Operation Sindoor: A Spectacle of Power, A Silence of Accountability

 

Introduction: A Victory or a Veneer?

Operation Sindoor, launched by the Indian Army to avenge the terrorist attack on innocent tourists by enquiring their religion in the Basarain valley of Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, after nearly two weeks of the horrific terrorist attack on April 22, 2025, was touted by the NDA government as a bold strategic retaliation. But behind this official narrative lies a web of unanswered questions, defensive posture, and political maneuvering. But behind the celebrations lies a series of unanswered questions, delayed responses, political maneuvering, and disturbing patterns of silence. More than a military response, Operation Sindoor increasingly appears to be a controlled political theatre, deflecting attention from deeper failures in governance, intelligence, and diplomacy.

The Historical Backdrop: The Fragile Foundations of Jammu & Kashmir

The story of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) is one of incomplete integration and consistent conflict.

In 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh acceded to India under pressure from Pakistani tribal invasion, triggering the first Indo-Pak war, ending in a UN-brokered ceasefire that created the Line of Control (LoC).

Article 370 was introduced as a temporary provision to reflect Kashmir’s unique circumstances but was exploited by both separatists and politicians to create a parallel narrative of identity politics and partial autonomy.

The Rise of Terrorism and Political Abdication

From the late 1980s, aided by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), terrorism flourished in the Valley. The exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in 1990, bombings, and insurgency saw the region spiral into a proxy war zone.

Successive governments—both Congress and BJP-led coalitions—failed to contain terrorism or invest in lasting peace:

Peace talks were initiated and abandoned.

Elections were rigged or boycotted.

Militancy was treated with tactical force, not political foresight.

Abrogation of Article 370: Constitutional Integration or Political Consolidation?

In August 2019, the Narendra Modi government abrogated Article 370 and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories—Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The move was pitched as a decisive blow to separatism, a long-overdue correction to constitutional ambiguity.

However, the realities are complex:

Political leaders were detained, communications suspended, and civil liberties curtailed.

Kashmiris were disempowered politically and monitored militarily, further alienating the population.

Pakistan retaliated through increased cross-border firing, international lobbying, and renewed terror infiltrations.

Despite the government’s claim that “J&K is now fully integrated,” the Pahalgam attack of 2025 shattered that illusion.

Operation Sindoor: The Tactical Win and Its Constraints

A. Political Constraints and IAF Losses

Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan , speaking in Singapore, confirmed that India did suffer aircraft losses during the initial strikes of Operation Sindoor—though he downplayed the numbers and emphasized tactical learning:

“What is important is why they were downed…and what we did after.”

In Jakarta, Defence Attaché Captain Shiv Kumar went further, stating that those losses occurred “only because of the constraint given by the political leadership not to attack Pakistan’s military infrastructure or air defences.” 

He explained that after that setback, India “adjusted tactics,” suppressed Pakistani air defences, and employed BrahMos missiles to strike effectively before the ceasefire. These admissions contradicted earlier state assertions of full operational freedom and fired up the opposition.

Parliamentary Debate: Opposing Voices Cite These Revelations

During the Lok Sabha debate, Rahul Gandhi forcefully cited both Chauhan and Shiv Kumar, accusing the government of tying India’s hands in the air conflict:

“If we lost jets, it was because we refused to strike military installations under political orders. That shows lack of political will.”

Gaurav Gogoi, Deputy Leader of the Lok Sabha, echoed concerns, quoting Lt.Gen Rahul R. Singh who described the Pahalgam episode as part of a two-front threat involving Pakistan and China. Gogoi demanded accountability from political leadership over constrained air operations.

Mallikarjun Kharge also referenced Chauhan’s remarks, demanding a special parliamentary session:

“The fog of war is lifting—why has the government misled the nation?”

Together, these statements formed the backbone of opposition criticism—that India’s policy limitations, not military incompetence, caused early losses in doing what was otherwise hailed as a precision strike.

Unanswered Questions Raised in Parliament

Below is the complete list of critical questions, raised by opposition figures such as Rahul Gandhi, Gaurav Gogoi, Priyanka Gandhi, Kharge, Mahua Moitra, and Kanimozi of DMK,left and other opposition political parties unanswered:

1. Why was Operation Sindoor launched two weeks after the Pahalgam attack, allowing terrorists to regroup?

2. How did terrorists reach Pahalgam despite heavy militarization?

3. Was there a failure in HUMINT or SIGINT intelligence?

4. Why was Pakistan informed in advance about the strikes?

5. What were the specific terms of the ceasefire on May 10?

6. Was the ceasefire mediated by the U.S., especially Donald Trump, as he repeatedly claims?

7. Why did PM Modi not deny Trump’s assertion that five aircraft were “put down”?

8. Why was no protest lodged when Trump hosted Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir?

9. Why did the PM prioritize the election rally in Bihar over the All-Party Meeting on national security?

10. Why did no major world power condemn the Pahalgam terror attack, and how did IMF/ADB still sanction loans to Pakistan?

11. What was China’s role and surveillance activity at the LoC during this period?

12. Why did Turkey and Azerbaijan openly support Pakistan without strong Indian counteraction?

13. If foreign policy was effective, why was India diplomatically isolated?

14. Why was no action taken against the BJP minister who labeled Col. Sofia “sister of terrorists”?

15. Why were widows and victims’ families vilified for advocating unity and accountability?

16. Why did the encounter killing of perpetrators happen just before Parliament met, as Akhilesh Yadav alleged?

17. Why is the government withholding a clear factual timeline from the public?

These questions gained added weight as leaders invoked Chauhan’s and Shiv Kumar’s candid admissions—but were met with no satisfying governmental response.

Trump Factor & Strategic Erosion

Rahul Gandhi further challenged PM Modi:

“If Trump did not broker peace, stand up and say so. If he did impose a ceasefire, why are we pretending otherwise?”

Despite Trump’s repeated claims of having brokered the truce, India maintained silence—thus letting an external narrative shape its diplomatic story.

Conclusion: The Price of Political Constraints

Operation Sindoor’s military execution may have achieved limited objectives—but its strategic credibility is marred by self-imposed constraints, delayed execution, and political opacity.

Leaders like Chauhan and Shiv Kumar reveal that political caution limited military freedom and led to tangible losses.

Opposition speeches in Parliament used these revelations to demand clarity—but were systematically deflected.

With no truth delivered to the public or Parliament, trust in decision-making and national leadership continues to erode.

As Rahul Gandhi posed in the Lok Sabha:

“Let the Prime Minister dare to name Trump and deny foreign intervention. If he can’t, the nation needs answers.”

Until these fundamental questions are faced rather than deflected, no value—even military success—can mask the greater failure of transparency and accountability.

References

[1] Scroll.in, “India lost jets in Operation Sindoor due to political constraint: Defence Attaché,” July 2025.

[2] Indian Express, “IAF lost aircraft due to constraint from political leadership: Defence Attaché,” July 2025.

[3] Economic Times, “Operation Sindoor debate: How did terrorists enter wearing soldier uniforms, asks Gaurav Gogoi,” July 2025.

[4] Economic Times, “Rahul Gandhi blames government for jet losses; points to new China-Pakistan axis,” July 2025.

[5] Moneycontrol, “Parliament Monsoon Session: Operation Sindoor debate in Rajya Sabha,” July 2025.

[6] The Independent, “India’s fighter jet losses and China-Pakistan axis: What Rahul Gandhi said in Parliament,” July 2025.

[7] Times of India, “In Lok Sabha, Rajnath and Jaishankar reject Trump mediation claim,” July 2025.

 

Moral Policing in a Borderless World: Why Banning OTT Platforms is a Superficial Fix in a Deep Digital Crisis

 "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

— Mark Twain

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s (MIB) recent move to ban 25 Indian OTT platforms, including ALTT, Ullu, BigShots, MoodX, and Desiflix, for allegedly streaming “obscene,” “vulgar,” and “pornographic” content, has ignited a familiar yet complex debate. At face value, the crackdown might appear to be a step toward safeguarding cultural values and public decency. But in an age where content is omnipresent, flowing freely through smartphones, VPNs, social media, torrents, and global streaming giants, such an action is not only insufficient but dangerously superficial.

It is, quite simply, an attempt to cut the branches while ignoring the rot in the roots.

The Irony of Outrage: Obscenity by Another Name

The platforms banned by the Indian government are, admittedly, known for offering erotic and sensational content, often lacking narrative coherence or artistic value. However, the government's selective morality raises a troubling contradiction. Why target local, low-budget platforms when Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, HBO Max, Disney+ Hotstar, and Hulu—all freely accessible in India—regularly stream shows and films containing nudity, strong sexual themes, and graphic storytelling?

The only difference? These international platforms wrap their content in high production value and narrative depth. But if the concern is about “impact,” does the form really justify the content?

The reality is clear: what is condemned as obscenity when produced by a small Indian OTT becomes “art” or “bold storytelling” when presented by a global platform. This distinction is neither logical nor just—it is hierarchical and deeply colonial in outlook.

The Myth of Control in a Connected World

"The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow."
— Bill Gates

In today's digital era, information does not respect borders. The idea that objectionable content can be contained through national bans is a dangerous illusion. Content seeps through every possible channel—Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Telegram, X (formerly Twitter), and dozens of free file-sharing sites. From short reels that promote hypersexuality to “almost pornographic” content masked as lifestyle vlogs or influencer culture, the internet is a sea without walls.

You ban 25 OTTs? A hundred new Telegram groups and unregulated websites spring up overnight.

Moreover, many of these platforms use cloud-based storage, encryption, or VPN masking to operate under the radar. And users, particularly India’s 800+ million internet-savvy population, are not naïve. They adapt—quickly. Censorship, in this regard, only creates curiosity and sends audiences to darker, less accountable corners of the web.

When Morality Becomes a Spectacle

India is a nation of paradoxes. Public morality is fiercely guarded, while private indulgence is rampant. India ranks among the top global consumers of pornographic material. This duality becomes especially stark when seen against the backdrop of sex scandals involving self-proclaimed godmen like Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Asaram Bapu, both convicted of rape while preaching “spirituality” and “celibacy.”

The lesson? The problem is not content. The problem is our hypocrisy.

When sexual violence, exploitation, and moral corruption fester within our temples and ashrams—places considered beyond scrutiny—banning an OTT platform for showing consensual adult content becomes not only ironic but also disingenuous.

Can Censorship Replace Conversation?

"We should not be afraid to discuss sexuality in public; silence breeds ignorance and ignorance leads to exploitation."
— Amartya Sen

The real tragedy of India's OTT ban lies in what it distracts from—a much-needed public conversation around sexuality, consent, digital responsibility, and healthy content consumption. Instead of nurturing a generation that can discern, interpret, and critique what they consume, we enforce a blanket of silence and suppression.

Worse, this enforcement is lopsided. What’s banned on one platform is available on another, often more influential, medium.

Social media platforms like YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels, and Facebook Watch are filled with suggestive dances, explicit challenges, and “clickbait culture” that often borders on softcore. These are accessible even to children, thanks to lax age verification and algorithmic promotion. Where is the crackdown there?

The truth is: moral panic is easier to manufacture than responsible policy.

What Can Actually Work?

Rather than bans that are easy to circumvent and impossible to enforce meaningfully, India must think long-term, rationally, and boldly.

1. Comprehensive Digital & Sex Education

Teach children and young adults about consent, sexuality, and responsible content consumption. Ignorance fuels curiosity; knowledge empowers discernment.

2. Industry-Led Self-Regulation

Encourage content creators to follow structured guidelines without suppressing creativity. This promotes accountability while respecting freedom.

3. Parental Empowerment

Provide parents with tools and training to monitor and guide children’s digital habits. Bans can be bypassed—dialogue cannot.

4. Transparent Rating Systems

Like cinema, OTT platforms must adopt stronger content labeling, helping audiences choose wisely rather than having content forced underground.

5. Address the Cultural Hypocrisy

The nation must confront its two-faced attitude toward sex and morality. If temples and ashrams are home to sexual abuse, then banning a platform for fiction is pure theatre.

Conclusion: Stop Chopping Branches. Heal the Roots.

India’s attempt to “clean up” digital content by banning 25 OTT platforms may have symbolic value, but it lacks any real impact in a world where the web is woven into every thread of life. In a global marketplace of ideas, desires, and expression, you cannot win the battle of culture with scissors.

Instead of issuing bans, let us build understanding. Instead of censorship, let us invest in education and awareness. Instead of pretending to uphold decency through force, let us trust our people to evolve through conversation and exposure.

Because in the end, as John Milton said,
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties."

 

The Uncomfortable Truth: When Privilege Trumps Justice in India— And Why the System Protects Its Own?

In a democracy built on the pillars of equality and justice, certain names continue to hover above consequence. The recent appointment of Vikas Barala as Assistant Advocate General in Haryana, despite being the prime accused in a still-pending 2017 stalking case, is not just a footnote in Indian political theatre—it is an indictment of a society where justice can be overshadowed by lineage and power. But to understand the gravity of this moment, one must also confront the silences—those unspoken but deeply influential forces that operate beneath headlines.

The Vikas Barala Appointment: When Power Trumps Principle

In 2017, Vikas Barala, the son of a senior BJP politician, was arrested for stalking and attempting to abduct Varnika Kundu, an IAS officer’s daughter, in Chandigarh. The case sparked national outrage at the time, symbolizing the danger of power-enabled harassment. Yet, nearly eight years later, the legal case drags on without resolution, and the accused is being rewarded with a government appointment in the legal system itself. This is not just a case of tone-deaf governance; it's a mockery of justice.

More disturbingly, the appointment comes despite a pool of over 100,000 registered advocates in Punjab and Haryana, many of them young, accomplished, and ethically upright, including a significant number of women lawyers. The message it sends is deafening: legal merit and moral integrity matter less than bloodlines and political patronage.

The Varnika Kundu Case: A Father's Compromise?

The 2017 stalking case involving Vikas Barala and Varnika Kundu triggered national outrage. Varnika’s account—of being chased through the streets of Chandigarh—shook many out of apathy. It was a textbook case of gendered entitlement and abuse of power. But eight years on, the case remains unresolved. And now, her alleged harasser has been rewarded with a government position.

But another layer of discomfort lies in the evolving career trajectory of Varnika's father, V.S. Kundu, a respected IAS officer. After facing delays in his promotion initially, Mr. Kundu was eventually appointed as Chairman of the Haryana Revenue Commission, by the very government whose political scion his daughter is legally battling. Even after the end of his tenure, he was granted an extension.

To be clear: there is no direct evidence of a quid pro quo. Yet, in politics and justice, perception often defines credibility. The optics suggest an uneasy alignment of interests—an implicit détente between power and those it is meant to be held accountable by. The state rewards the father while the accused son of a ruling party leader enjoys a prestigious legal post. Is this coincidence? Or is it emblematic of how India’s systems of governance—bureaucratic, judicial, political—often cushion their own?

This raises profoundly discomfiting questions:

Can families of victims truly challenge the powerful while navigating within a system that offers them incentives?

Do institutional promotions or post-retirement benefits dilute the ferocity of justice-seeking efforts?

Is the system designed to co-opt dissent, particularly when it threatens entrenched political hierarchies?

Even without overt pressure, the subtle machinery of accommodation—career advancement, delayed prosecutions, strategic silence—has the same net effect: it blunts resistance and keeps power unthreatened.

A Disturbing Pattern: From Emergency to Today

The Barala case is no aberration. Post-Independence India is littered with chilling cases where the sons of powerful politicians have committed serious crimes—many involving gendered violence—and faced little to no immediate consequence.

1. Sanjay Gandhi (1975–77 Emergency Era)

Sanjay Gandhi, son of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was never convicted of a criminal offence. But his role in forced sterilizations, demolition drives, and censorship of dissenting media during the Emergency remains one of the darkest chapters in Indian democracy. His actions set a dangerous precedent: that proximity to power can shield even mass-scale abuse.

2. Manu Sharma (Jessica Lal Murder Case, 1999)

The son of Haryana Congress leader Venod Sharma shot Jessica Lal in a Delhi bar in full view of witnesses. He was initially acquitted due to "lack of evidence"—a euphemism for coerced or bought-off witnesses—until public outrage forced a retrial. He was later convicted, but the case revealed how far political influence can reach into the justice system.

3. Vikas Yadav (Nitish Katara Murder, 2002)

Another "honour killing" rooted in political ego. Vikas Yadav, son of former MP D.P. Yadav, murdered Nitish Katara for dating his sister. Despite clear evidence, the case took more than a decade for resolution, with multiple instances of attempted witness intimidation and delays that only a powerful political hand could orchestrate.

4. Sushil Sharma (Tandoor Murder Case, 1995)

A Youth Congress leader, Sharma murdered his wife Naina Sahni and tried to burn her body in a restaurant tandoor. Though eventually convicted, his attempts to use political influence for delay and distraction were obvious.

5. Ashish Mishra (Lakhimpur Kheri Case, 2021)

Son of a sitting Union Minister, Ashish Mishra was accused of running his vehicle over protesting farmers. His arrest was delayed despite damning video evidence. Bail conditions and trial speed continue to raise red flags about the fairness of proceedings when political power is at play.

6. Prajwal Revanna (Sex Tape Scandal, 2024)

MP and grandson of former PM H.D. Deve Gowda, Prajwal fled the country after multiple videos emerged showing him in sexually exploitative situations. The state machinery’s sluggish response and his initial evasion of arrest exposed a bipartisan pattern: silence when the accused is one of their own.

Root Causes: Where Does This Culture of Impunity Come From?

1. Entitlement Through Dynasty

The sons of politicians are often raised in insulated, privilege-laden environments. Many grow up believing that rules apply to others, not to them. Power is inherited, not earned. This dynastic culture breeds entitlement and moral bankruptcy.

2. Parental Complicity

Though not directly responsible for their children’s actions, many political leaders tacitly enable them—through silence, through resources, or through active interference. Yet, when they return to voters seeking mandates, there’s rarely any public reckoning or accountability.

3. Apathy of the Electorate

Despite awareness, the electorate often chooses to overlook these acts, either due to caste/religious loyalties, political polarisation, or sheer resignation. Why are parents not questioned during elections for their sons’ crimes? Why do parties continue to reward such families? The silence is damning.

4. Media Sensationalism but No Follow-Through

While media houses break stories with great fervour, they often fail to sustain pressure over time. Complex legal proceedings disappear from headlines, allowing the powerful to bide their time until public memory fades.

5. Legal System’s Vulnerabilities

Long trials, frequent adjournments, underpaid public prosecutors, and police under political control make it easier for the influential to manipulate the process—delaying justice long enough for it to lose its sting.

The Political Womb: Hereditary Power as Destiny

In India, the idea that politics is a public service is slowly being replaced—if not already eclipsed—by the reality that politics is family business. Today, over 40% of Indian MPs belong to political dynasties. The number rises when you narrow down to influential or ‘safe’ seats. This isn’t a partisan phenomenon. It is a pan-India, cross-party malaise—one that survives regime change, ideology, or even mass movements.

A Lingering Malaise: Is There Hope for Change?

The historical prevalence of such incidents, from the early days of independent India with figures like Sanjay Gandhi and beyond, indicates a systemic issue. The unchecked influence of political families, where the sons and relatives of MLAs, MPs, Ministers, and Chief Ministers often wield power as if they were elected representatives themselves, creates a fertile ground for such transgressions. This often translates into administration being dictated by these "power-proxies," further weakening the rule of law at the ground level.

Names like Akhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party), Sukhbir Singh Badal (Shiromani Akali Dal), Umar Abdullah (National Conference), Sachin Pilot (Indian National Congress), and Deepender Hooda (Indian National Congress) often come up in discussions around dynastic politics who are important leaders of their respective states.

However, the picture isn't entirely bleak. India has also seen instances where the wards of politicians have carved out their own paths, demonstrating integrity and a commitment to public service, defying the negative stereotypes:

Rahul Gandhi (Son of Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, Indian National Congress): While facing political criticism, Rahul Gandhi has largely maintained a public image free from serious personal criminal allegations, focusing on electoral politics and ideological battles.  

Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (Daughter of Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, Indian National National Congress): Similar to her brother, Priyanka Gandhi has engaged in active politics, advocating for social justice and campaigning, without personal criminal controversies.  

Chirag Paswan (Son of Ram Vilas Paswan, Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas)): After an initial stint in acting, Chirag Paswan has taken on his father's political legacy, leading his party and engaging in mainstream politics.

Tejashwi Yadav (Son of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi, Rashtriya Janata Dal): Despite his father's legal troubles, Tejashwi Yadav has emerged as a prominent political figure in Bihar, leading his party and serving in governmental roles.  

Akhilesh Yadav (Son of Mulayam Singh Yadav, Samajwadi Party): Akhilesh Yadav successfully served as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and continues to be a significant political force, largely building his image on development and a more modern approach to politics.  

Aaditya Thackeray (Son of Uddhav Thackeray, Shiv Sena (UBT)): Aaditya Thackeray has actively engaged in environmental and youth-focused initiatives, serving as a minister and representing a younger, progressive face of his party.  

Dushyant Chautala (Son of Ajay Chautala and Grandson of Om Prakash Chautala, Jannayak Janta Party): Dushyant Chautala carved out his own political space, co-founding a new party and serving as Deputy Chief Minister of Haryana.  

These examples offer a glimmer of hope that the trend of entitlement among some political offspring is not universal. The increasing scrutiny by media and an awakened citizenry, demanding greater accountability, might slowly but surely push for a more equitable application of the law, irrespective of family name. The ultimate challenge lies in strengthening democratic institutions and ensuring that the rule of law prevails over personal connections and political influence, fostering a society where justice is not just a distant ideal but a tangible reality for all.

These individuals serve as counterpoints to the toxic entitlement of others like Vikas Barala or Ashish Mishra. But even this "good dynast" vs "bad dynast" binary distracts from a larger truth:

Why does Indian society so easily accept political inheritance, even while resenting nepotism in cinema, corporate jobs, or the civil services?

Why Society Embraces Political Dynasties

1. Feudal Memory, Democratic Form:
Indian democracy functions on paper, but culturally, large swathes of the electorate continue to view political leaders as feudal guardians—providers of protection and patronage. Political families, particularly in rural areas, are seen not as servants of the people, but as modern-day rajas. The vote, then, becomes not an act of empowerment but an allegiance to hierarchy.

2. Brand Recall and Political Capital:
Political legacies offer a ready-made network—of party workers, donors, loyal voters, and media familiarity. A surname becomes shorthand for decades of political work, allowing heirs to skip the line. Parties, driven by winnability, often prefer legacy candidates over newcomers, reinforcing the cycle.

3. Public Cynicism and Limited Choices:
When nearly every party runs dynasts, the average voter has little real choice. Also, people have grown cynical—"All politicians are corrupt, so might as well vote for the one who fixed the local road."

4. Caste and Identity Politics:
Dynasties often emerge from dominant caste groups in states and can position themselves as protectors of their community. Voters sometimes prefer the “familiar” over ideological or performance-based criteria.

5. Emotional Capital:
In cases like Rajiv Gandhi’s or Lalu Prasad Yadav’s successors, sympathy for deceased or persecuted leaders morphs into emotional loyalty for their children. Politics here is an inheritance wrapped in public sentiment.

The Price of Privilege: What It Costs the Nation

The real danger of hereditary politics is not just unearned power, but unaccountable power. When power is transferred by blood and not performance, it distorts the idea of democratic merit. And when these heirs commit crimes—especially those as grievous as stalking, murder, or sexual assault—the system is reluctant to hold them accountable.

Worse, the society that elects these families year after year becomes complicit. We may cheer a movie star’s fall from grace over nepotism, but we stay silent when a criminal case against a politician’s son is delayed for eight years. We may decry crime against women on social media, but continue to vote for parties that promote or protect such individuals.

The Gendered Impact: Violence Against Women and Society’s Rot

Nearly all high-profile cases involving politicians' sons—Barala, Sharma, Yadav, Revanna—involve violence or coercion against women. This pattern is not incidental; it's symptomatic of a toxic blend of patriarchy and political privilege.

"Boys will be boys" is not just a societal attitude but becomes state-sponsored when perpetrators are protected.

Victims often face character assassination, bureaucratic stonewalling, and social ostracism, making justice an uphill battle.

Lack of support mechanisms—legal aid, counseling, financial support—means many cases never even reach court.

This contributes to a climate where women, especially those outside elite power structures, feel unsafe and unheard—a direct contradiction to the promises of democratic equality.

Why Don’t We Talk About It? The Silence That Screams

There is little discussion in the public domain about the link between political power and criminal impunity. When was the last time you heard a serious political debate on how parties plan to address crimes by their own leaders' children?

This silence—social, political, and institutional—indicates not just decay but complicity. The electorate, civil society, even parts of the judiciary sometimes seem numbed by repetition. Outrage becomes a cycle: viral today, forgotten tomorrow.

Conclusion: Justice Delayed, Democracy Betrayed

The Vikas Barala-Varnika Kundu episode is more than a trial; it is a mirror held up to Indian democracy. The case forces us to ask:

What does justice mean when victims must navigate the same corridors of power that shelter the accused?

How long will India tolerate the casual handover of its political system from one generation to the next, like zamindari rights passed through family lines?

Can a nation that celebrates political privilege ever truly protect its most vulnerable citizens—especially women?

Until we stop equating bloodlines with leadership, until we start demanding transparency and integrity over surname and connections, the uncomfortable truth will remain:

In India, justice is often delayed not because the system is broken but because it is designed to bend for those born into power.

References:

1. The Tribune. “Complainant in 2017 Stalking Case Questions Appointment.” The Tribune, July 2025. https://www.tribuneindia.com/.

2. Hindustan Times. “Vikas Barala Arrested in Chandigarh Stalking Case.” August 2017. https://www.hindustantimes.com/.

3. Nayar, Kuldip. Emergency Retold. New Delhi: Konark Publishers, 2006.

4. India Today. “The Dark Legacy of Sanjay Gandhi.” July 2007. https://www.indiatoday.in/.

5. Government of India. Shah Commission of Inquiry Report. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, 1978.

6. NDTV. “Manu Sharma Convicted in Jessica Lal Case.” 2010. https://www.ndtv.com/.

7. Tehelka. “How the Jessica Lal Case Was Nearly Buried.” August 2006. https://www.tehelka.com/.

8. The Hindu. “Delhi High Court Upholds Life Term for Vikas Yadav.” February 2015. https://www.thehindu.com/.

9. The Indian Express. “Vikas Yadav Gets 25-Year Sentence in Nitish Katara Case.” October 2016. https://indianexpress.com/.

10. The Indian Express. “Tandoor Murder: SC Grants Early Release to Sushil Sharma.” October 2018. https://indianexpress.com/.

11. Scroll.in. “Lakhimpur Kheri Case: SC Pulls up UP Government.” January 2022. https://scroll.in/.

12. BBC News India. “India Protest Deaths: Minister’s Son Arrested over Lakhimpur Kheri Violence.” October 2021. https://www.bbc.com/.

13. The Hindu. “Prajwal Revanna Case: MP Booked under POCSO Act.” May 2024. https://www.thehindu.com/.

14. News18. “Prajwal Revanna Fled India after Video Leak.” May 2024. https://www.news18.com/.

15. PRS Legislative Research. MPs and Political Dynasties in India: Background Note. 2020. https://prsindia.org/.

16. Association for Democratic Reforms. Analysis of Dynastic Politics in Lok Sabha 2019. New Delhi: ADR, 2019. https://adrindia.org/.

17. Vaishnav, Milan. When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017.

18. Jaffrelot, Christophe. India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India. Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2003.

19. Kothari, Rajni. Politics in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1970.

20. Economic and Political Weekly. “Dynastic Politics in India: Patterns and Implications.” 2020. https://www.epw.in/.

21. Reporters Without Borders. World Press Freedom Index – India. 2024. https://rsf.org/en/index.

22. The Hoot. “Why Media Coverage Fades after Outrage: The Cycle of Silence.” 2019. http://thehoot.org/.

23. Alt News. “Tracking Media Bias in High-Profile Political Cases.” 2023. https://www.altnews.in/.

24. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). Crime in India 2022: Volume 1. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. https://ncrb.gov.in/.

25. Government of India. Justice Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal Law. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, 2013.

26. UN Women India and Oxfam India. Gender Equality and Justice in India: A Review of Progress and Gaps. New Delhi, 2022. https://www.unwomen.org/.

27. Government of Haryana. Appointment Orders and Extension Notifications of V.S. Kundu as Chairman, Haryana Revenue Commision, 2022–2024.