BY MOHAMMAD TARIQUE SALEEM
Politics in Uttar Pradesh rarely moves on a single track. This week, Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Akhilesh Yadav found himself addressing two very different but deeply connected issues, one rooted in a sensitive court verdict from Ayodhya, and the other in a long-running national debate over social justice and representation. Reacting to the verdict in the Ayodhya rape case, Yadav struck a defiant tone. After a special court acquitted an SP leader while convicting another accused, he said the judgment proved that “truth ultimately prevails over conspiracies.”
For Yadav, the case had become more than a criminal trial; it symbolized what he described as the growing tendency to weaponize allegations for political gain. He argued that his party and its leaders were targeted through media trials and administrative actions even before the court had delivered its decision. Without denying the seriousness of crimes against women, Yadav stressed the importance of due process and judicial independence. In his view, justice should be decided in courtrooms, not through public pressure or political narratives.
Yadav remarks were also a response to critics who accused the SP of shielding the accused. Yadav countered that standing by the legal process does not mean standing against victims, but rather upholding the rule of law. At the same time, the SP president shifted focus to a broader, structural issue, the demand for a census of all castes. Reiterating his long-standing position, Yadav said that real social justice cannot be achieved without accurate data. According to him, policies framed without knowing the actual population strength of different communities risk being unfair and exclusionary.
He argued that a caste-based census is not about dividing society, but about recognizing realities. “Rights, resources, and representation should be based on facts, not assumptions,” he has repeatedly said. Yadav believes that detailed caste data would help governments design welfare schemes more effectively and ensure that marginalized groups receive their due share. Together, these two positions reflect a consistent political message. Whether talking about a controversial verdict or pushing for a nationwide census reform, Akhilesh Yadav is attempting to project himself as a leader who values institutions, courts for justice and census data for policymaking.
Supporters see this as a stand against arbitrary power, while critics view it as selective outrage. In a state where emotions often run high and narratives shift quickly, Yadav’s statements underline an effort to anchor politics in process, evidence, and equity. As Uttar Pradesh heads toward another charged political season, both the Ayodhya verdict debate and the caste census demand are likely to remain central to the larger conversation on justice and social balance.
