Every year, Srinagar waits for the road repair season with the hope that broken stretches, potholes and damaged surfaces will finally disappear. Every year, large sums of public money are spent on macadamisation. And every year, the same question returns: why do newly macadamised roads begin developing cracks, potholes and uneven surfaces within months? This is no longer simply a question of inconvenience. It is a question of accountability, quality and public money. Srinagar has witnessed repeated road improvement drives, with different agencies undertaking macadamisation and restoration works. In 2024, the district administration had announced a plan to macadamise around 350 kilometres of roads and specifically stressed the use of quality material, proper gradients and durable blacktopping.  In 2025, the Roads and Buildings Department said more than 141 kilometres had been macadamised in Srinagar as part of its road improvement campaign.  Yet the experience of residents tells a different story. Several roads that were repaired or macadamised recently have again started showing cracks and deterioration. This is particularly frustrating because similar complaints were raised in previous years. There have been instances where even important roads and stretches in prominent or VIP areas developed potholes and cracks after repair, prompting public criticism and demands for action. Past reporting has documented roads that failed to withstand even one season after being macadamised. The problem, therefore, cannot simply be blamed on rain, snow or heavy traffic. Weather certainly affects Srinagar’s roads. The city experiences freezing temperatures, waterlogging, snow and repeated freeze-thaw cycles. Heavy traffic also places considerable pressure on road surfaces. But these are not unexpected conditions. They are part of Srinagar’s climate and urban reality. A road designed and constructed for the city must account for them. The bigger question is whether roads are being constructed according to the required specifications and whether those specifications are being properly monitored. If a road develops serious cracks soon after macadamisation, responsibility cannot end with a patchwork repair. Authorities must determine why the road failed in the first place. Was the base properly prepared? Was the surface adequately compacted? Was the material of the required quality? Was the thickness of the blacktopping according to the tender specifications? Was drainage properly addressed before the macadam was laid? Were quality-control tests conducted at different stages of construction? These are technical questions, but they are also questions of public accountability. There is another recurring problem: road construction and utility works often appear to operate without sufficient coordination. A road may be freshly macadamised, only to be dug up later for water supply, drainage, electricity, telecommunications or other works. Such practices not only waste public money but also weaken the road surface and inconvenience residents. Srinagar’s road problem is therefore not merely about putting a fresh layer of asphalt on an old surface. It is about managing the entire road lifecycle—from planning and drainage to construction, inspection, maintenance and accountability. Interestingly, road works are still being tendered in Srinagar this year.

“Citizens in Srinagar aren’t asking for world-class highways—just durable roads built with the funds already spent. Despite official promises, newly paved streets deteriorate after a single season, locking the city into a costly, endless loop of repairs and re-tendering. True progress requires shifting focus from constant repaving to enforcing real accountability for those who build roads that fail.”

Recent government tender records show fresh macadamisation works in different colonies and localities, demonstrating that the cycle of road construction and repair continues. That makes the present moment important. Before another season of macadamisation gathers pace, authorities should review the roads completed during the previous cycle. A road that has already failed should not simply receive another layer without identifying the cause of failure. There should be a public mechanism for monitoring major road projects. Details such as the executing agency, contractor, estimated cost, completion date, maintenance liability and quality-testing results should be accessible to citizens. Independent technical inspections of recently completed roads could also help establish whether premature deterioration is the result of poor workmanship, inadequate materials, drainage failures or other factors. Most importantly, accountability must follow the money. If a contractor fails to meet specifications, there must be consequences under the contract. If an executing agency certifies substandard work, responsibility should also be examined at the supervisory level. If officials have repeatedly issued completion certificates for roads that deteriorate shortly afterwards, that too deserves scrutiny. The objective should not be to punish someone merely because a road develops a crack. Roads can deteriorate for legitimate technical reasons. The objective should be to establish responsibility through evidence rather than allowing every failure to become somebody else’s problem. Srinagar deserves roads that last beyond one season. Citizens are not asking for luxury infrastructure. They are asking for roads constructed with the money already allocated for that purpose—and for those roads to provide reasonable service for the period promised under the contract. The administration has repeatedly emphasised quality and timely completion. Now it must ensure that these instructions are translated into measurable accountability on the ground. The question is no longer whether Srinagar needs better roads. Everyone agrees that it does. The real question is simpler: when a newly macadamised road develops cracks again and again, who is responsible and who is being held accountable? Until that question receives a clear answer, Srinagar will continue to see the same cycle: damaged roads, fresh tenders, new macadamisation, premature cracks and another round of repairs. That is not sustainable road management. It is a costly cycle that the city can no longer afford.

For millions of young Indians, competitive examinations are a pathway to better careers and financial security, but preparing for exams such as UPSC, SSC, banking and engineering entrances has become increasingly expensive. Private coaching institutes and online platforms charge substantial fees, creating an additional burden for middle-class and poor families. The Government’s growing focus on free coaching is therefore significant. Existing schemes under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment provide coaching support to disadvantaged students, including SCs, OBCs and beneficiaries of the PM CARES for Children Scheme. These initiatives cover examinations such as UPSC, State PSCs, SSC, banking and other competitive tests. The Government is now looking to take this idea to a much larger scale through a nationwide free digital coaching initiative announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The objective is to allow students to prepare for competitive examinations from their homes instead of moving to expensive coaching hubs. If implemented properly, such an initiative could change the competitive-exam preparation system in India. For a student from a small town or village, the cost of relocating to Delhi, Hyderabad, Chandigarh or another coaching hub can be prohibitive. Apart from coaching fees, families have to pay for accommodation, food, transportation and study material. A strong government-backed digital platform could substantially reduce these costs. However, free coaching will also put pressure on the private coaching industry. This competition should not necessarily be seen negatively. Private coaching companies have built strong systems around experienced teachers, test series, personalised mentoring, technology and study material. If the government provides quality free preparation, private institutes will have to demonstrate why students should continue paying high fees. That could ultimately benefit students. But the government must avoid reducing free coaching to a collection of recorded lectures. Competitive examinations require regular testing, doubt resolution, updated study material, mentoring and individual guidance. Without these elements, a free online platform may struggle to compete with established private brands.

“The Government aims to expand free targeted coaching into a scalable, transparent digital ecosystem to equalize competitive examination preparation. Rather than replacing private institutions, the initiative seeks to promote fair competition and lower financial barriers. Ultimate success relies on ensuring students from modest backgrounds can compete equally with those paying high private coaching fees, making opportunity dependent on talent rather than financial capacity.”

The digital divide is another challenge. Not every student has a laptop, high-speed internet or a quiet place to study. Many students in rural areas depend entirely on smartphones. Therefore, accessibility must be a central part of the programme. The Government’s existing targeted coaching schemes offer an important foundation. The next challenge is to build a larger, reliable and transparent digital ecosystem that provides quality preparation without making students dependent on their ability to pay. The Government does not need to eliminate private coaching. Private institutions should continue to compete and innovate. But access to quality preparation should not become a privilege reserved for those who can afford expensive coaching. The real success of free government coaching will be measured by one simple question: Can a student from a modest family in a small town compete on equal terms with a student who has spent lakhs on coaching? If the answer is yes, the initiative will have achieved much more than providing free classes. It will have made competitive examinations more accessible, increased competition in the coaching industry and strengthened the principle that talent, rather than financial capacity, should determine opportunity.

The Bharatiya Janata Party’s recent organisational revamp, marked by the return of seasoned leaders to key positions including national vice presidents, appears to be more than a routine exercise in internal restructuring. It reflects a calculated attempt to combine electoral consolidation with political experience, particularly in regions where the party’s expansion requires a nuanced understanding of local alliances, competing interests and complex political histories. By bringing battle-tested leaders back into the central leadership, the BJP appears keen to strengthen both its organisational machinery and its capacity for political engagement. The appointments bring together leaders with electoral experience, administrative exposure and established political networks. At a time when the party is preparing for a fresh phase of electoral competition, such experience can become an important asset. For Jammu & Kashmir, however, the return of RSS veteran Ram Madhav carries a significance of its own. Madhav was one of the key BJP strategists behind the 2015 alliance between the PDP and BJP. That political experiment was unprecedented in Jammu & Kashmir, bringing together two parties with sharply different ideological positions and political constituencies. The alliance was difficult to manage, but it demonstrated Madhav’s ability to engage with political actors across ideological and regional divides. His understanding of the Valley’s political landscape could once again become relevant. Jammu & Kashmir has undergone a profound political transformation since the abrogation of Article 370, the reorganisation of the erstwhile state and the restoration of an elected government. The National Conference-led administration is itself operating in an environment where expectations over statehood, governance, development and Centre-state relations remain intense. In such circumstances, political familiarity matters. Madhav’s return could provide the BJP central leadership with a person who understands the region beyond electoral arithmetic. His earlier engagement with the PDP, National Conference circles and other political stakeholders gave him exposure to the personalities, sensitivities and competing narratives that shape politics in Jammu & Kashmir. Importantly, Madhav was also known to have maintained proximity to several influential figures in the erstwhile political establishment. He was a close associate of then Finance Minister Haseeb Drabu and had interactions with other important political and policy figures. Such relationships, developed during the years of the PDP-BJP coalition, should not necessarily be viewed through the narrow prism of immediate political alliances. They represent a political network and institutional memory that can be useful when the Centre seeks to understand or engage with regional stakeholders. The political circumstances, of course, are no longer the same.

“Ram Madhav’s re-entry into the BJP signal a pivot toward political experience, regional nuance, and back-channel diplomacy over simple electoral expansion. His background positions him to bridge competing political narratives in Jammu & Kashmir through dialogue and informal networks rather than strict party alliances. As J&K’s fluid politics require patience and historical sensitivity, Madhav’s return tests whether revived connections can drive genuine engagement—putting seasoned strategy back at the core of the BJP’s national and regional playbook.”

The PDP-BJP coalition collapsed in 2018, Jammu & Kashmir lost its special constitutional status in 2019 and the political map of the region changed dramatically. Yet political relationships and institutional memory do not disappear overnight. This is where Madhav’s return becomes strategically important. The BJP has substantially expanded its political presence in Jammu and Kashmir, particularly in Jammu, but its relationship with the Valley remains a far more complicated proposition. The party’s challenge is not simply to win elections; it is also to understand the rapidly changing political aspirations of the people and identify spaces for engagement in a post-Article 370 environment. The National Conference’s return to power has added another dimension to this equation. While the elected government has repeatedly sought greater political and administrative space, its relationship with the Centre continues to be shaped by constitutional, financial and developmental questions. The BJP, meanwhile, has its own political objectives and a national framework that it wants to preserve. A leader with Madhav’s background can potentially serve as an interlocutor between competing political narratives—not necessarily through formal alliances, but through dialogue, political assessment and informal channels. The broader organisational reshuffle therefore deserves attention beyond the language of party appointments. It suggests that the BJP recognises the value of experienced political negotiators at a time when its expansion into new regions requires both organisational strength and political flexibility. The real test, however, will be whether this experience translates into a more effective political strategy. Jammu & Kashmir cannot be approached merely as another electoral battlefield. Its politics demands patience, dialogue and a deep understanding of regional and historical sensitivities. Ram Madhav’s return may give the BJP an experienced hand to navigate that difficult terrain. Whether his old networks can be revived, whether new bridges can be built and whether those relationships can translate into meaningful political engagement will ultimately determine the significance of his return. For the BJP, this is therefore not merely about bringing back an old strategist. It is about putting political experience back at the centre of a changing national and regional strategy. In Jammu & Kashmir, where political equations remain fluid, that could prove consequential.

Institutions such as the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) are not merely hospitals. They are premier centres of medical care, medical education, research and innovation, created to serve society through professional excellence. Their governance, therefore, deserves to be guided by the principles of merit, transparency, accountability and institutional autonomy. The recent practice of giving political representation in the governing bodies of AIIMS centres, whether in Jammu and Kashmir or elsewhere in the country, merits a careful review. This does not mean that political leaders have no role in healthcare.  Elected representatives have an important responsibility in shaping public health policies, ensuring accountability and raising issues concerning patients and public infrastructure. However, there is a difference between democratic oversight and direct involvement in the professional and administrative functioning of a medical institution. The experience of the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), Srinagar, provides an important case for reflection. SKIMS has played a significant role in providing specialised healthcare, medical education and research in Jammu and Kashmir.  At the same time, concerns have periodically been raised about political influence and administrative interventions affecting its institutional functioning. While it would be unfair to attribute every institutional challenge to political involvement alone, the experience does underline the importance of protecting professional institutions from excessive external interference. AIIMS centres being established across the country are expected to become institutions of national importance. Their governing structures should consequently have adequate representation from people with expertise in medicine, public health, medical education, research, healthcare administration, finance and institutional management. Such expertise can help institutions take decisions based on long-term professional and public-interest considerations. Political representation, where considered necessary, should also be carefully structured so that it strengthens accountability without compromising institutional independence. Public institutions cannot function in isolation from governments because they depend on public funding and are ultimately accountable to citizens. Government oversight is therefore both legitimate and necessary. The concern arises only when oversight begins to influence decisions that are best left to medical and administrative professionals.The distinction between oversight and intervention is important. Governments and elected representatives should be able to question delays, examine expenditure, demand better patient services and ensure that promised infrastructure is delivered. But matters relating to clinical practices, academic priorities, research, professional appointments and routine administration require appropriate expertise and established institutional procedures. Excessive external influence can gradually affect institutional culture. Even when there is no immediate visible damage, frequent interventions can create uncertainty, weaken continuity and discourage professionals from taking independent decisions. Premier medical institutions require stability because their growth is measured not merely in buildings and equipment but also in the quality of doctors they produce, research they undertake and healthcare they provide. This becomes particularly relevant as AIIMS centres expand across different parts of India.

“Balancing political accountability with medical autonomy is essential for the future of India’s premier healthcare institutions like AIIMS and SKIMS. Rather than sidelining elected representatives, governance frameworks must be redesigned with robust safeguards to ensure democratic oversight doesn’t inadvertently compromise professional decision-making or shortchange long-term vision for short-term political cycles. By clarifying administrative boundaries and shielding clinical standards, these reforms can ensure medical institutions remain anchored in professional excellence, public trust, and a patient-first mission.”

The Government has made significant investments in strengthening public healthcare infrastructure, and these institutions have the potential to reduce regional disparities in specialised healthcare. Their success, however, will depend on more than funding and infrastructure. Strong and professionally driven governance will be equally important. There is, therefore, a case for reviewing the composition and functioning of governing bodies of AIIMS institutions, including those in Jammu and Kashmir and other states and Union Territories. Such a review should not be interpreted as criticism of any particular political leader or government. Rather, it should be aimed at creating a governance model that combines public accountability with professional autonomy. The lessons from SKIMS should encourage policymakers to think carefully about institutional safeguards. The objective should not be to exclude elected representatives from public healthcare governance, but to ensure that their legitimate role does not unintentionally weaken the independence of medical institutions. India needs premier healthcare institutions that can plan for decades rather than political cycles. AIIMS centres should remain at places where doctors, researchers, students and administrators can work according to professional standards while remaining accountable to the public. Ultimately, the issue is not whether politicians should have any role in healthcare governance. The real question is how that role can be designed so that accountability is strengthened without compromising professional decision-making. A balanced governance structure, clearly defined responsibilities and strong institutional safeguards can ensure that both democratic oversight and professional autonomy coexist. It would therefore be prudent to review the existing framework before political representation in governing bodies becomes a source of unnecessary controversy. The objective should be simple: stronger institutions, better healthcare and governance that serves patients first.

The rapid rise of YouTube, Instagram and other digital platforms has transformed the way people consume information. It has also opened the doors of public discourse to voices that were once outside the traditional media ecosystem. This democratisation of communication is, in many ways, welcome. But it has also created a troubling overlap between content creation, journalism and activism, where the lines between reporting, commentary, campaigning and personal attacks are increasingly blurred. A growing number of so-called YouTubers and content creators now present themselves as journalists, investigators or activists. Some have millions of followers and enormous influence. Their reach can be impressive, and their ability to bring neglected issues into the public spotlight should not be dismissed. However, popularity cannot become a substitute for journalistic ethics, factual verification or respect for democratic institutions. Journalism is not simply the ability to speak loudly into a camera. It requires verification, fairness, context, accountability and a willingness to give people an opportunity to respond. Activism, meanwhile, has its own legitimacy, but it is fundamentally different from journalism. An activist may campaign for a cause; a journalist is expected to examine facts and allow the audience to make an informed judgment. When the two are deliberately mixed without transparency, the public is left wondering whether it is watching journalism or advocacy. The most disturbing trend is the emergence of online personalities who use their platforms to publicly shame, call out or humiliate individuals. Phone calls are recorded, conversations are selectively presented, names and photographs are displayed and accusations are sometimes made before facts have been independently established. The spectacle generates views, engagement and followers. But public humiliation should never become a substitute for accountability. There is an important difference between holding someone accountable and disrespecting them. Public figures, elected representatives and institutions must certainly face scrutiny. Citizens have every right to question decisions, demand transparency and criticise those in power. But criticism must remain within the boundaries of facts, civility and responsibility. A large following does not grant anyone a licence to insult, threaten or demean another person. The issue becomes even more serious when online personalities begin speaking as though their personal opinions represent the collective will of the people. A social-media following, however large, is not the same thing as a democratic mandate. Millions of views may indicate popularity, but they do not amount to votes. In a democracy, the aspirations of people are expressed through elections, institutions, public consultations and other legitimate civic processes—not merely through trending videos or viral posts. Those who claim to speak for the people must therefore recognise the diversity of public opinion.

“While traditional journalism has its flaws, content creators with large audiences must adhere to high standards of accountability, avoiding reckless claims and public trials. Influence and reach do not inherently grant credibility or the right to harass others. Ultimately, creators must exercise ethical restraint, and audiences must learn to critically differentiate between genuine journalism, commentary, activism, and entertainment to protect democratic values.”

A creator may have millions of followers, but those followers do not automatically constitute a political constituency. Nor can a digital audience be treated as a licence to undermine the choices made by voters simply because the creator disagrees with those choices. This does not mean social-media creators should stay away from journalism or activism. On the contrary, responsible digital voices can make a valuable contribution. They can expose wrongdoing, amplify marginalised voices, explain complex issues and bring government institutions under greater public scrutiny. But with influence comes responsibility. The larger the audience, the greater the obligation to verify information and avoid reckless claims. Traditional journalists are not perfect either. News organisations and reporters must also be held accountable for mistakes, bias and unethical conduct. But the answer to the weaknesses of mainstream journalism cannot be an unregulated culture in which anyone with a camera and a large following assumes the authority to investigate, prosecute and pronounce judgment. Digital creators entering public affairs should understand that visibility is not credibility, and virality is not verification. The public deserves information, not manufactured outrage; scrutiny, not harassment; and debate, not digital intimidation. The responsibility ultimately lies with both creators and audiences. Creators must know where criticism ends and character assassination begins. Audiences must also learn to distinguish between journalism, commentary, activism and entertainment. The digital age has given ordinary citizens an extraordinary voice. That opportunity should strengthen democracy, not weaken its values. Influence must come with restraint, criticism with responsibility, and freedom of expression with respect for the dignity of others. A million followers may give someone a bigger microphone, but it does not give anyone the right to cross every line.