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 UK's New Asylum Framework: The Logic and Implications

Britain has unveiled its most far-reaching asylum reforms in decades, reshaping how the country grants refuge amid rising public frustration over immigration.

ree

The UK government has announced its most significant asylum reforms in decades, fundamentally reshaping how the country grants refuge amid growing public frustration over rising immigration, which has fuelled protests nationwide this year.


Before 2020, Britain’s net migration usually ranged between 200,000 and 300,000 a year, according to the ONS. But after Brexit took effect, the UK saw a marked rise in undocumented immigration, with net migration reaching 906,000 in the 12 months to June 2023.


Over 100,000 people now live in taxpayer-funded asylum accommodation, and many refugees remain unemployed for years after receiving protection. In 2024, UK asylum claims rose by 18 per cent, while across Europe they fell by 13 per cent.


The reforms introduce three major changes to Britain’s asylum system. First, refugee status will no longer be indefinite. Those granted protection will receive 30-month permits, regularly reviewed, and their status can be revoked—and removal pursued—if the Home Office deems their home country safe. This marks a clear break from the current five-year permits that lead to indefinite leave to remain.


Second, the path to British citizenship will stretch from five to twenty years, creating one of the longest settlement routes in any major asylum-receiving nation and requiring refugees to maintain their status through multiple review cycles.


Third, the government will end the statutory duty to provide asylum seeker support—housing and weekly allowances introduced under EU law in 2005—meaning accommodation and financial help will no longer be guaranteed for those awaiting decisions.


The appeals system will also be streamlined: one claim, one appeal, handled by a new independent body.


Why now?

The new policy is driven by public opinion, political pressure, and structural limits. Public concern about immigration has risen sharply across Europe, and in the UK it has become voters’ top issue—overtaking even the economy.


Politically, the government faces growing pressure: immigration dominates domestic debate, parties are internally divided, and competition from more restrictive actors is strong. The plan draws heavily on Denmark’s strict asylum model, seen as a politically successful example after Denmark’s centre-left government retained support despite tough measures.


There is also a structural constraint. Post-Brexit, the UK can no longer use the EU’s Dublin system to transfer asylum seekers to other states. This limits the ability to redirect secondary movements and pushes policymakers to focus on reducing domestic pull factors rather than relying on external processing.


European comparison

While the UK’s proposed asylum framework takes cues from Denmark’s strict model, approaches across Europe differ widely. Germany has long received large numbers of asylum applications and emphasises integration, though it too faces pressure to tighten controls. Sweden, once known for its liberal stance, has adopted more restrictive measures after years of high arrivals. Southern European countries—especially Spain, Italy, and Greece—act as primary entry points to the EU and struggle with the sheer volume of arrivals, prompting calls for more equitable burden-sharing.


Across the continent, the common thread is a tension between international legal obligations, public and political pressure to control borders, and the challenge of managing humanitarian flows—producing a fragmented and continually shifting policy landscape.


Top source

Over the past decade, most asylum seekers arriving in the UK have come from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh, and Syria. Among small boat arrivals—which make up about one-third of all asylum claims—the main nationalities have been Afghan, Syrian, Eritrean, Iranian, and Sudanese.


However, many people who apply for asylum initially enter the UK on legal visas such as study, work, or tourist permits. Pakistan stands out here, as it has become the most common nationality among such applicants. Recent data shows that around 40,739 migrants claimed asylum in 2024 after arriving on legitimate visas. Of these, Pakistan accounted for more than 11,000 applications, with about 10,000 Pakistani nationals entering on temporary visas before switching to asylum claims.


Britain’s asylum reforms mark a decisive shift towards one of Europe’s most restrictive refugee systems. With these stricter measures, the UK has moved beyond even Denmark’s tough model. The changes stem from several factors: rising public concern over immigration, post-Brexit limits on transferring asylum seekers to EU states, and political competition from harder-line parties. As European nations face similar pressures, the UK’s approach may become either a cautionary tale or a template—depending on whether it meets its aims without eroding core principles of international refugee protection.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page