top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Inside the secret power struggle behind Dhankhar’s resignation

Mumbai: The cryptic silence surrounding the abrupt resignation of former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar in July was shattered on the floor of the Rajya Sabha this Monday, not by a government clarification, but by the visible anguish of the Opposition. While official records continue to attribute his departure to “health reasons,” highly placed sources in the power corridors of the capital have now confirmed that a fatal misunderstanding of the shifting power dynamics between the Rashtriya...

Inside the secret power struggle behind Dhankhar’s resignation

Mumbai: The cryptic silence surrounding the abrupt resignation of former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar in July was shattered on the floor of the Rajya Sabha this Monday, not by a government clarification, but by the visible anguish of the Opposition. While official records continue to attribute his departure to “health reasons,” highly placed sources in the power corridors of the capital have now confirmed that a fatal misunderstanding of the shifting power dynamics between the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) top brass was the true precipice from which the former Vice President fell. The revelations surfaced as the Winter Session of Parliament commenced on Monday, December 1, 2025. The solemnity of welcoming the new Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman, C.P. Radhakrishnan, was punctured by an emotional intervention from Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge. The veteran Congress leader, hands shaking and voice trembling, shed tears on the floor of the House—a rare display of vulnerability that underscored the Opposition’s grievance over what they term an “institutional surgical strike.” The Failed Mediation Exclusive details emerging from Delhi’s political circles paint a picture of a constitutional authority who misread the winds of change. Sources reveal that tensions between Dhankhar and the government had been simmering for months, primarily over his handling of key legislative agendas and a perceived “drift” towards accommodating Opposition demands in the Upper House. As the chasm widened, a lifeline was reportedly thrown. A senior leader from a prominent alliance partner within the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) — a figure with decades of parliamentary experience and respect across the aisle — had discreetly offered to mediate. This leader recognized the growing impatience in the BJP high command and sought to bridge the gap before it became unbridgeable. However, Dhankhar declined the immediate urgency of this political mediation. “He was confident in his equations with the ideological parent,” a source familiar with the developments stated. “He is close to some of the RSS top functionaries and relied on them to mediate when his equations with the BJP top brass started going astray.” This reliance on Nagpur to manage New Delhi proved to be a critical miscalculation. Sources indicate that Dhankhar believed his deep ties with the Sangh would act as a buffer, insulating him from the political maneuvering of the ruling party’s executive leadership. He reportedly waited for the “green signal” or intervention from RSS functionaries, delaying the necessary reconciliation with the party leadership. Cost of delay The delay in mending ways was fatal. By the time the former Vice President realized that the RSS would not—or could not—overrule the BJP’s strategic decision to replace him, the die had been cast. The drift had become a gulf. The instruction, when it finally came on that fateful July 21, was absolute - he had to vacate the office immediately. The “untimely sudden resignation” that followed was officially cloaked in medical terminology, but insiders describe a chaotic exit. The former VP, who had recently moved into the lavish new Vice-President’s Enclave, was forced to vacate the premises in haste, leaving behind a tenure marked by both assertive confrontations and, ironically, a final act of silent compliance. Tears in the Upper House The ghost of this departure loomed large over Monday’s proceedings. Welcoming the new Chairman, C.P. Radhakrishnan, Mallikarjun Kharge could not hold back his emotions. Breaking away from the customary pleasantries, Kharge launched into a poignant lament for the predecessor who was denied a farewell. “I am constrained to refer to your predecessor’s completely unexpected and sudden exit from the office of the Rajya Sabha Chairman, which is unprecedented in the annals of parliamentary history,” Kharge said, his voice heavy with emotion. As Treasury benches erupted in protest, shouting slogans to drown out the discomforting truth, Kharge continued, wiping tears from his eyes. “The Chairman, being the custodian of the entire House, belongs as much to the Opposition as to the government. I was disheartened that the House did not get an opportunity to bid him a farewell. Regardless, we wish him, on behalf of the entire Opposition, a very healthy life.” The sight of the Leader of the Opposition shedding tears for a presiding officer with whom he had frequently clashed was a striking paradox. It highlighted the Opposition’s narrative that Dhankhar’s removal was not just a personnel change, but an assertion of executive dominance over the legislature. New chapter with old scars The government, represented by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, sharply countered Kharge’s remarks, accusing the Opposition of shedding “crocodile tears” after having moved impeachment notices against Dhankhar in the past. “You are insulting the Chair by raising this now,” Rijiju argued amidst the din. Yet, outside the House, the whispers persisted. The narrative of a Vice President who waited for a call from Nagpur that came too late has firmly taken root. As C.P. Radhakrishnan takes the Chair, he does so not just as a new presiding officer, but as the successor to a man who learned the hard way that in the current dispensation, political alignment with the executive supersedes even the oldest of ideological ties.

The Narrative Building Around Religion

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

The Narrative Building Around Religion

Entertainment and sports are meant to be free from religious bias, as we’ve always believed in India. But it’s painful to see that certain narratives in films and sports still play into religious stereotypes. For example, a badge with the number 786 is portrayed as a protective symbol, while Hindu characters like a crooked Munimji or a temple priest are shown in a negative light. If sports truly have no religion, then why did the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, show more love to India, or why did players from other countries express support for the Indian community in tough times? Filmmakers often try to appease minorities, assuming the majority won’t object. This has been the trend for years, but when movies like the Kashmir Files or The Tashkent Files show a different side of the story, liberals quickly raise objections.

ree

Let me be clear: I’m against both kinds of narratives. Why bring religion into any story at all? If it’s fiction, don’t use it to push an agenda; if it’s based on real events, just tell the real story—nothing more, nothing less.

Take Netflix’s IC 814 series, which is an adaptation of the book Flight into Fear: The Captain’s Story by Captain Devi Sharan and Srinjoy Chowdhury. It’s based on the December 24, 1999, hijacking of an Indian aircraft by five terrorists, just 40 minutes after the plane took off from Kathmandu. The series, however, presents a half-truth. By the time this article is published, Netflix might have added a disclaimer with the real names of the hijackers to pacify the outrage. But why did this happen in the first place? Was it a PR stunt to gain attention? Why did the creators play the religion card, instead of following the principle that entertainment should be free of religion?

The series doesn’t discuss Pakistan’s role—why? If they briefly show Pakistan in a negative light, it seems like there could be a hidden agenda. The story focuses on Afghanistan and Kandahar while conveniently ignoring Pakistan’s involvement and the role of its intelligence agency, the ISI. Why?

The captured terrorist in the show talks about the brutality of Indian forces in Kashmir, but there’s no mention of what these people were doing in the valley. Why?

Respected actors like Naseeruddin Shah, Pankaj Kapur, and Kawaljeet Singh portray politicians and bureaucrats behaving childishly. Why? They were supposed to be on a mission, in a war-like situation, yet they’re shown gossiping about other departments. This portrayal could give the younger generation a wrong impression of how officials work—do you want to create such a reflection?

The pilot, who was unfairly criticized for things he didn’t do, doesn’t get a positive portrayal. Why? His wife reassures their children that the world will know the truth, but the series doesn’t clarify his side. Why?

The terrorists are shown as decent, not just in appearance but in behavior too.

Why? They’re seen playing Antakshari—really? But there’s no mention of how one of the terrorists asked passengers to convert to Islam (an incident documented in the public domain). Why?

The terrorists use fake names, with two of them called Bhola and Shankar, which could have easily been Engineer or Professor. Is this a PR strategy to demean Hindu names and get away with it?

The worst part of the Netflix series is how it tries to humanize the terrorists involved in the hijacking. They repeatedly say they don’t want to harm any passengers, but they killed innocent Rupin Katyal and slashed another passenger’s neck. Despite this, they’re shown as considerate enough to allow an air hostess to call home to check on her father.

The negotiations with the terrorists, which should have been serious and emotionally disturbing, are depicted comically, portraying the negotiator as incompetent.

Overall, the series has many loopholes, and the actors weren’t used effectively—any actor could have played these roles. However, the most problematic part

comes at the end, where the released terrorists are shown celebrating with Osama

Bin Laden. It’s suggested that Osama kept ISI away from the celebrations, implying

that ISI wasn’t involved in the hijacking and that it was all Osama’s idea. Why?

This could have been a great story if it had been told from an Indian perspective, rather than from another viewpoint.

(The writer is a communication professional. Views personal)

Comments

bottom of page