From the Urdu Press: ‘BJP rejig reflects youth unrest’, ‘Can Gen Z protesters be dismissed as dimagi Naxals’

Referring to BJP national president Nitin Nabin’s move to appoint his party’s central office-bearers, the Hyderabad-based Siasat, in its August 18 editorial, says that it was expected from Nabin, who took the party’s helm earlier this year, to constitute his new team now. “This reshuffle in the BJP top brass assumes significance as it indicates the political situation and challenges facing the ruling party in the country,” it states, noting that Nabin has brought former Union minister Smriti Irani back as a general secretary, who had been sidelined in the wake of her defeat in her Amethi seat in Uttar Pradesh in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

“Among the key changes made by the BJP in its leadership is the replacement of Amit Malviya with a Chhattisgarh leader Deepak Mhaskey as the new social media convener. The party has also replaced Tejasvi Surya with a Gujarat leader Hemang Joshi as the new chief of its youth wing BJYM,” the daily notes. While Malviya had been operating as the BJP’s IT cell chief for a long time, keeping his guns trained on its opponents, Surya has been known for being embroiled in various rows over his remarks, it says. “These changes stem from the unrest among the students and youth of the country, reflected by the massive traction gained among them by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). These leaders had failed to counter the appeal and campaigns of youth protesters. The point remains that the youth are rejecting the divisive brand of politics and calling for reforms in the education system besides seeking jobs and better opportunities.”

The edit says Irani has been inducted into the Nabin team to reinforce the party’s outreach to women. “The winds of change blowing through the country are forcing political parties to recalibrate their structures in bids to represent the concerns of youth and women more effectively,” it says, adding that the BJP’s organisational reshuffle marks its attempt to tackle the youth discontent.

URDU TIMES

Commenting on PM Modi’s Independence Day speech, the Mumbai-based Urdu Times, in its August 16 editorial, says that the address showcased the country’s development and self-reliance on various fronts, even as it triggered a political row by calling for identifying and isolating “dimagi Naxals” (those with a Maoist mindset). While Modi highlighted his government’s success in eliminating armed Naxals from the forests, he also warned against the “mental Naxals” who have remained in the country, it notes. “Barely anyone would object to the State’s action against armed Maoists bent on challenging it through violence and guns. It is also incumbent on any elected government to combat such Maoists as per the law. However, the question arising out of the PM’s pitch is, who is a dimagi Naxal? Can anyone asking questions of a government, or opposing any policy, or holding protests be branded as dimagi Naxals? If this is the case, there would be no space left for dissent in a democracy,” it says.

The daily states that governments keep changing, but the citizens always retain the right to question them and hold them to account. “This right distinguishes a democracy from an authoritarian regime. If a youth is raising questions about irregularities in the education system or lack of jobs, those in power must answer them rather than slapping them with political labels. Such labels increasingly denounce dissenters and rivals as enemies of the state,” it says, adding that while such a practice may yield temporary political dividends it would inflict long-term damage on the country’s democratic fabric.

The significant point is that today’s youth have come of age, the edit says. “The youth are seeking accountability from those in power, scrutinising their performance, taking to social media to raise their concerns, and holding protests. If this Gen Z is asking questions, they cannot be dismissed as anti-nationals — in fact, they could well be more concerned about our national interests. Their voices must be heard rather than mounting any bids to silence them.”

The editorial says the country should discuss the seven-point reform agenda, “Sapta Dhara”, flagged by the PM to enable India to become a developed country, which encompass seven streams, from manufacturing and agro-food production to technology, defence and green and blue economy. “But such a discourse would have wider resonance if it would have space for differences in opinions. There could not be equivalence between dissenters or protesters and those resorting to guns and violence. Any scrutiny of a government’s performance could lead to better policies. Questioners would always be better than sycophants for a government,” the edit says. “Patriotism does not mean silence. The youth are asking the government to address their concerns, which it must do rather than making jibes to intimidate them. The freedom to ask questions is the essence of our independence day.”

Flagging the virtual washout of the 25-day-long monsoon session of Parliament, Siasat, in its August 14 leader, points out that the session was marred by ruckus and disruptions due to a sustained standoff between the ruling BJP-led NDA and the Congress-led Opposition. “Such a disrupted session undermines the sanctity and tradition of our Parliament. It is expected that during a session Parliament would witness productive discussions on vital issues of public importance besides passing crucial legislation — and that the government would give response to questions raised by the Opposition,” the editorial says, adding that the monsoon session dashed such expectations.

The Opposition had made its stand clear, the daily notes, in the beginning of the session that it would raise burning issues like students’ protests over exam paper leaks and alleged theft of donations at Ram temple in Ayodhya. “The government however stonewalled the Opposition’s demand for debates on these issues,” it says, adding that what escalated the situation was the police crackdown on the Jantar Mantar youth protesters during their march on Parliament on the opening day of the session. “Since then the Opposition demanded an explanation on police action from Union Home Minister Amit Shah in the House that never came, leading to an impasse.”

The only issue that saw a thorough debate in Parliament was on the anti-paper leaks amendment Bill that was then passed by both the Houses, the editorial notes. Several legislation were however pushed through Parliament amid din without any discussions, it says, adding that the Opposition also raked up absence of both PM Modi and Shah from the House. “One day before the conclusion of the session, Shah told reporters that he was ready to answer the Opposition’s queries if it allowed Parliament to function, questioning the purpose of attending the House when its proceedings were repeatedly disrupted,” the edit states. “Despite such claims, the government cannot wash its hands of the parliamentary logjam.”