Editorials: 23-July-2025

 

The Hindu Editorials

Different directions: On the AIADMK and the BJP

The AIADMK and the BJP are taking conflicting positions on power-sharing

July 23, 2025

Three months after their uneasy revival of electoral ties, the AIADMK and the BJP are yet to find common ground on the nature of government that would be formed in Tamil Nadu were the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) to win next year’s Assembly elections. Union Home Minister and the BJP’s principal electoral strategist, Amit Shah, had unilaterally (1) declared in April that a “coalition government” would be formed — a stance that he has reiterated (2) multiple times — and that the BJP will be a part of such an arrangement. However, the AIADMK leader, Edappadi K. Palaniswami, who passively watched Mr. Shah make the announcement, has yet to endorse (3) the idea. He has maintained that the AIADMK would secure an absolute (4) majority on its own. In an interview with The Hindu, he has argued that the people of Tamil Nadu are averse (5) to coalition governments and that the AIADMK would meet their expectations for single-party rule. Just days ago, he had declared, “we are not naive (6)” to share power. He has clarified that the remark was made in response to the DMK’s “orchestrated (7) campaign” that portrays the BJP as intent on “swallowing” up the AIADMK. He has also insisted that efforts to create discord (8) between the BJP and the AIADMK would fail and that the alliance remains “cent per cent” intact.

Historically, Tamil Nadu, unlike the other southern States, has never had a coalition government. The DMK and the AIADMK have relied on allies for vote transfers and electoral victories but have avoided sharing power. In a State where regional parties have effectively curtailed (9) the influence of national parties, voters remain wary of any perceived attempts by national parties to dominate regional parties. Against this backdrop, Mr. Palaniswami’s reluctance to endorse power-sharing ahead of the polls is understandable — there is no guarantee that he will maintain this stance later. He has also sent mixed signals. On one occasion, he did not directly rule out parting ways with the BJP were a more electorally viable ally — such as actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam — to emerge. But he knows that he cannot dictate (10) terms to the BJP, whose backing for his leadership cannot be taken for granted. Mr. Shah has subtly reflected this uncertainty by shifting his phrasing — from saying that the NDA would fight the election under Mr. Palaniswami’s leadership to describing it as under the “AIADMK’s leadership”. Regardless of these evolving political dynamics, effective coordination between the cadres of both parties — essential for voter outreach — cannot be achieved when the leadership appears to be pulling in different directions. It is a recipe for confusion and chaos.

Agony of exit: On the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar

Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation as Vice-President is a setback (1) for parliamentary democracy

The abrupt (2) decision by Jagdeep Dhankhar to resign as the Vice-President of India raises several questions about the relationship between the executive and Parliament. Also in focus are the dynamics (3) within the ruling BJP. The Vice-President is also the chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Mr. Dhankhar is the first Vice-President in the history of the Republic to resign this way — some of his predecessors who resigned before completing their term had the reason of moving on to get elected as the President of India. While his resignation letter cites health reasons, it is clear that his decision was driven by other factors which remain speculative (4) at this point. What is evident is that some of the developments on Monday had snowballed (5) into a situation in which Mr. Dhankhar found exit to be the only viable (6) path. He was active in his duties as the Chair, on the first day of the monsoon session of Parliament, and his office had also announced his public engagements for the week. After a health incident earlier this year, Mr. Dhankhar had returned to active public life, but nothing that had happened on Monday (July 21, 2025) necessitated (7) a health-related decision. However, his decisions and statements on Monday citing parliamentary rules were in conflict with the script that the government had prepared for the removal of a Delhi High Court judge on charges of alleged corruption. His relationship with the executive had been souring (8) for a while, but his position on judicial accountability, and the relative roles of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha in seeking it, turned out to be an inflection point (9), as it appears.

Mr. Dhankhar’s conduct as Chair of the Rajya Sabha during the last three years has been controversial. His partisan (10) approach led to a motion for his removal by the Opposition, another first in parliamentary history. He questioned the inclusion of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Constitution, publicly aligning with the RSS’s call for a debate on them. He has been a champion of parliamentary supremacy in the context of judicial independence and vocal about corruption in the judiciary. While seeking to uphold the supremacy of Parliament and to draw a line of acceptable conduct for the judiciary, he entertained an Opposition move to impeach Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court who had made communally charged remarks in public. Mr. Dhankhar acknowledged receiving a motion signed by over 50 MPs for Justice Yadav’s removal and said he was verifying their signatures. He had also accepted an Opposition motion for the removal of the Delhi judge. Mr. Dhankhar had few options other than what he did, going by the rules. But that put him on a collision course with the government. His resignation weakens India’s parliamentary democracy.

Enrol in our free Hindu Vocabulary course and get daily, weekly, and monthly PDFs to boost your language skills! – Click here

Latest Posts:

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *