By Mohammad Tarique Saleem
During the intense parliamentary sessions of March and April 2025, Akhilesh Yadav, the leader of the Samajwadi Party (SP), rose to prominence as one of the most dynamic and outspoken members of the opposition. Amidst the rhythmic clang of the Speaker’s gavel and the hum of legislative arguments, Yadav brought both sharp wit and fierce criticism to the forefront of India’s political stage. His presence in the Lok Sabha during this period was marked by fiery exchanges, bold accusations, and powerful oratory that left an undeniable imprint on the proceedings.
A major focal point of Yadav’s interventions was his strong disapproval of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, a proposal tabled by Union Minister Kiren Rijiju. The bill, intended to amend key aspects of the existing Waqf legislation, sparked a storm of controversy. Yadav stood firmly in opposition, arguing that the proposed changes threatened to erode India’s secular ethos. He portrayed the bill as a calculated political maneuver by the BJP, designed not only to weaken the Muslim community’s institutional structures but also to stoke communal tensions at a time when economic and social challenges were already mounting. For Yadav, the bill symbolized a deeper ideological strategy aimed at marginalization and distraction.
The Lok Sabha debates also served as a stage for political jabs and counter-jabs. In a particularly charged moment, Yadav drew attention to what he described as the BJP’s internal uncertainty, pointing out the delay in announcing the party’s national president. His comment was a subtle but clear suggestion of disarray within the ruling party’s ranks. Not one to let a challenge go unanswered, Union Home Minister Amit Shah responded with a quip of his own, mockingly suggesting that Akhilesh Yadav would continue to lead the Samajwadi Party for the next 25 years, a reference to dynastic politics that many in the BJP frequently use to criticize opposition parties. The exchange captured the personal and political rivalries simmering beneath the surface of the debates.
Beyond the ideological battles, Yadav turned a critical eye toward the country’s economy. Citing a sharp decline in the stock market, he blamed the government’s policies for triggering widespread financial instability. His rhetoric painted a bleak picture, where the economic impact was being disproportionately borne by common citizens. He called the situation a “double vicious circle,” reflecting his belief that flawed governance and inequitable economic growth were feeding into each other, creating a cycle from which the majority of Indians—particularly the poor and middle class found it difficult to escape.
Yadav’s sharpest criticism, however, came when he accused the BJP of functioning as the “biggest land mafia” in the country. His allegations centered around incidents in Uttar Pradesh, where he claimed that land was being seized under the pretense of development. According to him, these encroachments were part of a larger pattern of exploitation, where land acquisition had become a tool of political and financial gain. Such a bold accusation added further fuel to the already growing fire between the ruling party and the opposition.
Amid all this, parliamentary sessions were anything but smooth. SP members, often joined by their allies in the Trinamool Congress, took to vocal demonstrations, complete with slogans and placards. These protests frequently disrupted proceedings, leading to repeated adjournments. The disruptions reflected not just anger, but also a broader sense of urgency among opposition members who felt sidelined in the legislative process.
Ultimately, Akhilesh Yadav’s approach in Parliament during this period blended passion, pointed critique, and political theatrics. Whether speaking on communal concerns, economic distress, or governance failures, he positioned himself as a relentless challenger to the dominant narrative. His speeches and interventions reinforced his stature as a key player in shaping the opposition’s voice, ensuring that his presence was both seen and heard in the evolving story of Indian politics.
