Nitin Nabin’s allegation that protesters act “at the behest of foreign powers” demands evidence. If foreign funding is involved, establish it. India also needs answers from the Election Commission—and reforms, reforms, reforms.
By Gurpartap Singh Mann
Narendra Modi has completed 25 continuous years as head of a government, first in Gujarat and then in New Delhi. It is a formidable political achievement; no other leader has achieved it so far.
But anniversaries are a time to ponder as well as celebrate. As his supporters honour the record, the CJP protests and the Election Commission controversy confront him with a demanding democratic test: can a leadership accustomed to commanding public confidence recognise when it must earn that confidence afresh?
The July 2026 protest punctured the invisible shield of Modi and Shah, and this is being sensed now by everyone, the Congress the most.
My assessment is that governing fatigue has crept in. It shows in the temptation to answer fresh grievances with familiar accusations, to defend institutions before explaining their conduct, and to treat political mobilisation primarily as a problem of control. Twenty-five years of experience should have produced a greater capacity to listen. It must not become a reason to assume that the public has nothing new to say. Communication has to be two-way. People can’t be taken for granted.
Shekhar Gupta, in ThePrint in his October 10 column, argues that several pressures are converging around Modi, including youth dissatisfaction and doubts about institutional credibility. His warning deserves consideration. Difficulties that appear manageable separately can become politically formidable when citizens start connecting them.
I had raised the underlying concern on May 25 in an open letter to the Prime Minister. CJP’s emergence, I had argued, reflected accumulated frustration with institutions that citizens experience as slow, distant and unresponsive. I urged Modi to turn that anger into an opportunity for reform. The present confrontation makes that appeal more urgent.
Let us agree that Gen Z is restless. Gen Z is well connected, well aware of the world. Young citizens inhabit a world of instant communication but encounter recruitment delays, uncertain opportunities, cumbersome administration and prolonged disputes. They expect explanations and results. Many have much less patience for the respect that public office once commanded automatically. Dismissing and ignoring their growing impatience does not resolve the conditions that produce it.
The Election Commission controversy has added a particularly complex criticism in India. Questions about the Special Intensive Revision, Form 6 and reported internal objections concern the process through which citizens choose their governments. The Indian Express reported repeated written objections by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The Commission characterised differing views as part of deliberation. It must now explain clearly how those objections were resolved and how the contested decisions were finally approved and implemented.
There is an uncomfortable irony when BJP spokespersons become the Commission’s defenders and spokespersons. The party may rebut political accusations, but it cannot provide the institutional assurance that only the Commission can and should give. The more the ruling party appears to speak for the electoral referee, the more difficult it becomes to dispel suspicions about their proximity and the EC’s independence.
BJP president Nitin Nabin’s statement takes the argument in another direction. Referring to the INDIA alliance and CJP, he alleges: “I want to say that this effort is being made not only to serve their political objectives but also at the behest of foreign powers.”
He goes further: “The foreign powers on whose strength you are pursuing your sell-out politics, and with whose collaboration you are attempting to destabilise India—those nefarious intentions of yours will never succeed.”
These are serious accusations. His wording alleges foreign direction and support, although it identifies neither a donor nor a transaction. If foreign financing underlies the charge, the money trail must be established and made public to identify and expose who India’s enemies are. Who paid whom, through which channel, and for what activity? A public allegation cannot become its own evidence through repetition. There were similar allegations at the time of the three farm laws agitation, built on a narrative of being funded by offshore interests, and ultimately Modi had to step back with an apology.
Foreign interference in every such protest must be investigated wherever credible grounds exist. It is a matter of national security. CJP should disclose its funding and organisational arrangements. But investigating the possibility of manipulation of a movement does not remove the obligation to address its supporters’ core grievances. Even wrongdoing by an organiser would not answer questions about electoral procedures, which are in doubt due to acts of none other than the Commission itself.
The opposition has obligations too. Barjinder Singh Hamdard’s editorial in Ajit makes a necessary intervention: doubts about voter revision warrant examination, while sweeping allegations of electoral theft require convincing proof. Its proposed way forward is transparent judicial scrutiny, potentially through a commission or another appropriate mechanism. After meeting the President, Rahul Gandhi has promised to give evidence for Vote Chori. Let’s see.
That approach deserves serious consideration. Publish the relevant decisions, explain disputed procedures and examine specific complaints through an impartial process. Neither a resignation demand nor a party spokesperson’s assurance can substitute for establishing facts. The Supreme Court’s role should be to resolve the legal questions before it through clear, reasoned decisions.
Congress senses a political opening. Rahul Gandhi’s visible mobilisation gives him greater prominence as a challenger, while other opposition parties see an opportunity to intensify pressure. RG’s popularity has undoubtedly increased. Yet Congress’s separate mobilisation from CJP also reveals competition for leadership and electoral space emerging out of the discontent. Visibility may strengthen Rahul’s standing, but it does not automatically make him an electoral alternative accepted across the country.
Nabin’s warning that “The Government of India will deal with this firmly, and BJP workers will also remain among the people to thwart these designs of yours” requires particular care. Party workers may campaign and rebut allegations. Maintaining public order belongs to lawful authorities. That boundary should remain unmistakable.
I have previously criticised manufactured narratives and organised obstruction while defending lawful dissent. Both positions remain valid. Every protester is not an Urban Naxal. Every protest is not beyond scrutiny.
Above all, India needs reforms, reforms, reforms. Faster justice, accountable administration, reliable examinations and recruitment, meaningful agricultural reform, and transparent electoral procedures must become measurable priorities. Citizens should be able to see deadlines, responsibility and results. Better publicity cannot compensate indefinitely for institutions that frustrate us each day.
Modi retains the opportunity to make this milestone a moment of renewal. He should use his authority to encourage scrutiny, demand better delivery and reopen the reform agenda. A restless generation will judge the next phase of his leadership by the opportunities and fairness it encounters.
The BJP can stop a protest. It cannot command public trust back into existence. That must be earned through evidence, openness and reform.
Feedback and comments mann.gurpartap@gmail.com
- Gurpartap Singh Mann is a farmer and former Member of the Punjab Public Service Commission. He has earlier served as Chief General Manager, Punjab Infrastructure Development Board.
- An Engineer and MBA by qualification, he writes on governance, agriculture, and socio-political issues concerning Punjab.
He was earlier Spokesperson of Punjab Congress and founder Chairman of its Social Media Cell. - His father, S. Bhupinder Singh Mann, former Member of the Rajya Sabha, is a prominent Kisan leader and founder of the Bharti Kisan Union in Punjab and All India Kisan Coordination Committee at National Level.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not necessarily represent the views or editorial position of YesPunjab.com, which accepts no responsibility for the opinions expressed herein.
October 11, 2026
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not necessarily represent the views or editorial position of YesPunjab.com, which accepts no responsibility for the opinions expressed herein.
FOLLOW NOW
