Who Is Failing India? A Powerful Ruling Party, a Weak Opposition and a Democracy Demanding Answers

India is the world’s largest democracy, but democracy means more than conducting elections every five years. It requires a free media, independent constitutional institutions, a fair electoral process and the freedom to question those in power.

Today, criticism of the government is sometimes portrayed by political supporters as anti-national, anti-social or an attempt to destabilise the country. But opposing a government is not the same as opposing India. Citizens have the right to question policies, demand accountability and peacefully protest against decisions they believe are unjust.

The real question is whether allegations against the government and constitutional institutions are investigated impartially, rather than dismissed as political conspiracies.

Media Bias: Journalism or Political Propaganda?

Media ownership, corporate interests, advertising revenue and political relationships can influence how news is presented. Some television channels are widely perceived as sympathetic to the BJP-led government, while other outlets are known for more critical coverage. Republic TV and Times Now are frequently associated with government-friendly and strongly nationalist television coverage, while publications such as The Hindu and The Indian Express have often published critical reporting on government decisions.

However, political alignment should not be assumed solely from ownership or reputation. Every organisation must be judged by its actual reporting, editorial policies and willingness to investigate allegations against powerful people.

When channels aggressively question opposition leaders but give limited attention to controversies involving the ruling party, viewers deserve to ask whether journalism has become political messaging. The media’s responsibility is to investigate, verify facts and hold every party accountable—not simply defend those in power.

NEET Controversy: Students Deserve Answers

The 2025 NEET-UG controversy raised serious concerns about examination integrity, alleged paper leaks, irregularities and the handling of grace marks. Millions of students invest years of preparation and substantial amounts of money in the hope of securing medical admission.

Investigations must distinguish proven offences from allegations, but authorities cannot expect students to rely on assurances alone. Transparent examination procedures, independent audits and accountability for established failures are essential.

The issue is bigger than party politics. If institutions responsible for national examinations fail, students should not bear the consequences of those failures.

Gyanesh Kumar and the Independence of the Election Commission

Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has faced criticism and demands for resignation amid disputes concerning electoral-roll revisions and the functioning of the Election Commission.

The BJP’s defence of an official does not establish innocence, just as opposition allegations do not establish guilt. Political statements cannot replace evidence or an independent legal assessment.

The Election Commission must explain its decisions transparently, and credible allegations must be examined through appropriate constitutional and legal procedures. Where misconduct is established, accountability should follow. Where allegations are unfounded, evidence should demonstrate that.

The question is not whether an official supports one political side. It is whether the institution acts independently, consistently and fairly.

Voter Deletions: Could Eligible Citizens Lose Their Right to Vote?

The controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has raised concerns about large-scale voter deletions, including reports referring to approximately 13 crore names across relevant revision exercises.

Removing duplicate entries, deceased voters and ineligible registrations is legitimate. However, the process becomes deeply concerning if eligible citizens are wrongly excluded or cannot restore their names through accessible procedures.

A missing name can prevent a citizen from voting, particularly when corrections are delayed or bureaucratic and digital procedures are difficult to navigate. The Election Commission should publish clear information about the reasons for deletions, objections received, names restored and cases remaining unresolved.

Could these deletions have affected recent state elections? Potentially, if eligible voters were excluded. However, proving an effect on an election requires constituency-level evidence, including the number of eligible voters affected and the margins of victory. Neither electoral fraud nor the absence of any impact should be assumed without investigation.

Voter-roll accuracy is fundamental to democracy. Every eligible citizen must have a fair opportunity to register and vote.

CJP Protests: Is Peaceful Dissent Being Suppressed?

The Cockroach Janata Party movement has become part of the wider public debate surrounding electoral procedures and demands for accountability from the Election Commission.

A protest movement may have political motivations, but that does not automatically invalidate the questions it raises. Its claims should be verified rather than dismissed because its members oppose the government.

The Constitution protects freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, subject to reasonable legal restrictions. Authorities can regulate protests to protect public safety and prevent violence, but restrictions must not become a convenient means of silencing criticism.

Peaceful protest is an essential democratic mechanism. Citizens cannot be expected to remain silent until the next election when they believe their rights are being compromised. Equally, protesters must respect the law and the rights of others.

The Supreme Court’s recognition that protests may be regulated does not mean every restriction is justified. The legality of particular restrictions depends on the circumstances and applicable law.

Nationalism or Political Loyalty?

One of the most damaging tendencies in political debate is labelling critics of the government as anti-national, anti-social or enemies of the country.

A citizen who questions corruption, examination irregularities, voter deletions or government policy is not automatically anti-national. Protecting the Constitution, demanding transparency and defending fellow citizens’ rights are also expressions of patriotism.

Genuine unlawful activity must be investigated wherever it occurs. But accusations should be supported by evidence, not used to discredit peaceful dissent.

Nationalism should mean protecting India and its democratic institutions, not treating support for a particular political party as a condition of loyalty to the country.

Why Not Have an Independent Investigation?

When allegations concern institutions responsible for conducting elections, public confidence requires transparent and credible scrutiny.

An independent, legally constituted investigation could examine voter deletions, restoration requests, verification procedures, software-related errors and constituency-level patterns. The Supreme Court could consider an appropriate judicially supervised mechanism within its constitutional powers, supported by independent election experts, statisticians and former administrators.

Political parties could provide evidence and participate in consultations, but neither the ruling party nor the opposition should control the findings. The investigation must establish facts rather than begin with assumptions of guilt or innocence.

If procedures were lawful, the findings should demonstrate that. If eligible voters were wrongly excluded, their rights must be restored wherever legally possible. If negligence or deliberate misconduct is established, appropriate accountability should follow.

Independent scrutiny is not an attack on the government. It is a way to strengthen public confidence in institutions.

Democracy Means the Freedom to Question Power

The NEET controversy, media bias, questions concerning Gyanesh Kumar, voter-roll revisions and protests all point towards a fundamental democratic principle: no government or constitutional institution should be beyond scrutiny.

The BJP has the right to defend its decisions, and the opposition has the right to question them. But neither political statements nor allegations can replace evidence. Independent institutions, transparent investigations and fair legal procedures must establish the truth.

India needs a media that investigates powerful interests, an Election Commission that protects every eligible voter, police who respect peaceful dissent and a judiciary that safeguards constitutional rights.

The real test of democracy is not whether citizens are free to praise the government. It is whether they remain free to question it without being unfairly labelled enemies of the nation.

Indian Opposition: Is It Doing Enough to Hold the Government Accountable?

A strong opposition is essential to democracy, but India’s opposition parties often appear divided, reactive and more focused on political survival than on building a sustained campaign around public issues.

The INDIA alliance and other opposition parties have raised concerns about NEET, electoral-roll revisions and institutional independence, including demands for investigations and parliamentary discussions. However, repeated disruptions, disagreements over strategy, leadership rivalries and competing state-level interests can weaken their collective impact.

The NEET controversy illustrates this challenge: opposition parties did raise concerns in Parliament and demanded accountability, but many citizens may reasonably question whether their response was sufficiently sustained and effective from the earliest stages. Student-led movements such as the Cockroach Janata Party have demonstrated how public mobilisation can bring an issue back into the national spotlight when established political parties struggle to maintain momentum.

The lesson is not that the opposition did nothing, but that raising an issue is different from securing answers and lasting reform. Opposition parties must coordinate across party lines, publish evidence-based investigations, support affected students and voters, pursue legal remedies, demand parliamentary scrutiny and maintain pressure until clear outcomes are achieved.

They must also avoid allowing internal conflicts or electoral calculations to overshadow public welfare. India needs an opposition that acts as a credible alternative government, not merely a collection of parties that unite during elections and disagree when sustained action is required.

Social movements can help fill the accountability gap, but they should not have to replace the constitutional responsibility of elected representatives. Ultimately, the opposition must prove its effectiveness through consistent action, practical solutions and measurable results—not speeches, slogans or occasional protests.

A strong democracy does not fear questions. It answers them with evidence, transparency and accountability.