A war of words erupted in the Lok Sabha during the discussion on the Waqf Amendment Bill, with a sharp exchange between Samajwadi Party (SP) president Akhilesh Yadav and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders. Yadav, while addressing the House, took a jibe at the BJP over its delay in electing a new national president. He remarked, “A party that claims to be the biggest political party in the world has still not been able to elect its own national president.” The remark was aimed at highlighting the BJP’s prolonged process of selecting a new leader.
Akhilesh Yadav’s statement, made with a touch of humor, quickly drew the attention of BJP leaders. In response, Union Home Minister Amit Shah took the floor with a measured but pointed counter. Shah, responding with a smile, said, “Akhilesh Ji made his remark with a smile, so I will respond in the same manner.” He then turned the tables by bringing up the organizational structures of opposition parties. “The parties sitting across from us in this House all have national presidents who are selected from just five family members,” Shah quipped, alluding to the family-led leadership in some political parties. He continued, “But in our party, we have to conduct a process involving 12-13 crore members, so naturally, it takes time. In your party, there is no delay at all.”
Shah’s response was both a defense of the BJP’s democratic election process and a critique of the dynastic politics often associated with rival parties. His comments were aimed at emphasizing the complexity and scale of the BJP’s internal process, where elections are not limited to a select few but involve millions of party members. The jab at family-run parties was clearly intended to underscore the BJP’s distinction as a party with a larger, more inclusive approach to leadership selection.
The exchange reflected the intense political rivalry between the BJP and Samajwadi Party, as well as the larger ideological battle playing out in Indian politics. While Yadav’s remark highlighted the BJP’s internal struggles, Shah’s response sought to shift the focus to the party’s organizational strengths and its commitment to a democratic process. The war of words served as a reminder of the sharp political divisions in the country, with each side taking opportunities to score points at the other’s expense, even in the midst of discussions on important national legislation like the Waqf Amendment Bill.
