Why a Hindu festival in India became a political controversy
State Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath held a special session in Prayagraj on January 22, after which his cabinet colleagues took a holy dip, sparking a war of words with Akhilesh Yadav, leader of the opposition Samajwadi party, who accused him of drawing political mileage by garnering attention.
The row comes months after the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) suffered unexpected reversals in the politically important state in the parliamentary elections last year, despite the state's core base of majority-Hindu voters. The BJP and its allies got 36 seats while the opposition INDIA alliance won 43, including 37 by Samajwadi.
Analysts say the move by Adityanath at the Maha Kumbh Mela – held every 12 years – and the subsequent bathing ritual may have only yielded mixed political dividends, though he might have succeeded in winning over some voters as he is also revered as a Hindu priest.
'The Kumbh Mela is being used as an opportunity for outreach, especially to build ties with sections of society who did not vote for the BJP,' said Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, an independent political commentator. 'It is a very disturbing convergence [of] state and religion.'
Holding a meeting of a constitutional body like the state cabinet at the religious site and then taking a ritual bath 'for purification of sins' amounted to official patronage of what should be a personal act of devotion, he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
5 days ago
- AllAfrica
Missiles and mandates: Will Indian democracy fuel nuclear war?
In the spring of 2025, just months before India's Lok Sabha elections, a thundering announcement gripped Indian television screens: the Indian Air Force had carried out a precision airstrike on 'terror infrastructure' in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Dubbed Operation Sindoor, the strike echoed the 2019 Balakot operation—another militarized maneuver that boosted Prime Minister Narendra Modi's approval ratings and helped the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ride a nationalist wave to electoral victory. It worked again. But while India celebrated and media studios erupted in triumphalism, the region edged perilously closer to catastrophe. Pakistan scrambled jets in response, mobilized forces along the Line of Control (LoC), and warned of 'unpredictable retaliation.' For days, the region held its breath. Though a full-scale war with nuclear weapons was avoided, Operation Sindoor marked a dangerous precedent: that military action could be weaponized as electoral strategy—and that nuclear-armed states are willing to play chicken with apocalypse. That precedent looms larger than ever as India enters a new general election season. Faced with mounting economic distress, rising unemployment, deepening social polarization and signs of voter fatigue with the BJP, Modi's political calculus appears worryingly familiar. He has shown time and again a readiness to manufacture external confrontation to consolidate domestic support. The question is not whether Modi can launch another strike like Sindoor. It is whether, amid a vastly more complex and dangerous strategic landscape, South Asia can survive the next one. Since 2019, both India and Pakistan have accelerated their missile development programs. India now fields an array of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, from the short-range Prithvi to the long-range Agni-V, capable of striking targets over 5,000 kilometers away. The development of Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) allows a single Indian missile to carry multiple nuclear warheads aimed at different targets—an escalation that dramatically shortens response time for adversaries. Pakistan, for its part, has pursued a different but equally lethal doctrine: tactical nuclear weapons. Its Nasr missile, a short-range battlefield nuke, is designed to counter Indian conventional superiority and deter incursions like Operation Sindoor. In military terms, this is known as 'full-spectrum deterrence.' In political terms, it's a neon warning sign: the next skirmish may not stay conventional. Complicating matters further is the modernization of delivery systems. Both countries now possess sea-based nuclear platforms—submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles—adding a second-strike capability that further erodes once-clear nuclear thresholds. Satellites, drones and advanced radar systems mean that even small troop movements can be misinterpreted as preparation for preemptive attack. In such a hyper-militarized environment, any attempt to recreate a Sindoor-style 'surgical strike' risks triggering a catastrophic miscalculation. Modi's electoral strategy hinges on majoritarian nationalism. The demonization of Muslims, the tightening grip on Kashmir and the portrayal of Pakistan as a perennial enemy are not accidental—they are deliberate tactics to energize the BJP's core Hindu nationalist base. But in the nuclear age, such electoral theater is not just dangerous—it's delusional. During Operation Sindoor, senior BJP leaders made casual references to India's nuclear 'capability.' Modi himself, in a speech, mocked the idea of 'keeping our nukes for Diwali.' The line drew applause, but it also revealed a chilling truth: nuclear posturing has been domesticated into populist rhetoric. What should be tools of ultimate deterrence have been reduced to applause lines at campaign rallies. Meanwhile, Pakistan's military, though reeling from internal political crises, has made clear that another Indian strike—even if limited—will be met with a 'massive and disproportionate' response. Unlike in 2019 or 2025, Pakistan's red lines are fuzzier, its patience thinner and its doctrine more aggressive. The likelihood that the next misadventure could spiral into full-blown nuclear war is no longer hypothetical. The international community's response to Modi's militarism has been muted at best, complicit at worst. The United States, Europe and even Japan have eagerly courted India as a bulwark against China, often overlooking its democratic backsliding, suppression of dissent and increasingly reckless foreign policy. The result is strategic myopia. The stakes will grow higher as India enters a new election season. To be sure, a conflict in South Asia would not be limited to the subcontinent. The Arabian Sea—critical for global oil trade—would be immediately affected. China, which has strategic investments in Pakistan through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a multi-billion-dollar initiative under the Belt and Road scheme, would be compelled to respond. Obviously, an even limited nuclear exchange would have devastating global consequences. Extreme scenario estimates suggest that a regional nuclear war involving 100 warheads—less than half the combined arsenal of India and Pakistan—could cause over 20 million immediate deaths and a nuclear winter that disrupts global agriculture for a decade. This is not a call to absolve Pakistan of its transgressions. It, too, has played dangerous games in the region and must be held accountable for harboring militant networks. But in this moment, it is India's democracy—its voters, its media, its civil society—that bears the heavier burden. The world must demand more from the world's largest democracy. Indian voters must question why their sons and daughters are being sent to war to win elections. Indian journalists must challenge the state's jingoism rather than amplify it. And Indian institutions—however beleaguered—must resist being turned into instruments of war propaganda. Modi may once again find war tempting in the runup to crucial elections. But whether South Asia walks into the fire—or finally learns to resist its own worst instincts—depends not on missiles or military might, but on the courage to choose peace over populism. Because in a nuclear South Asia, there is no longer such thing as a 'limited' misadventure. Advocate Mazhar Siddique Khan is a Lahore-based High Court lawyer. He can be contacted at mazharsiddiquekhan@ .
South China Morning Post
21-07-2025
- South China Morning Post
Japan's ruling LDP loses majority in upper house elections, Ishiba to continue as PM
Read more here: Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's ruling coalition failed to secure a majority in the 248-seat upper house in a parliamentary election on July 20, 2025. Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner Komeito needed to win 50 seats on top of the 75 seats they already have, to reach that goal. However, the coalition won only 46 seats. While the ballot does not directly determine whether Ishiba's shaky minority government falls, it heaps pressure on the embattled leader who also lost control of the more-powerful lower house in October.
AllAfrica
17-07-2025
- AllAfrica
Modi, media and middle class: the unholy trinity failing India
'The pride of the nation is cheapest pride,' German Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once said. Indeed, people often attach personal pride to external notions like nation, religion, race or caste in order to feel worthy when in actuality they lack genuine accomplishments or talents. Being born in a group is enough to feel proud, as it requires no effort. For this reason, Schopenhauer considered national pride the cheapest of all pride. False pride blinds people to their own flaws. Fear of questioning their nation, religion or culture replaces genuine self-worth with illusion, weakening them from within. Over time, genuine self-worth is replaced by this false pride. History is littered with examples where borrowed or symbolic pride without real achievements led to decline or crisis. The Ottoman Empire, Soviet Union, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany all fell apart after clinging to past glories, nationalism or ideology while disregarding economic decline, corruption and dissent. Pakistan pursued a similar path, prioritizing religious identity (Islam) over progress. The nation's pride was focused on religious faith rather than on prosperity or progress, and opposition was branded as un-Islamic. Today, it faces economic collapse, IMF dependency and internal unrest, despite claims of moral superiority. India now shows similar warning signs: rising Hindu nationalism, imagined cultural supremacy and RSS dreams of Vishwaguru (global teacher) status driven by Modi, the media and the middle class. Narendra Modi's rise to power in India was not accidental; it was carefully crafted through myth, media and mass psychology. His '56-inch chest' boast was not just a comment on masculinity; it was political theater, a declaration that strength, not substance, would define India's future leadership. But leading a diverse nation of 1.4 billion with multiple ethnicities is the job not of a strongman but of a strategist. Modi's rise marked the decline of institutional credibility. The Planning Commission was scrapped, critics became anti-nationals and the judiciary suffered from increasing executive overreach. Over time, the messiah became the message, overshadowing institutions like Parliament, the judiciary and the press. In the V-Dem Democracy Report 2024, India was ranked as an 'electoral autocracy.' Over 10,000 people were arrested under sedition laws in one district in 2019. Modi, like many charismatic leaders in history, from Mussolini to Peron, found his greatest weapon not in governance but in narrative control. And this is where the second 'M' becomes crucial. Real journalism challenges power; India's news media now promote it. Between 2014 and 2022, Modi's BJP government spent over 6,491 crore ( approximately US$800 million ) on publicity, turning the press into a propaganda tool. Once the conscience of democracy, India's media have become a mouthpiece for state propaganda driven by nationalism and communalism. By 2022, India ranked among the lowest globally in public trust in news. Below is the 2022 world press freedom index from Reporters Without Borders: Today's generation is fed propaganda and lies while real issues like 12,000+ farmer suicides (2021), 7.8% unemployment (2024) and squashed minority rights are ignored or rebranded through the lens of nationalism. In a world ruled by spectacle, substance becomes secondary. The third M, meanwhile, delivers the final blow. Perhaps the most tragic pillar of this triad is the Indian middle class – once the torchbearers of liberal aspiration, now the passive enablers of illiberal regression. They are the beneficiaries of 1990s liberalization that lifted some 270 million Indians out of poverty between 1991 and 2011. No group turned on Manmohan Singh faster than the very class he helped create. It is a cruel irony that a class built on policy turned to populism for deliverance. Members of that class once mocked Singh – the very architect who changed their lives – as the 'accidental prime minister' or the 'silent PM.' Today, the middle class pays the price. From paying the highest effective personal tax rates without enjoying basic public goods to watching institutions crumble while fearing to speak out, the Indian middle class is discovering that you can't eat GDP figures for dinner or buy safety with slogans. Once the face of moral outrage, whether in the 2012 Nirbhaya protests or 2011 anti-corruption marches, today it remains silent as train mishaps, stampedes and airline crashes occur. The hypocrisy is blatant. The Indian middle class, once a force for reform, has grown comfortable in its apathy as members' national pride gets in the way. Their silence is not neutral; it is tacit approval of the status quo. Throughout history a polarizing leader, loyal media and a compliant middle class have often formed an 'unholy trinity' that leads to the downfall or collapse of the nation. In India, this triangle — Modi, media, and the middle class — is not destiny. But, left unchecked on the current trajectory, it could lead to the collapse of the nation. Modi, who personified power; the media, which sold their soul; and the middle class, which traded its principles for comfort. History has seen this triangle before. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Benito Mussolini and Chile under Augusto Pinochet are prime examples backed by a silent middle class and loud propaganda media. Rome didn't fall because of one emperor; it collapsed because its people stopped defending the Republic.
