MOHAMMAD TARIQUE SALEEM
In a sharply worded press conference held on April 15 in Lucknow, Samajwadi Party (SP) president Akhilesh Yadav launched a calculated political offensive against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its handling of governance in Uttar Pradesh. His remarks were more than just campaign rhetoric; they reflected growing discontent with the way power is being exercised in India’s most populous state, especially in the run-up to the 2025 general elections.
Yadav’s statement that the BJP will “reduce everything to zero before it exits” may sound dramatic, but it underscores a deeper anxiety about the direction of public institutions under prolonged single-party rule. His criticism spanned three key domains: institutional decay, communal polarization, and the centralization of power.
One of the most significant takeaways from Yadav’s address was his concern over the appointment of the next Director General of Police (DGP). While his words may appear as a mere critique of bureaucratic reshuffling, they touch on a crucial issue: the politicization of the police force.
According to Yadav, the BJP is no longer even attempting to preserve the appearance of meritocracy in police appointments. Instead, loyalty to the party line appears to be the defining criterion. His comparison to his own administration’s initiatives, particularly the Dial 100 emergency system and the 1090 Women Power Line, was intended to highlight the erosion of systems meant to serve citizens across caste and religion.
When the top law enforcement officer of a state is seen as an extension of political authority rather than as an independent figure of justice, public trust erodes. Yadav’s warning is subtle but clear: if institutions like the police cease to function independently, society gradually loses its foundational safeguards.
Abu Asim Azmi, president of the Samajwadi Party’s Maharashtra unit, added a sharper, more emotive edge to the press event. He alleged that Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s government disproportionately targets Muslims, Dalits, and backward castes, while allowing one particular caste group Thakurs to operate with impunity.
This claim, while politically charged, must be viewed in the context of several recent high-profile incidents where law enforcement has faced accusations of bias. Azmi’s statement reflects a broader narrative that has taken hold in parts of the electorate: that the state is becoming increasingly selective in how laws are applied.
The “bulldozer politics” of the Yogi administration demolishing alleged illegal properties belonging to accused individuals without due process has garnered both support and criticism. While it is presented by the BJP as a bold move against criminals, the opposition portrays it as extrajudicial punishment often used selectively, especially against minorities.
Although BJP leaders have denied any plans to amend the Constitution in a way that would undermine democratic protections, the fear persists particularly among marginalized communities. Yadav’s strategy here is not just to critique but to create a sense of urgency: if people do not act now, the rights they take for granted may no longer be guaranteed. This tactic of framing the election not just as a contest for power but as a battle to preserve democracy is becoming increasingly central to the opposition’s narrative in 2025.
Yadav’s press conference wasn’t simply about venting anger it was strategic. The phrase “reduce everything to zero” is likely to resonate with voters feeling abandoned by the system, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. It paints the BJP not just as ineffective but as destructive—a party that, in his view, leaves behind scorched earth wherever it governs.
Meanwhile, Abu Asim Azmi’s rhetoric seems aimed at consolidating the minority vote, particularly among Muslims in Uttar Pradesh who have historically supported the SP but have, in recent years, been courted by other opposition parties and even smaller regional players.
If there’s a unifying thread in Akhilesh Yadav’s attack, it is this: the erosion of democratic norms under BJP rule. Whether it’s police appointments, selective justice, or the fear of constitutional changes, Yadav is attempting to draw a picture of a democracy being hollowed out from within.
Of course, critics will argue that the Samajwadi Party too has had its own share of controversies while in power. Law and order issues, allegations of nepotism, and caste favoritism have not been exclusive to the BJP. But in politics, the question is often not who is perfect—but who is worse, and who offers hope of change.
Akhilesh Yadav’s April 15 conference marks a turning point in the tone and tempo of the SP’s campaign for 2025. No longer confined to broad promises, the party is now articulating a sharper critique of how BJP governs—especially when it comes to law, order, and justice.
By invoking both institutional concerns and emotional appeals to minority protection, the SP appears to be positioning itself as a moral and political counterweight to the BJP in Uttar Pradesh. Whether this approach will yield electoral dividends remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the battle for UP in 2025 is not just about seats, it’s about narratives—and the SP has just begun to write its chapter.
