Nexus between bureaucrats and politicians root cause of unrest in society: Former IGP Gopal Hosur
At the heart of any sustainable solution is good governance — one that is inclusive, transparent, just and not vindictive. Governance must rise above political expediency and resist exploiting social divisions for short-term gains. Instead, it should invest in long-term social cohesion, said former IGP Gopal B Hosur.
In an interaction with TNIE, he talked about coastal Karnataka, his experience working there, reasons for communal clashes and solutions too. He highlighted that governments have a tendency to withdraw cases, especially related to communal violence, saying it should not be done and the courts should decide these cases.
You were posted in coastal Karnataka. What was your experience?
Coastal Karnataka is unlike any other region in its geography, culture and especially its communal dynamics. When I was posted as Inspector General of Police for the Western Range nearly 15–16 years ago, I had never worked in the area before, but was aware of the tensions there. The region was tense with communal clashes, attacks and stabbings.
Despite its tensions, coastal Karnataka amazed me. It's one of the most vibrant and organised regions — Hindus, Muslims and Christians alike. Every festival or event is run better than most government functions — be it a temple fair, mosque celebration or church gathering. The people are highly enterprising and tech-savvy. However, there are deep divides, especially after the Babri Masjid incident, but the region also has immense potential — socially, economically and culturally.
Do you think the interference of politics in bureaucracy is the main cause of communal disharmony? Has it increased over the years?
If politics enters the administration system, it will lead to 'communal politics' which propagates violence. All parties are equally culpable. I place more blame on the bureaucracy than on the political establishment. Why don't even a few bureaucrats come together and say, 'We will uphold the rule of law'?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Congress expels Digvijaya's brother, ex-MP Laxman after post-Pahalgam remarks
Bhopal: The Congress on Wednesday expelled former Madhya Pradesh MLA Laxman Singh from primary membership of the party for six years for 'anti-party activities'. A five-time member of Parliament (MP) and a three-time MLA, Laxman Singh is the younger brother of senior Congress leader and former Madhya Pradesh chief minister Digvijaya Singh. After the Pahalgam terror attack, he had targeted leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Robert Vadra and Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah during a protest against terrorism in Raghogarh, Guna on April 24. Laxman Singh had said, 'Omar Abdullah is involved with terrorists, Congress should immediately withdraw its support to him in Jammu and Kashmir.' He also attacked Robert Vadra, saying, 'The statement of Rahul Gandhi's brother-in-law says that Muslims are not allowed to offer namaaz on the road, so the terrorists attacked. How long will we tolerate his childish statements? Rahul Gandhi should also speak very thoughtfully. Such incidents are happening due to his foolishness.' Laxman Singh had also said, 'I was saying this in front of the camera, if Congress wants to expel me then they should do so.' 'Congress president has expelled Laxman Singh, former MLA, Madhya Pradesh, from the primary membership of the Indian National Congress for a period of six years with immediate effect due to his anti-party activities,' Tariq Anwar, member secretary of the Congress' Disciplinary Action Committee, said in a statement. The statement did not elaborate based on what 'anti-party activities' it had acted against Singh. The state Congress had made a recommendation to the party leadership for initiating action against him for his alleged anti-party activities and the matter was sent to the Disciplinary Action Committee. Congress media in-charge Mukesh Nayak said, 'Laxman Singh's expulsion is a big message that discipline is for everyone in the party. His primary membership has also been cancelled. Many times Laxman Singh has made statements that made the party uncomfortable.' Meanwhile, BJP spokesperson Hitesh Bajpai said, 'Laxman Singh was speaking the truth, he was trying to bring Congress on the right path but, Congress likes arrogant people. Congress is captured by such people who want to run it like a company. Laxman Singh did a brave job. He should continue doing that.' On the question of joining BJP, he said that, it is his personal matter, BJP has nothing to do with it.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Congress expels Digvijaya Singh's brother for 6 years over 'derogatory' remarks against Rahul Gandhi, Robert Vadra
The Congress expelled Madhya Pradesh leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Laxman Singh for six years on 11 June for making 'derogatory' remarks against Rahul Gandhi and Robert Vadra. Singh is the brother of senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament Digvijaya Singh. According to a press statement by the Congress party, Singh has been expelled "with immediate effect" from the party due to his 'anti-party' activities. The All India Congress Committee's (AICC) disciplinary committee recommended that Laxman Singh be expelled for his 'repeated public statements against the leadership.' Singh has been expelled "with immediate effect" from the Congress party due to his 'anti-party' activities, according to a press statement by the party. Laxman Singh, 70, is a five-term Lok Sabha Member of Parliament and a three-term Member of the Legislative Assembly. Laxman Singh was thrice elected to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly: from 1990 to 1992, 1993 to 1994, and in 2018. In 1994, Singh was elected to the 10th Lok Sabha in a by-election. He won the second term in the 11th Lok Sabha in the 1996 Parliamentary election and was elected to the 12th Lok Sabha in the 1998 general elections and in bypolls in 1999. He always won these terms from Rajgarh Lok Sabha constituency as a Congress candidate. Singh, however, switched sides and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and was elected to the 14th Lok Sabha (2004-2009) from Rajgarh seat again. But he lost the election for the 15th Lok Sabha, when Congress defeated BJP in Rajgarh constituency. Laxman returned to the Congress in January 2013. The Congress had issued a show-cause notice to Singh, saying his "derogatory" remarks targeting senior party leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, have "crossed all acceptable limits". It said his remarks have caused "serious damage" to the party's "image and dignity". Singh triggered a row on 25 April when he dubbed Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra's businessman husband, Robert Vadra, 'naive', claiming that the country is 'suffering the consequences of their immaturity.' Days after the 22 April Pahalgam terror attack, Laxman had lashed out at the remarks by Robert Vadra who said that the terrorists gave a message to Prime Minister Narendra Modi that 'Muslims are feeling weakened' in India. Laxman said Vadra's statement 'poses a threat to the security of the country". 'Robert Vadra's statement that the terrorists attacked because they did not allow Muslims to offer namaz on the road is not only irresponsible but also a statement that poses a threat to the security of the country. I am saying all this in front of the camera, so that no one is confused. Congress should think 10 times before speaking, otherwise the public will answer in the elections," Laxman had said. The notice was issued to Laxman Singh on 9 May by the party's Disciplinary Action Committee (DAC) member secretary Tariq Anwar. "This is to bring to your notice that a complaint has been received from MP Congress chief Jitu Patwari and AICC general secretary in-charge for MP Harish Chaudhary regarding your repeated public statements that have caused serious damage to the image and dignity of the Congress," it read.
NDTV
4 hours ago
- NDTV
No, India Is Not Israel, And Pak Is Not Palestine
In the immediate aftermath of the April 2022 Pahalgam terror attack - where Indian civilians were targeted in a region long destabilised by cross-border militancy - an old but deeply flawed analogy began circulating with renewed vigour: that India is becoming Israel, with Pakistan being touted as the new 'Palestine'. This comparison, invoked by a range of commentators from populist influencers to academic quarters, attempts to overlay the Middle Eastern fault lines onto South Asia. However, while superficially tempting, this analogy is strategically misleading, historically untrue, and morally hazardous. At its core, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a struggle between a militarily dominant state and a stateless people living under occupation. It is defined by asymmetric power, a denial of sovereignty, and ongoing territorial annexation. India and Pakistan, by contrast, are both fully sovereign states that emerged from a negotiated partition of British India in 1947, each with their own internationally recognised borders and UN memberships. The bilateral conflict, especially over Kashmir, stems not from a denial of statehood but from unresolved territorial claims. Pakistan's continued insistence on linking Kashmir to Palestine flattens these distinctions and obfuscates the history of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism across Indian territory - from Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir to episodic destabilisation in India's Northeast. Equating Pakistani actions with Palestinian resistance also undermines the moral and strategic integrity of the Palestinian cause. It erases the fact that, unlike Palestinians under occupation, Pakistan has used its sovereign apparatus to sponsor and shelter groups involved in acts of terror. This deliberate state complicity - acknowledged even by global institutions - makes Pakistan an aggressor, not an aggrieved actor. Minorities, Democracy, and Statehood One of the more dangerous simplifications of the analogy lies in the misrepresentation of internal minority politics in both regions. It is true that India is facing criticism over recent communal tensions, polarised discourse, and policies perceived as marginalising Muslims. However, equating that with the condition of Palestinians under occupation ignores the difference between a flawed democracy and an apartheid state structure. In India, Muslims remain an electorally significant, constitutionally recognised group whose cultural, linguistic, and religious institutions are protected under law. Their political presence - though under strain - remains visible. From Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the country's first Education Minister, to Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, one of India's most beloved Presidents, the leadership and legacy of Indian Muslims is historically well-anchored. In contemporary times, figures like Asaduddin Owaisi, a staunch government critic, and Salman Khurshid, a senior Congress leader with no constitutional post, were both part of an all-party delegation sent abroad to brief international counterparts in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. Their inclusion, despite being politically oppositional, signals a rare bipartisan consensus on matters of national security. Contrast this with Pakistan, where Ahmadiyyas are constitutionally barred from calling themselves Muslims, and Shias are frequently targeted in sectarian violence. The state's own structures are often complicit in marginalising non-Sunni groups, with blasphemy laws regularly weaponised against minorities. These are not merely social biases but systemic exclusions - legally and politically embedded. Meanwhile, in Palestine, the question is not one of minority rights within a sovereign state but of basic human existence under foreign occupation. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live without freedom of movement, due legal process, or political autonomy. Lumping these distinct contexts together does violence to the nuance required to address each problem on its own terms. Terrorism, Occupation, and Policy India's security doctrine has consistently emphasised that its conflict is not with the people of Pakistan but with its military-intelligence apparatus and its use of terrorism as statecraft. From the insurgency in Kashmir and the Khalistani separatist movement in Punjab to arms flowing into the Northeast in the 1980s and 1990s, India's internal challenges have often traced back to external sponsorship. These were not acts of a stateless community demanding dignity but the result of a neighbour using irregular war to destabilise a regional adversary. Israel, by contrast, has often responded to Palestinian armed resistance with disproportionate force - demolishing homes, bombing refugee camps, and applying collective punishment policies. These actions have generated global concern about human rights violations, and rightly so. However, attempts to map these punitive actions onto India's counter-terror operations obscure the scale, nature, and intent of both countries' military strategies. What makes the analogy particularly hollow is India's long-standing commitment to the Palestinian cause. Even under the Modi government, which has expanded strategic ties with Israel, India has repeatedly reaffirmed its support for a two-state solution and spoken against occupation at UN fora. Far from mimicking Israeli policy, India has walked a diplomatic tightrope - deepening bilateral defence relations with Israel while maintaining principled solidarity with Palestine. Conflating these divergent positions is not only analytically lazy but diplomatically counterproductive. It risks damaging India's credibility in the Global South, especially at a time when New Delhi seeks to position itself as a mediator and developmental partner in multilateral spaces. More importantly, it insults the Palestinian struggle by associating it with Pakistan's agenda of using terrorism and religious nationalism as tools of foreign policy. Reject Lazy Analogies Both the Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan conflicts demand global attention. But attention should not mean abstraction. The occupation of Palestine is a human rights crisis rooted in land, displacement, and statelessness. The India-Pakistan dynamic, while also involving land and identity, is situated in a very different matrix: of two sovereign nations, one of which has routinely used terrorism to internationalise what is essentially a bilateral issue. Sympathy for the Palestinian cause should not be hijacked to justify flawed analogies that exonerate state complicity in South Asia. Nor should India's legitimate counterterrorism operations be lumped with settler-colonial violence. Doing so only weakens both struggles - reducing history, diplomacy, and suffering to hashtags. In times of polarisation, strategic clarity is not just a virtue, it is a necessity. India is not Israel. Pakistan is not Palestine. And equating them does justice to neither the complexity of history nor the urgency of peace. (Ashraf Nehal is an author, analyst and columnist, who writes on South Asian geopolitics, climate action and world affairs. He was a former PM Young Writing Fellow)
