4 minutes agoAuthor: Swadhin Patel
The ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament is rocked over the alleged police brutality against the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protesters.
Several sessions of Parliament have been washed away due to the Opposition’s ruckus demanding the resignation and presence of Home Minister Amit Shah in Parliament. Shah has yet to make any statement over the burning issue which halted the nation for a week.
The issue is still haunting the NDA government, despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s repeated assurances of strict action against those involved in the paper leak.
Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi accused the Home Minister over the police brutality and said that he allegedly ordered the pellet gun firing and demanded a statement.
Rahul in Lok Sabha said, “Home Minister does not have the courage to come and sit here. He was sitting in the car. He was trembling.'”
Strangely, the modern Chanakya of the BJP has not made any statement. Is this a well-defined strategy? Why does Shah rarely react immediately after political controversies?
A pattern can be noted that he often chooses to stay silent in the initial phase, allowing colleagues to defend the government while he waits for a politically opportune moment to respond.
Does staying silent before launching an aggressive counterattack benefit the BJP, or this time will it create political costs like delay in introducing the Delimitation Bill? Lets Discuss
Opposition MPs protest near Makar Dwar in Parliament demanding accountability for police excesses on students from Amit Shah.
First let’s look at his response to major controversies
Ambedkar row: Shah defended his remarks a day later after Oppn protested nationwide
On 17 December 2024, while replying to the Constitution debate in the Rajya Sabha, Amit Shah said, “Abhi ek fashion ho gaya hai — Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar…”, triggering Opposition allegations that he had insulted Dr BR Ambedkar.
INDIA bloc leaders demanded his resignation and Opposition parties protested nationwide.
Opposition protested against Amit Shah’s remarks on BR Ambedkar during the Constitution debate in the Upper House.
BJP initially defended Shah through its leaders, saying his remarks were taken out of context and sharing the full speech.
A day later after the Opposition protest, Shah addressed a press conference, refused to apologise and instead accused Congress of denying him due recognition and using his name only for political gain. He said the Opposition had deliberately distorted his remarks.
Nijjar allegations: Shah stayed silent, MEA led India’s response
The row began in September 2023, when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged that Indian agents were linked to the killing of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.
India rejected the claim as “absurd” and “motivated”, with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) leading the response.
The controversy escalated in October 2024 after Canada publicly named Amit Shah as the senior Indian official allegedly linked to the case.
Shah did not issue a personal statement or hold a press conference. Instead, the MEA dismissed the allegations.
Shah maintained his usual approach, remaining personally silent while institutional channels handled the controversy.
Ishrat Jahan case: Shah stayed in the background during probe
The Ishrat Jahan encounter case became a major political controversy, with the Congress repeatedly linking Amit Shah to it.
However, the CBI never chargesheeted Shah, telling a special court in May 2014 that it had no prosecutable evidence against him.
People hold candles in front of a banner bearing the portrait of Ishrat Jahan during a protest in Ahmedabad on 6 July, 2013 | AFP
During the investigation, Shah largely avoided detailed public comments, while the BJP defended him.
As the controversy resurfaced in later years, BJP leaders counterattacked, alleging the Congress had politicised national security and manipulated the case.
Another instance of Shah letting legal developments and party leaders speak before entering the political debate.
People carrying the body of Ishrat Jahan from her residence on the outskirts of Mumbai for burial on 19 June 2004 REUTERS
Sohrabuddin case: Shah fought in court, responded later
The Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case was the biggest legal challenge of Amit Shah’s career.
Arrested by the CBI in July 2010, Shah denied allegations of involvement in the alleged fake encounters, calling the case politically motivated.
On 23 November 2005, Sohrabuddin, his wife Kausar Bi and companion Tulsiram were abducted from a bus.
During the four-year investigation and trial, he largely avoided public campaigns and frequent media responses, relying instead on his legal defence while the BJP accused the UPA of misusing investigative agencies.
Sohrabuddin and his wife were murdered in November 2005. File
In December 2014, a Mumbai CBI court discharged him for lack of prosecutable evidence. Only after securing legal relief did Shah publicly call the case an instance of “political vendetta”.
Shah’s similar pattern where he went through legal battles before launching a political counterattack.
Also Read | All 22 accused acquitted in Sohrabuddin fake encounter case
There are rare times when Shah took charge from the outset, he did during CAA protests
CAA protests: Shah broke his usual silence-first approach
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests marked a departure from Amit Shah’s usual controversy management style.
Instead of staying silent or letting ministers lead the response, Shah himself took charge from the outset.
As Home Minister, he introduced the Bill in Parliament and became its chief defender.
Amit Shah introduced the CAA and later defended the government’s decision across various media platforms in 2019.
He challenged the Opposition to identify any such provision in the law and declared, “Protest as much as you want, the CAA will not be withdrawn.”
This was an exception to his typical silence-first approach, with Shah opting for direct, sustained public engagement to defend a flagship BJP policy.
Expert says Shah keeping a low profile to cool tempers; adds Delimitation Bill may suffer
Political analyst Neerja Chowdhury says Amit Shah’s absence from Parliament, despite being present in the Parliament complex, appears to be a calculated strategy to avoid escalating the ongoing political controversy over the 20 July police action.
Chowdhury believes the biggest political casualty could be the proposed Delimitation Bill, which she describes as Shah’s “baby”.
According to her, the government is likely to wait until the political environment becomes less confrontational before moving ahead.
She concludes that the controversy has become a setback in several ways, both politically and legislatively.
