra, exposes the desperation of the Congress. From the appointment letters of the organisation to the speeches of its leaders, ‘Hindu Rashtra’ is obsessively referenced by the outfit. Take, for example, this statement of the general secretary of the Sena, Ram Shankar Mishra:

“I want to tell all the demonic forces, who are engaged in turning our country into Pakistan, that after 2024…by about 2025…India will become a Hindu Rashtra.”

Mishra made this announcement in a Facebook live session on April 7, 2023, in the presence of the outfit’s national president, Pateria. Bajrang Sena had close ties with the BJP at the time and Mishra was perhaps alluding to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

An appointment letter from Bajrang Sena mentions the resolution to ‘build a united Hindu nation’ and bring a ‘population control law’. Photo: Facebook

Pateria calls controversial religious leader Pandit Dhirendra Krishna Shastri of Chhatarpur’s Bageshwar Dham his idol. He claims that Shastri has entrusted him and the Bajrang Sena with the responsibility of running a nationwide campaign for the creation of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’. Bajrang Sena workers across the country are ready to join this campaign and follow Dhirendra Shastri, he added.

Interestingly, Pateria and his organisation’s office bearers are often seen with Shastri, who has been criticised by several Congress leaders. Less than a month before merging with the Congress, Bajrang Sena workers were administered an oath by national convenor Raghunandan Sharma to fully support “Peethadhishwar Dhirendra Krishna Shastri of Bageshwar Dham in making India a Hindu Rashtra”.

Sharma has now joined the Congress.

But Pateria says the Bajrang Sena has not merged with the Congress. He told The Wire, “Our organisation has not merged with the Congress. We have extended support to the Congress in Madhya Pradesh. But reports of a merger are wrong. About a dozen of our office bearers have joined the Congress.”

Pateria’s statement contradicts the Congress’s claim that the Bajrang Sena has “merged” with the party.

Congress’s new ally has every attribute of a hardcore Hindutva outfit

Bajrang Sena has every quality to define it as a staunch Hindutva organisation, from insulting women and delivering hate speeches to spreading hatred against minorities. 

At the national level, the Congress has slammed the BJP for similar issues. But in Madhya Pradesh, the party is not practising what it preaches elsewhere in the country.

The Congress may claim that the Bajrang Sena has adopted its ideology after the merger, but in a conversation with The Wire, Pateria categorically said that the outfit will continue its efforts to make India a ‘Hindu Rashtra’.

A population control law is also a part of their agenda, regarding which the organisation says:

”Ever since India became independent, 80% of Hindus are being targeted by the Jihadi mentality. In such a situation, the number of other religions is continuously increasing, while Hinduism is decreasing in the only (Hindu) nation. If India is declared a Hindu Rashtra then India’s sovereignty can be saved. Because where Hindus become less in number, the Jihadis start demanding a separate nation. It is necessary for the integrity and sovereignty of India that it should become a Hindu nation. Population control law should also be implemented for the fast-growing population in India.”

Ranbir Pateria, whom Kamal Nath welcomed at the Congress office with open arms, was ‘waking up’ the Hindus of Madhya Pradesh a few weeks ago by giving the example of the film The Kashmir Files, which the Congress has called a ‘propaganda film’.

During a Facebook live, Pateria said, “We are safe in Madhya Pradesh today, but if we stay inactive, we will not remain safe for long. The way Hindus were chased away in Jammu and Kashmir became the subject of the movie The Kashmir Files. There is a similar situation in many other states including Telangana, West Bengal, and Kerala.” 

He urged Hindus to be prepared for a fight. During the same session, Ramshankar Mishra fiercely spewed Hindutva venom. Accusing the police of disrupting the organisation’s rally in Telangana, he said, “The entire government of Telangana and the ‘two dogs’ sitting there were engaged in preventing Bajrang Sena’s programme. 2,000 policemen were deployed. It seemed as if we were terrorists.”

It is not clear whom did Mishra address as ‘two dogs’, but it is usual for Bajrang Sena to resort to such language.

For instance, like several other Hindutva organisations, Bajrang Sena also protested against the song ‘Besharam Rang’ in the film Pathaan starring Shah Rukh Khan. In a letter addressed to chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, it said, “Hindu sentiments have been hurt with the depiction of the actress donning saffron colour, which symbolises the Hindu faith, while 90% of her body is in the nude. Seeing this obscenity, even bitches and cats would be ashamed.”

The Bajrang Sena also appears to have a special skill for finding ‘jihad’ in every major or minor incident. It has coined the phrase ‘Hindu jihad’, which it defines as thus:

“Vidharmi kuttey (heretic dogs) posing as Hindus are stopping people from joining the organisation. There is no need to tell what the Bajrang Sena would do to them the day it lays hands on them… Like ‘Love Jihad’, we will end ‘Hindu Jihad’ as well and will not spare these dogs.” 

Pateria adds, “These are the dogs that are getting funding from abroad. They are working to break our Hindu organisation. They are scared of seeing large crowds during Ram-Hanuman festivals.”

Pateria had recently shared a picture on social media in which actresses were equated with prostitutes. In another post, he called actress Anushka Sharma Bollywood’s nachaniya – a derogatory term for dancers. On the other hand, he referred to Rivaba, wife of cricketer Ravindra Jadeja and BJP MLA, who wore a saree at the IPL final, a symbol of Indianness.

Hatred of minorities

A few weeks ago, Pateria wrote on social media, “This is the last generation of Hindus who are getting a chance to fight for Hindutva… If we lose, the next generation will look for a chance to escape.” 

In another post, he said, “Shah Rukh (Khan) is going to glorify the same Tipu Sultan in his film who massacred Hindus… He should be boycotted.”

“Are Hindus safe in India?” he asked in yet another social media post. He cites ‘the murder of a Hindu youth by non-Hindu heretics’ in Karnataka and some other alleged incidents. He says, “They have all been sacrificed at the hands of the fundamentalist religion. I do not call for killing, but self-protection. You should at least be so strong that no jihadi dares to attack you.”

About the notorious Shraddha Walkar murder case, he wrote, “Their (Muslims’) aim is not only to kill the enemy, but to do so by causing maximum pain.” 

Many more such posts can be found on his social media accounts. Regarding Christmas, he states, “India is the land of saints, not of Santa. Santa doesn’t come to India to give gifts, he comes to convert.”

National president of Bajrang Sena Ranbir Pateria presenting the picture of Bharat Mata to Pandit Dhirendra Krishna Shastri of Bageshwar Dham. Photo: Facebook

Several instances of hate speech

Bajrang Sena has the following views on Shirdi’s Sai Baba, who is a venerated figure for a large section of the country:

“What has Sai done to be revered as god? If he had so much faith in Hindu/Sanatan Dharma, why didn’t he convert? Why is his mazar built inside a temple? What did you get by paying obeisance to that mazar and bringing holy ash from there? There is no need to consider any ‘Chand Miyan’ as God.”

“Sai’s devotees are heretics,” says Mishra. “By looting the money of Hindus in the name of Sai, they are funding terrorism in foreign countries. It needs to be stopped.”

In a live session, he even urged Bajrang Sena workers to riot against the Sai temple in the Rewa district of Madhya Pradesh. The organisation believes that ‘someone who does not believe in Ram should not be allowed to be revered as God in this country.’

The Bajrang Sena takes inspiration not from the so-called ‘secularism’ of the Congress, but from the suspended BJP MLA T. Raja Singh in Telangana. More than 100 cases are registered against Raja Singh, who spews venom against minority communities. Facebook has shut down his account. He was sent to jail for inciting communal tension in Hyderabad. Even the BJP suspended him owing to his communal remarks, which is quite unusual for the party.

After the Bajrang Sena’s rally was interrupted by the police in Telangana, Pateria and Mishra said:

“You (Telangana) have only seen one lion, Raja Singh, yet and you couldn’t handle him. This is India. There are innumerable lions here that are ready to die for Hindutva. Each and every soldier of Bajrang Sena is a Raja Singh himself. A thousand Raja Singhs are being prepared in Hyderabad.”

“A Hindu will not bow down,” he also said. “We are getting organised. No state of India will now become Kerala or Bengal.”

Bajrang Sena also held protests on the streets in support of expelled BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, who stirred a nationwide controversy by making objectionable remarks on Prophet Mohammed and took a pro-Hindu stand on the Gyanvapi Masjid issue.

Followers of Godse

In a Dharma Sansad organised in Chhattisgarh’s capital Raipur in December 2021, self-proclaimed saint Kalicharan remarked, “Mohan Das Karamchand Gandhi destroyed the country. We salute Nathuram Godse who killed him.”

On this remark, the Congress lodged an FIR against Kalicharan in Raipur, following which he was sent to jail.

Protesting the arrest, Bajrang Sena burnt the effigy of Congress leader and Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel. Pateria also questioned Gandhi’s status as the father of the nation.

However, this is not the first time that Kamal Nath has embraced the followers of Godse in Gandhi’s Congress party. In 2021, Kamal Nath welcomed Babulal Chaurasia, the councillor of Gwalior Municipal Corporation from the Hindu Mahasabha, into the party by handing him flowers. Chaurasia was among those who tried to build a temple for Gandhi’s killer Godse and install his statue.

His induction into the party was defended by the Congress, claiming that Chaurasia had left Godse’s ideology of violence and decided to follow Gandhiji’s ideology of truth and non-violence. “When he was part of the Hindu Mahasabha and was associated with the BJP, he believed in the ideology of Godse. But now that he has joined the Congress, he has adopted the ideology of Gandhiji,” the party claimed.

Nathuram Godse. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The Congress has offered a similar rationale now. Madhya Pradesh Congress spokesperson Ravi Saxena told The Wire, “He (Pateria) has joined the party unconditionally after being influenced by the ideas of the Congress.”

When asked about Bajrang Sena’s demand for a Hindu Rashtra, he said, “Hindustan is anyway a Hindu nation. 80% of its population is Hindu. A place where the majority are Hindus is a Hindu nation without a doubt. What’s any further need to make it a Hindu nation? Where Hindus are sitting on key posts, be it the chief ministers of states, the president of the country, or the prime minister, or the chief of the three armed forces, and 90% of the police and administration posts, is it not then a Hindu Rashtra?”

However, Ranbir Pateria doesn’t agree.

‘Congress has promised Hindu rashtra’

When asked about the difference in the Congress’s stance on the concept of Hindu rashtra and that of his organisation, Pateria said, “See, the Congress was neither chanting the Hanuman Chalisa nor carrying saffron flags earlier. But slowly things are going to change. We will take care of it.”

When asked whether the Congress would take measures to meet their demand for a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, Pateria said, “Of course, we believe so and we will keep trying. Just as we believed that the BJP will create a Hindu Rashtra, we have faith in them too. Now, we will make the same efforts with them also.”

Regarding the population control law, Pateria said that he will continue to demand it from the Congress. He also said that he has been given assurance of attempting to make India a ‘Hindu Rashtra if the party forms a government at the Centre.

The Wire also tried to contact the party’s state in charge, J.P. Agarwal, to find out the stand of the party’s central leadership on this decision taken by the Madhya Pradesh unit but failed to get a response. Meanwhile, the party’s senior national spokesperson Salman Khurshid refused to comment, citing a lack of information in this regard.

Full Text: Why Salman Khurshid Is Cautiously Hopeful About 2024

“…mathematics and chemistry are both important for an alliance and you have to keep that in mind.”

In a recent podcast interview, Congress leader Salman Khurshid spoke to Sidharth Bhatia about the Congress’s win in Karnataka, what that could mean for 2024, the chances of opposition unity and what needs to be done, and more.

The full transcript of the podcast is below.

Sidharth Bhatia: Hello and welcome to the The Wire Talks. I’m Sidharth Bhatia. The emphatic victory of the Congress party and the defeat of the BJP in the Karnataka elections has surprised observers. For the Congress, it comes as a morale booster, and the BJP loses its only outpost in the southern states. What does this mean, with a year left before the general elections of 2024? Are state elections different from national elections? Will this bring opposition parties together as a cohesive unit to fight the BJP?

My guest today is an astute and experienced observer and participant of the national scene. He’s a veteran and third generation Congressman. His father, Khurshid Alam Khan, was a minister, and his grandfather, Dr Zakir Hussain, was the third President of India. But he retains the ability to look at the big picture dispassionately.

Salman Khurshid has been the Union minister for external affairs, is a well-known lawyer, and has written several books examining the state of the nation, including Sunrise Over Ayodhya, Nationhood in Our Times, and Visible Muslim, Invisible Muslim, as well as Triple Talaq. He also wrote a very well received play, Sons of Babur: A Play in Search of India.

Welcome to The Wire Talks, Salman Khurshid.

Salman Khurshid: Thank you. Thank you.

SB: You wrote on social media recently that the Congress victory comes as a whiff of fresh air in an ambiance of toxic fumes. But you also say one swallow does not a summer make. Are you trying to say that the party should not be complacent?

SK: Well, I think the least that we could do is not to be complacent. Certainly, as I said, it is a whiff of fresh air. It is, I think, a shot in the arm. You can use all the colourful language that tells you of something wonderful that has happened. I’m sure that this victory has been predicted for a long, long time, but I’m sure to the last minute, people who were involved and engaged internally were concerned that nothing should go wrong and nothing should upset the apple cart, etc. We’ve made it and made it for good. And I think there’s some elements that can be isolated as very meaningful elements in this victory.

But a lot of people say – certainly I added the ‘one swallow’ bit myself – that this is not a semi-final. Don’t take this as a stepping stone to 2024. And I think that’s sensible. That’s sensible to be careful. There are streams of attitudes that have helped us win this election, and some of those streams would flow into other states as well. But there are some very regional factors. They include the leadership control and the leadership outreach that we saw in Karnataka. So there are some that may be more specific to Karnataka and may not matter elsewhere. There’s some common themes that I believe could be influential in other states as well, which will go to elections a few months down the road.

So in all, I think good thing to have got started with, but still a long way to go. I mean, we have a first hurdle to cross, which I think we are working on, and that’s the opposition unity. Beyond opposition unity, at least on the surface, the actual tactical moves and the detailed discussions that happen at the state level is the second big hurdle. And the third is to carry conviction in the election itself, where how well we manage our unity perception and unity projection will be important. Those are the steps that we must take over the next few months. Not a long time, not a great deal of time, yet enough for us to be well prepared.

SB: So anyway, 2024 is still some time away. Before that, there are some crucial elections, especially in states where the Congress still has some presence. And in fact, one government and one government it did have in Madhya Pradesh, but it was broken. What do you mean when you said this? What do you mean that certain factors will be local? For example, in Rajasthan, some factors will be extremely local and some factors in Madhya Pradesh. So, is there a magic formula, silver bullet, or does each time, every election, you have to work on?

SK: I think every election has its very special attributes that we need to work on. I think this is true even for the BJP. You may have – and a lot of people have an impression that there is a set, one size fits all as far as BJP is concerned, because that size that BJP projects is a very large size, etc. We would take our measurements carefully to fit everybody that then comes into play as we move from state to state.

There may be some negative issues in some places, and I do believe that in Rajasthan, there’s a negative issue that we must quickly put to an end. Elsewhere, there may be positive issues, negative issues that have been turned into positive issues, etc. So we’ll have to be planning for each state, very specifically for that state, borrowing whatever helps from any state that’s done well, borrowing from there. But ultimately, going down to the grassroots and ensuring that we have a plan that is typically fit for that state itself. That’s what we need to do. And I think we are already underway doing that.

SB: Before the victory in Karnataka, did you see changes happening in the Congress? Would you say that these changes have played a crucial role in creating this victory? What were these changes, if you think that there were changes happening?

SK: I think that as far as Karnataka is concerned, the internal changes for Karnataka Congress were already in place, and that’s been there for some time. The dual leadership of Mr Siddaramaiah who is now the CM and the deputy CM was very clearly already in place. Of course, we couldn’t have said, and we didn’t say as to who would finally lead the pack. There were very specific attributes of both leaders. And in this, D.K. Shivakumar becoming deputy chief minister, but remaining president of the party, is an underscoring of the contribution that he made as a party leader, organisational leader. He’s been credited with that in a very, very specific way.

So as far as Karnataka is concerned, the so-called changes that you need in order to go straight for a victory were already there. And I think they were in place and they worked together very well. Maybe periodic fine-tuning was needed visually or otherwise, and that fine-tuning did happen. One important factor that Karnataka had, which every state doesn’t have, but some of the other states that are coming up for elections will have, and that was the Bharat Jodo Yatra

Bharat Jodo Yatra was a very significant moment for the party to say that, look, don’t just see us as a more urban party, see us as an active, see us as a vigorous, see us as a proactive party, and see us with people connected with us. We are not in isolation.

This propaganda against us that we are isolated, that we are tired, that we are retired, etc. is bunkum. We have a lot going for us and you just have to show it on the ground. Then showing it for a rally which lasts for about three hours, four hours, five hours is quite different from showing it day after day after day, 24 hours a day, which is what Mr Rahul Gandhi was able to show, not just in Karnataka, but elsewhere as well. But in Karnataka, I think it just fell right into the spot where we needed it. And I think it gave us that extra impetus. But it was essential. It was important, but it was necessary, but not adequate, not enough. There had to be something more which the party provided. And altogether, we got the winning formula.

SB: Have you been seeing changes at the national level slowly happening? Because the propaganda about the Congress, myths about the Congress are high command, Gandhi family, etc. But have you been seeing changes happening? Some obvious, some not so obvious, some subtle whereby the Congress is reshaping itself?

SK: I think that’s a very, very important and interesting question. But just before I answer that, let’s just be seen that I am not undervaluing an important factor in Karnataka, that was the fact that the Congress president today is son of the soil from Karnataka. And obviously that will inevitably play a major role. I think it has and it looks up front, it looks very obvious.

But when you talk of changes in the Congress party, yes, the changes in the Congress party are apparent from the time that he was picked as Congress president by a very widespread choice of Congress party voters who voted for him. Of course that followed by other decisions that the party took at Raipur in his leadership were all very important, but at no point at no point was our traditional leadership – in a very positive sense our traditional leadership – missing from providing him complete backup. So Srimati Sonia Gandhi and the brother-sister duo Mr Rahul Gandhi and Mrs Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra were there all the time, backing him to the hilt at every point, and I thought there was a fantastic synergy between them working. But the intense propaganda that had been projected by the BJP against the Gandhi family was I believe dented to some extent, was dented by the manner in which we presented the new Congress without compromising in any way on the leadership of the Gandhi family.

People kept saying are they the leader or is Mr Kharge the leader, and that used to be a tough question to answer, and we had to keep saying that they are leaders in themselves, they don’t need a position. Mr Kharge is a leader and also in position, chosen not only by them but by the entire party. but this was a new structure and this new structure now must be followed up with a new committee, a new Congress working committee. We don’t have one, and I hope that we will have one very quickly, but changes at the grassroots level and changes in terms of head of party units have quietly been happening.

And then, of course, I’m sure that Mr Kharge consults with Mr Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Ji quite often, but it’s not that visible. Those of us who may be involved in the close quarters of the party may know that the consultation continues, continues all the time. So even when we were talking to Mr Kharge who was hosting leaders of other political parties including Mr Nitish Kumar and Mr Tejashwi Yadav, Mr Rahul Gandhi was there, at his residence, at his house. So, if Mr Rahul Gandhi was not there, it would be a different kind of meeting. Mr Rahul Gandhi being there made it a different kind of meeting. So, the change is there, the change is there, and yet it’s the same. So, we have change which helps us gear up for the challenges that are coming. But the core which holds our ideology and which holds the faith of the Congress worker, that remains constant, which is a good thing.

SB: Speaking of the Congress worker, have you noticed any enthusiasm, a different kind of energy or enthusiasm, in the Congress workers? You are from UP. Have you noticed this in your immediate, in the Uttar Pradesh context, elsewhere perhaps? Have you noticed anything after this Karnataka victory?

SK: Well, let me just say that there are things happening on the ground in Uttar Pradesh, not always very clear and very perceptible. I was pleasantly surprised, and I do believe the top leadership of our party were also pleasantly surprised, when Mr Rahul Gandhi spent three days, near about three days, in UP during the yatra. And the kind of response, that’s only the western part of UP, but the kind of response he got and the enthusiasm with which he was greeted in western Uttar Pradesh was absolutely remarkable and it matched anything that happened anywhere else in the country including states where he spent good number of days, 10 days, 15 days, etc. in the south, in Rajasthan and then in various other parts of the country. UP in three days, in three days made its mark.

So, something was beginning to happen in UP. Now elections have happened. I think if you just looked at the figures of what has happened with results in UP, we may not look very impressive, but we don’t look zilch either. We don’t look zero. But then we go into the analysis of the votes that we have got. We had hit the rock bottom in the last assembly elections, an unnatural rock bottom of 2% vote, where there was a united attempt by the minority of Uttar Pradesh to vote for Samajwadi Party, to see if they could push him through once for all against the BJP, but it didn’t happen. And from then the conversation at the ground level has changed considerably. It became apparent in the number of people who turned out to vote for us. We may not have won many seats, at least at the top, mayor level and so on. We may not have won many seats, but certainly the vote tally is much higher, much higher, several times higher than the vote tally in the last assembly elections.

And the enthusiasm of the worker is incredible. I mean, you know, I keep saying to the workers, wait, this is not enough. You are telling me about Karnataka, you’re telling me about the vote percentage in this time and the local body elections, but this is not enough. This is not going to win us. And they all say, just you watch this time, just you watch this time. We’ve never voted for you. And this is people who are standard Samajwadi Party supporters. We’ve never voted for you but this time you watch. You come and ask us, you don’t come and ask us, this time it’s the Congress. We have to get the Congress this time. So, the confidence level and the commitment level seems very high, but yet I say we need to work on it. We will. We need to go back to the drawing board. We need to go back to the grassroots etc. to see that we can be well prepared for 2024.

SB: But Salman, all the old traditional Congress problems of dissent, of infighting, of rebellion going on in Rajasthan so visibly, it’s embarrassing that your senior minister like Sachin Pilot, who had tried to breakaway some years ago and now is just standing up against the chief minister just before the elections. It’s quite, I would say not embarrassing, but it shows that you know, some of the old problems don’t go away. At this time unity is needed and you have a young minister with some following – not spectacular, but some following, last time he had some 12 or 13 MLAs – standing up against and making allegations against Ashok Gehlot.  It doesn’t inspire confidence in the coming elections.

SK: I know that this is a factor which is why I hinted earlier and what I said I hinted at some things that will need local management, careful local management. I just hope that whatever I say must be prefaced with one remark about Mr Sachin Pilot. He’s a young man, he has a lot of energy, he’s got a good background, he wants to go places and I hope that he does go places. He is the son of a dearest friend of mine, Rajesh Pilot, who was, I think by any standards, the most remarkable politician that I have known in my generation or generation just ahead of me. And therefore, whatever I say must not be seen simply as being critical of what he has done, but be seen as supportive and an attempt to try and understand why he’s doing what he’s doing.

I think that he is much, much more than what an ordinary politician seeking high office and being ambitious is. Sachin has time on his side. He’s got many things to go with him and therefore doing what he’s doing may in fact cost not just the Congress but cost him a very valuable career this is my sense deep in my heart and I wish I could speak to him. I wish I could make him understand. But unfortunately, you know, it seems the dice has been rolled. There are people that he feels he can’t let down. There are people who are encouraging him to do what they are encouraging him to do. I just hope that some sense prevails.

We don’t have many people left in our party today who could speak in such situations on the quiet to people and get them to calm down. Mr Ahmed Patel was one such person. He’s not there today. Mr Ahmed Patel who had lines open to anybody and everybody particularly late at night that he could speak to anyone, he’s not there today. So who can do this job? But I, from what I know and I understand, Mr Kharge will attend to Rajasthan as a first priority when he gets back from Karnataka having settled the government in. That will be his first priority and I hope that he can work some magic.

SB: But you mentioned that it will not only cost him [Pilot] but it will cost the Congress and that would be a shame after what you have done in Karnataka.

SK: Well, I know and I think we’ve done well in Rajasthan. You know, if we had performed badly in Rajasthan, [but] we’ve performed well in Rajasthan. Mr Ashok Gehlot has done a wonderful job. On any standard, on any standard, he should be back with a thumping majority. But you know, a divided house is a problem. And if it remains a divided house for too long, then you lose the momentum and then it’s very difficult to regain the momentum. I think Mr Ashok Gehlot is not just twiddling his thumbs, he is working around to see what he can do to overcome any disadvantages that may be caused by this disagreement. But I think he needs help, he needs help as far as our party is concerned. He needs help to put things right as quickly as possible. As I said, I am confident Mr Kharge is going to attend to this before he does anything else.

SB: Coming to the national level, do you think the Karnataka victory will boost the chances of opposition unity?

SK: Yes, you know, this opposition unity is a very fragile thing unfortunately. Anything that you might say favouring the situation vis-a-vis opposition unity might be seen as arrogance, might be seen as ‘oh it’s gone to the head again’ etc etc. If we hadn’t won Karnataka then if there would have been a write off for the Congress – it has got it has nothing left in it. But this special win that Karnataka gives to us should be recognised and I’m sure it will be recognised.

I can’t imagine that opposition leaders are not sensitive to these things. I think there’s some who have already taken remarkable steps forward and I put on record what I know, what Mr Nitish Kumar has done, what Tejashwi Yadav has done and then others are following suit. Some are a little more careful, a little more reluctant, careful but willing to come on board. It’s still a very amorphous idea. It’s still all about feeling good about each other, but then you have to get down to the drawing boards and then you have to sit down with figures and seats and number of people here and number of people there. So I think the less we speak of unity, except just brave and hope for it, the less we speak of analytical terms of the unity, the better we are all off.

SB: Yeah, but the common refrain, whatever the Congress does, is that the Congress is arrogant.

SK: I don’t want to take a chance at all. I don’t want to stand offish, I don’t want to stand to sound tough, harsh, overconfident, etc. Forget arrogance. We need to and then we’ve done some reaching out and I think nobody can complain. We’ve done some reaching out. Some more reaching out was done in the invitations that were given for the for the event this morning. So let us just say that we remain on a kind of an even balance scale so that we are not too short of showing enthusiasm and not too far showing excessive confidence, etc., that will put off someone.

But I think it’s the good of everybody. We may be the biggest losers in this game, if it doesn’t happen. But you know that we will not be the only ones to lose. And the country loses most of all. So I think we all know our responsibility and what we need to do with our demeanour, with our conduct, with our enthusiasm, with our outreach, with our sacrifice. I think the sacrifice is also an important element in unity. I think all that we should work on.

SB: It’s really a strange thing what you’re saying because I mean it’s not surprising but it’s strange because the Congress finds itself in a bind about taking steps forward.

 SK: Well let’s not call it a bind, let’s call it a genuine feeling from the heart that there is something that needs to happen and that something that needs to happen will happen only if we’re all together. We’re all together. Now in being all together there is a huge amount of give and take. They can’t just be for Congress or for any other party, let’s take and run, let’s take and go. It has to be give and take. Now how much can any one of us afford to give and how much of everyone should be able to get in order to make the glue stick together? These are questions that over the next few weeks will become obvious and perhaps we will find answers to that.

 SB: Let us assume that good solid opposition unity takes place. Quite a few parties come on board. Who leads it, who is where, doesn’t matter. Let’s have an imaginary kind of opposition unity for the time being. Do you think that this united front, to call it that, now I think all the names have been taken all these years, so I just have to go with United Front. Can it shake the BJP, perhaps defeat it? 

SK: One shouldn’t sound overconfident, but I think the mathematics is very clear that if we come together, not just holding hands on stage, but actually come together in terms of impact at the ground level. If we come together, I think mathematically we are we are going to win. Mathematically we are going to win. It’s next to impossible for the BJP to come back in a majority. This is my feeling and therefore I think this is a historical opportunity that we can’t miss. It may not come again, not in a hurry, it may not come again. But too much might have changed if it comes again by the time it comes again and then to reverse that process might become very very difficult.

So I think mathematically it’s certainly possible but alliances are not about mathematics alone, I know that. Last time we had an alliance in UP, it didn’t work and you know nobody ever analysed it as to why it didn’t work. We have some sense of why it didn’t work between Akhilesh Yadav and Congress assembly elections but as I was going to say mathematics and chemistry are both important for an alliance and you have to keep that in mind. Somebody might throw in physics as well but chemistry and mathematics are…

SB: Yes it is all that because already it’s too early, but already some parties are saying, but if the Congress behaves in this fashion if it withdraws attacks on me – I’m referring to Ms Mamata Banerjee – if it withdraws on me then we can consider which I think is a step forward from what she’s been saying and some like DMK are quite ready to join. Some like Aam Aadmi Party or even Mr Sharad Pawar have not yet revealed what they have in mind. So it’s going to be a long this, but a year can go either way. And you know, Salman, the opposition does not have the media, the money on its side. So it’s not going to be as easy as some people make it out to be.

SK: No, it’s not easy at all. It’s not easy at all. I mean, we get the alliance. We still have to work very hard. All of us will have to work very hard. But, you know, I’m quite confident the media in this country is not blind. When things begin to happen, when things begin to happen, the media will change. The media will change. The media changed the day the exit polls that come on Karnataka. Media change considerably and media will continue to change. I can’t see a massive barrage of attacks on the new government Karnataka simply because the media still hasn’t decided that I’m willing to favour the Congress, etc. I think the media will also change. Media may have some difficulty, maybe under certain pressures, may have certain compulsions, certain commitments. But I think there’s enough in the media that indicates that you get on with your job, do a good job, and we’ll be there. We won’t look away. We will be there.

But obviously, each one will have to take steps carefully. You take your steps carefully. We will take our steps carefully. It doesn’t help to run down the media constantly. I believe some of our friends do run down the media constantly. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think we should give up on the media. It’s like having a family. If you’re born in a particular family, you have to live with that family. It’s not like having neighbours that you could choose not to have by shifting to some other place. So, the media is part of Indian democracy and we should treat it as part of Indian democracy. Both the good sides and the not so good sides.

SB: So this is where the external affairs minister comes in full of diplomacy.

SK: Of course, if you like. I believe diplomacy in life goes far beyond diplomacy between nations. I mean, since you’ve touched on diplomacy, I think we are making a very poor presentation of ourselves as a diplomatically sensitive country. We have some points that we need to make around the world which we do and people may celebrate that we speak so clearly and we speak a tough language but that’s not diplomacy. What you have to do is to achieve something that you want done, not come home by saying, I said the words that I had to say to that person. That’s not diplomacy. Diplomacy is come back with all the things that you want to bring back home. I don’t think we are doing that.

SB: You’ve seen the inner workings of the ministry, though that was some time ago. You know how diplomacy works. It’s subtle. It’s nuanced. Under Dr Manmohan Singh, things had changed with China. So, do you follow it and does it pain you to see where we have reached?

SK: I feel deep regret. I feel deep regret that we are exchanging blows and we are exchanging harsh words with China. They are our neighbour and they never, never, never cease to be our neighbour. And I think we decided long ago when Mr Rajiv Gandhi went to China after a major break of relations with China and he went and shook hands – the famous handshake with the Chinese president. That was a thought out, it was not just off the cuff remark or just an impromptu action. That was a thought-out, far-reaching, well-thought-out point of view that we have to learn to live with China.

It doesn’t mean that you surrender to China, that you become a doormat to China. But when we have to learn to live with China, when you want to learn to live with China, you have to understand how the Chinese function, how they behave, what is at the foremost of their mind, just as we expect China to be doing to us. But that’s not what’s happening today. That’s not what’s happening today. We are telling China to get off somewhere and we are telling China that, you know, we walk as tall as them, etc. We should walk as tall as them, but we don’t have to say we walk as tall as you and then have them tell us, we’ll tell you what your height is, etc. That’s not diplomacy.

What have we achieved? We’ve achieved nothing, we’ve achieved absolutely nothing with China in the last five years or six years. Snd swinging on a swing in some way in Gujarat is not diplomacy. It can be part of diplomacy but it’s not entirely diplomacy. It’s maybe necessary but it’s certainly not sufficient.

SB: And then losing a thousand square kilometres.

SK: Absolutely, and then pretending that you haven’t lost. Right? Who are you serving by saying, no, Chinese never came on to our territory? I mean, are you saying that we went to their territory and got slaughtered? But if we are saying that Chinese have martyred our soldiers, and our soldiers have served this country, and that we owe, if nothing, we owe gratitude to them by saying that look we will not allow this to happen again. But we will not allow this to happen again. It’s not only by getting greater number of divisions on the line of control, but it’s also by using diplomacy. I mean, diplomacy is not a supplement to physical force. Physical force comes in where diplomacy fails. You have to avoid physical force as far as possible by being successful in diplomacy. If we don’t know this, then I’m sorry we don’t know anything at all.

SB: So my last question is, coming back to domestic politics, are you hopeful about 2024?

SK: I’m very hopeful. I’m very hopeful about 2024. And I tell you sincerely, the hope that I have for 2024 and the vision that I can see of India, of 2024. I just have a little wish. My wish is that somewhere, somewhere in that vision of 2024, I could tuck UP in somewhere. That UP will also have a role. And when I say UP will have a role, the Congress and UP will also have a role in that larger picture of 2024. We don’t want the entire canvas, because we never will get the entire canvas, but just a few square inches of that large canvas, if we can tuck ourselves in, I would think that, at least for the present, we are in a play that’s meaningful, and that we have a role to fulfil, a meaningful role.

SB: Well as you said 2024 is not that far away, it is a year away, but it’s not that far away because things start moving very very fast and we’ve got four elections coming up now. We’ll know soon enough – till then, let’s keep watching, Salman.

SK: Thank you very much. I’ll be happy to be back on your podcast.

SB: Yes, yes, welcome, welcome. That was Salman Khurshid, the well-known politician and lawyer and author and playwright. Hoping to bring your play to Bombay.

SK: We’ll certainly do so. Certainly, well now that winds are beginning to flow differently, we’ll certainly bring it to Bombay.

SB: And talking about the Congress victory in Karnataka and the hopes he has for the coming months and the next year’s election. Thank you, Salman. And we’ll be back once again next week with another guest on The Wire Talks. Till then, from me, Siddharth Bhatia and the rest of The Wire Talks team. Goodbye.

SK: Thank you. Bye bye.

Transcribed by Romita Handa.

Podcast: ‘The Next Elections Could be an Historic Opportunity to Defeat the BJP’

The Congress’s victory in Karnataka was due to both the impact of the Bharat Jodo Yatra and the local unit of the party, Congress leader Salman Khurshid tells Sidharth Bhatia.

The Congress victory in Karnataka shows that the propaganda against the party is all ‘bunkum’. The party’s performance was due to both the impact of the Bharat Jodo Yatra and the local unit of the party, says Congress leader Salman Khurshid to Sidharth Bhatia in this podcast discussion. “And we had a new president from that state, which helped.” Khurshid says he sees great enthusiasm in party workers everywhere.

Each state will have to be tackled differently and local issues will have to be addressed. In Rajasthan, where Sachin Pilot is rebelling against the chief minister Ashok Gehlot, Khurshid says, “I knew his father, one of the nicest men in politics. Sachin needs help.”

He says he is optimistic about 2024. “The next elections could be an historic opportunity to defeat the BJP. Mathematically it is possible, but we need chemistry too.”

Khurshid, who was also the minister of state for external affairs in the Narasimha Rao government, said he felt regret about the way Indian diplomacy was going. “We have to live with China, we have to learn how China thinks.” Sitting on a swing with President Xi Jinping is not diplomacy,” he says.

Watch | New Congress President Will Be ‘Lesser’ Leader to Rahul Gandhi: Salman Khurshid

In an interview with Karan Thapar, Salman Khurshid however refused to accept that though the new president will be the lesser leader to Rahul Gandhi that does not mean he will be “subordinate”.

Salman Khurshid, one of the most senior leaders of the Congress Party, has defined the future relationship between Rahul Gandhi and the new president of the Congress party as one between a bigger and lesser leader. Rahul Gandhi will be the bigger leader of the party, he says in an interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire. The new president, whoever it may be, will be the lesser leader.

Khurshid also refused to accept that Mallikarjun Kharge is the “favoured candidate” of the Gandhi family and dismissed all indications, signs and reports that suggest this is the case. He also seemed to agree with Kharge’s view that a consensus to choose the president would be better than the present election process although, he added, it’s now too late for a consensus.

In a 30-minute interview, Khurshid, a former foreign minister and law minister as well as a former general secretary of the Congress party and a present member of its Working Committee, was questioned at length about a range of issues connected with the forthcoming election for a new Congress president.

This includes the following: is Kharge the favourite candidate of the Gandhi family for whom, unofficially and perhaps surreptitiously, they are pulling strings in the background? Is it true that, as reported by the Indian Express, that Kharge only filed his nomination after receiving “Sonia Gandhi’s directions”? Is not the long line of senior Congress leaders who nominated Kharge and accompanied him to file his papers proof of the Gandhi family support? Is this not also established by the fact Kharge spoke to the media from within the premises of the party’s headquarters, unlike Shashi Tharoor who spoke from his home? Do not Kharge’s opening words to the media suggest he has the Gandhi family’s support when he said “Congress party ke aur se” I am filing my nomination? Does not the presence of two general secretaries at his home when he held a press conference on Sunday suggest he is the establishment candidate? Does not the fact that he accompanied Sonia Gandhi to Raj Ghat on Sunday suggest that an indication is being given to the party they should vote for him?

Another issue raised with Khurshid is whether it was right and proper for Kharge to suggest to Shashi Tharoor that a consensus would be better than an election. It’s quite clear that he was through this suggestion asking Tharoor to withdraw.

The interview also discussed the question, did the Gandhis mislead Shashi Tharoor when they assured him that they would not anoint a preferred candidate? It also raises the question has Tharoor been used by the Gandhis to create a façade of credibility for this election behind which their preferred candidate can be pushed through?

Finally, the interview discusses in detail the role Rahul Gandhi will play after a new president is elected. Salman Khurshid endorses a view expressed by P. Chidambaram that there’s a distinction between the president of the Congress party and the “leader of the Congress party”. It was in this part of the discussion that Salman Khurshid came up with the concept of a bigger and lesser leader of the Congress party. He clearly said that Rahul Gandhi would be the bigger leader. The new president, whoever he is, would be the lesser leader. However, in making this distinction, Khurshid refused to accept this means the new president will be “subordinate” to Rahul Gandhi.

Towards the end of the interview, Khurshid said that the Gandhis are and will remain all powerful and the most important people in Congress. This, he said, is a fact of life. However, he also added that the new president would evolve a relationship with the Gandhis and over a period of time that could determine or change how important and powerful the Gandhis are.

Uttarakhand HC Acquits Two Accused of Vandalism, Arson at Salman Khurshid’s House

Khurshid’s house had been attacked days after it came to be known that his book drew parallels between Hindutva groups and terrorist organisations, drawing the ire of the BJP and Hindu fundamentalist groups.

Nainital: The Uttarakhand high court has acquitted the two main accused in the November 2021 case of vandalism and arson at the house of senior Congress leader and former Union minister Salman Khurshid.

Kundan Chilwal and Rakesh Kapil were acquitted of the charges by senior Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra on Thursday on the basis of a letter of settlement produced by the caretaker of Khurshid’s property, who was also the complainant in the matter.

On November 15, 2021, arson, vandalism and firing were reported at Khurshid’s house in village Puda in Mukteshwar, causing damage to the property.

On the complaint of the caretaker of the house Sundar Ram, the police had registered a case against Chilwal and Kapil.

Earlier, the court had stayed their arrest.

On Thursday, an agreement was presented before the court on behalf of Chilwal, Kapil and caretaker Sundar Ram. Based on this, the court disposed of the case.

The agreement states that these people were not involved in the incident which was carried out due to political reasons.

Khurshid’s house had been attacked days after it came to be known that his book Sunrise Over Ayodhya: Nationhood In Our Times drew parallels between Hindutva groups and terrorist organisations, such as Boko Haram and ISIS, drawing the ire of the BJP and Hindu fundamentalist groups.

While accusing Khurshid of “hurting Hindu sentiments”, the BJP said that Congress was resorting to “communal politics” to garner Muslim votes.

(With PTI inputs)