A sharp political clash erupted following Rahul Gandhi’s assertion that only Maharajas enjoyed rights in pre-independence India. Addressing a rally in Mhow, Gandhi claimed that Dalits, Adivasis (tribal people), and other backward castes lacked rights before independence, a stark contrast to the privileged position of royal families. He framed the BJP-RSS’s vision as a return to this pre-independence era, where, he alleged, only the ultra-wealthy like Adani and Ambani would hold sway, leaving the poor to suffer in silence. Gandhi’s speech was a powerful indictment of what he perceived as a regressive political agenda.

This statement immediately drew fire from Jyotiraditya Scindia, a BJP leader and former Congress member. Scindia, in a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter), directly challenged Gandhi’s historical narrative. He argued that Gandhi’s remarks demonstrated a limited understanding of India’s past, accusing him of overlooking the positive contributions of several royal families to social reform and development.

Scindia highlighted specific examples: the financial assistance provided by Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad of Baroda to B.R. Ambedkar for his education, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj’s pioneering 50% reservation for backward castes in his governance as early as 1902, and Madhavrao I of Gwalior’s establishment of educational and employment centres across the Gwalior-Chambal region.

Scindia’s carefully chosen examples aimed to paint a picture of royal patronage of social justice, directly contradicting Gandhi’s narrative. His pointed criticism also served as a personal attack, emphasizing the perceived hypocrisy of a leader from a prominent royal family criticizing the historical role of other such families.

The Congress responded swiftly and forcefully to Scindia’s critique. Pawan Khera, the party’s media and publicity head, launched a counter-offensive, accusing Scindia of conveniently overlooking the darker aspects of the royal families’ history. Khera’s response emphasized the often-overlooked collaboration between many royal families and the British Raj, highlighting their loyalty to colonial rule and the economic privileges they enjoyed even after India’s independence.

He pointed to the substantial tax-free allowances granted to the Gwalior royal family (₹2.5 million in 1950), continuing until 1971, as a direct consequence of their privileged status within the pre-independent and early independent Indian states. Khera’s argument challenged the selective portrayal of royal benevolence, underscoring the enduring economic and political power imbalances that persisted well into the post-independence era.

Furthermore, Khera brought up the contentious issue of a royal family’s alleged involvement in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, reminding the public of the complex and often morally ambiguous legacy of many royal houses. He also quoted Jawaharlal Nehru’s rejection of the “divine right of kings” in a Constituent Assembly speech, showcasing the Congress’s historical commitment to dismantling the hierarchical power structures of the past.

Khera’s counter-narrative skillfully framed the debate as a struggle between a vision of inclusive democracy and the remnants of feudal privilege. He cleverly deployed Subhadra Kumari Chauhan’s poem on the Rani of Jhansi, subtly referencing the Scindias’ alleged alliance with the British, to add a layer of pointed historical critique to his response.

The exchange between Scindia and Khera transcended a simple disagreement over historical interpretation. It revealed deep-seated political fault lines and competing narratives about India’s past and the nature of its present-day political landscape. It also highlighted the ongoing debate about the legacy of princely states in independent India and the delicate balance between recognizing past contributions and acknowledging historical injustices. The intense rhetoric used by both sides underscored the high stakes involved in shaping public perception of India’s history and its implications for contemporary politics.

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, the Dera Sacha Sauda chief serving a 20-year sentence for rape, was granted a month’s parole on Tuesday. This release, just ahead of the February 5 Delhi Assembly elections, has raised eyebrows. Singh, incarcerated in Haryana’s Sunaria jail, walked free Tuesday morning, a fact reported widely.

His vast following spans Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, and beyond. The Dera Sacha Sauda, based in Sirsa, Haryana, commands immense loyalty across the state, particularly in areas like Fatehabad, Kurukshetra, Kaithal, and Hisar. A pattern has emerged: Singh’s paroles often coincide with elections in northern India. His last release, in October 2024, came just three days before the Haryana Assembly elections.

The news sparked an immediate reaction. Shiv Sena (Uddhav faction) Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi voiced her frustration on X, tweeting, “Just release him already. This constant cycle of paroles is a mockery of justice for the women he victimized.”

This parole marks a significant event: Singh’s first visit to his Sirsa ashram since his 2017 conviction. Previously, while on parole, he was only permitted to visit his ashram in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. The timing, proximity to elections, and the sheer scale of his following leave many feeling this parole is deeply unsettling.

The weight of his actions and the impact on the victims are undeniable, even amidst the political manoeuvring. The confluence of factors – the timing, the scale of his following, and the gravity of his crimes – raises serious concerns.

The parole’s proximity to the Delhi elections fuels speculation regarding potential political motivations. The potential impact on the election outcome, and whether his release will influence voters, remains to be seen. The controversy surrounding Singh’s parole highlights the complex interplay between justice, politics, and public opinion in India. The coming weeks will undoubtedly be marked by intense scrutiny of Singh’s activities and their potential ramifications.

US President Donald Trump said Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit the White House, which will likely be in February. This revelation followed a phone conversation between the two leaders, the details of which were selectively shared by both the President and the White House. The planned visit underscores the ongoing, and often complex, relationship between the United States and India.

During a press briefing aboard Air Force One, en route from a Florida trip, President Trump offered a succinct summary of his conversation with Prime Minister Modi. When questioned about whether Modi had agreed to take action regarding illegal immigration from India, Trump responded confidently, stating, “He will do what’s right. We are discussing it.” This statement, while offering little concrete detail, highlighted the issue’s prominence in the bilateral discussion.

Trump’s confidence, however, contrasted with the lack of specifics provided regarding the nature of the “discussion” or any potential agreements reached. He further elaborated that the conversation covered a wide array of topics, implying a comprehensive exchange that extended beyond the publicly discussed points.

The White House, in its official readout of the phone call, painted a more detailed, albeit still somewhat vague, picture of the conversation. The statement characterized the call as “productive,” emphasizing President Trump’s focus on achieving a “fair” bilateral trade relationship with India. This focus on fair trade suggests a continued effort to address trade imbalances and potentially reduce the trade deficit with India.

The statement also highlighted Trump’s push for India to increase its purchases of American-made security equipment, a strategic objective aimed at bolstering both the US defence industry and strengthening the security partnership between the two nations.

The readout emphasized the importance of expanding and deepening overall cooperation, mentioning discussions on regional security issues in the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and Europe. The planned White House visit by Prime Minister Modi was confirmed in the official statement, underscoring the strong strategic ties between the two nations.

Earlier that day, in a separate address to House Republicans at a Florida retreat, President Trump revealed his ongoing commitment to a protectionist trade policy. He announced his intention to impose tariffs on countries he considered detrimental to American interests, specifically naming China, India, and Brazil as countries that engage in practices he deemed unfair.

This statement directly connects to the emphasis on fair trade in the White House readout of the Trump-Modi conversation. It suggests that the issue of trade imbalances and tariffs likely featured prominently in their discussions, although the specific details and outcomes remain undisclosed. Trump’s comments highlight a persistent tension in the US-India relationship: balancing strategic partnership with economic competition.

The strong personal relationship between Trump and Modi has been widely noted, influencing the dynamics of their interactions. Their previous appearances together at large rallies in Houston in September 2019 and Ahmedabad in February 2020 underscored this personal rapport. Modi’s early congratulatory call to Trump following his November 2024 electoral victory further solidified this relationship, highlighting Modi’s prioritization of the bilateral ties.

This personal chemistry may contribute to Trump’s confidence in Modi’s handling of the immigration issue, although it does not necessarily guarantee immediate or easily achievable solutions. The upcoming White House visit offers a platform for further discussions and potentially concrete progress on the numerous issues that shape the US-India relationship.