The devastating floods in Nepal should force Jammu and Kashmir to pause and reflect. With the death toll from the Bhote Koshi flood disaster rising to 734 and more than 2,400 people still missing or out of contact, Nepal is confronting a catastrophe of extraordinary proportions. Behind these numbers are families, communities, workers and tourists whose lives have been shattered by the fury of water and landslides. The disaster is not merely a tragedy for Nepal. For Kashmir, a mountainous region equally exposed to extreme weather, fragile slopes and fast-flowing rivers, it should be a warning. The latest figures released by Nepal’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority show the enormous scale of the emergency. More than 8,000 people have been rescued, while nearly 20,000 security personnel have been deployed for search, rescue and relief operations. Hydropower projects have emerged as particularly vulnerable, with hundreds of workers among those reported missing. Helicopters have been deployed to evacuate stranded people, while medical teams, relief trucks and emergency supplies are being rushed to affected areas. Nepal’s experience underlines a basic truth: in mountainous regions, disasters can escalate with frightening speed. A cloudburst, glacial event, landslide or sudden rise in river discharge can turn a normal day into a life-and-death emergency within hours. Kashmir knows this reality all too well. The Union Territory has witnessed devastating floods, cloudbursts, flash floods and landslides in recent years. From the Jhelum basin to the Chenab, Lidder, Sindh and other mountain streams, settlements and infrastructure remain exposed to rapidly changing weather conditions. Roads, bridges, hydropower projects, tourism facilities and villages are often located close to rivers and unstable slopes. The lesson from Nepal, therefore, is not simply to strengthen rescue operations after a disaster. The bigger lesson is to reduce the risk before disaster strikes. Development in the mountains cannot be separated from ecological sensitivity. Roads and tunnels are necessary for connectivity. Hydropower is important for energy security. Tourism is vital to Kashmir’s economy. But development without adequate geological assessment, drainage planning, slope stabilisation and environmental safeguards can increase vulnerability. The growing frequency of extreme weather events makes this issue even more urgent. Climate change is altering rainfall patterns, increasing the intensity of extreme precipitation and placing additional stress on mountain ecosystems. Kashmir must consequently move from a largely reactive disaster-management approach to a stronger culture of prevention and preparedness.

“Disaster preparedness in mountain regions requires proactive planning, early-warning networks, community-led first response, and environmentally scrutinous infrastructure development. Taking inspiration from Nepal’s recent crisis coordination, vulnerable areas like Kashmir must prioritize prevention over post-disaster response. Disaster management must be an ongoing preventive necessity built into everyday infrastructure and community planning, not a reactive response launched after calamity strikes.”

Early-warning systems deserve particular attention. Communities living along rivers and streams should receive timely alerts through reliable communication networks. District administrations must regularly update evacuation plans, identify safe shelters and conduct mock drills. Local communities should not be treated merely as victims waiting for outside assistance; they must become the first line of disaster preparedness. Infrastructure projects also require greater scrutiny. Hydropower tunnels, bridges, highways and buildings in vulnerable areas need robust disaster-management plans. Construction activity should take into account changing hydrology, slope stability and the cumulative impact of multiple projects in fragile mountain zones. Nepal’s response also demonstrates the importance of coordination. Its army, police and armed police force have been mobilised on a massive scale. Helicopters are being used for evacuation and supply missions, while specialised medical and technical teams are supporting rescue operations. India, too, has extended assistance, with its fourth flight carrying essential relief material and specialised capabilities, including a tunnel technical team and forensic experts. For Kashmir, the message is clear. Disaster management cannot remain confined to government offices and emergency meetings after calamity has already struck. It must become part of everyday planning. The objective should not be to become better at counting casualties or rescuing survivors. It should be to prevent as many casualties as possible in the first place. Nepal is facing an immense human tragedy. Kashmir must respond to its warning before a similar disaster tests its own preparedness. In the mountains, preparedness is not an option—it is a necessity.

The inaugural International Film Festival of Jammu and Kashmir (IFFJK), scheduled from September 7 to 10, marks an important moment in Jammu and Kashmir’s cultural calendar. With 135 films from 41 countries, a substantial prize purse, international jury, master classes and screenings planned at distinctive venues, the festival has the potential to establish the Union Territory as a serious destination for cinema, creative exchange and cultural dialogue. What deserves particular recognition is the role being played by the Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR) in conceiving, coordinating and giving shape to this ambitious initiative. For a department traditionally associated with government communication and public information, taking the lead in creating an international cinematic platform represents an important expansion of its cultural outreach. The scale of IFFJK 2026 is significant. India will account for 64 films, while France will contribute 13 and Iran eight. Several other countries, including Argentina, Spain, Brazil, Germany, Russia, the United States, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, Qatar, Colombia and Türkiye, will add to the festival’s international character. Bringing such a diverse selection to Jammu and Kashmir is no small organisational undertaking. The festival’s programming also indicates that the DIPR has looked beyond merely hosting film screenings. A three-day master class program involving names such as Vidhu Vinod Chopra, Namrata Rao, Baylon Fonseca, Anil Mehta and other professionals can give students and aspiring filmmakers an opportunity to learn directly from experienced practitioners. A planned Canon workshop further adds a practical dimension by introducing participants to contemporary filmmaking equipment and technology. The selection of the five-member jury is another strong feature. With internationally respected names such as cinematographer-filmmaker Santosh Sivan and Oscar and BAFTA-winning sound designer Resul Pookutty, alongside Dorothee Wenner, Keiko Bang and Himansu Sekhar Khatua, the festival has brought together expertise spanning filmmaking, sound, curation, documentary production, international cultural exchange and film education. The Rs 96 lakh prize purse across nine categories is equally noteworthy. While the awards recognise excellence in filmmaking and technical craft, the dedicated J&K Select category, carrying a Rs 10 lakh prize, gives regional filmmakers a specific space within the festival. Such recognition is important if the event is to develop a local cinematic ecosystem rather than remain an international showcase staged in the region.

“By launching the inaugural International Film Festival of Jammu and Kashmir (IFFJK), the Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR)—supported by seamless inter-departmental coordination—is redefining the region’s cinematic legacy. Moving beyond its role as a mere shooting backdrop, Jammu and Kashmir is stepping into the spotlight as an active, world-class hub for filmmaking, talent, and international collaboration, establishing a sustainable annual platform on the global cultural map.”

The proposed floating screen on Dal Lake near SKICC may become the festival’s most distinctive feature. Cinema against the backdrop of one of Kashmir’s most recognisable landscapes offers an opportunity to combine artistic programming with the region’s visual identity. If executed professionally, it could become an enduring symbol associated with IFFJK. The credit for bringing these diverse components together must go substantially to DIPR. The department has not confined itself to publicity for an event conceived elsewhere; it has demonstrated institutional initiative in building a platform that connects cinema, culture, education, tourism and international engagement. Its publicity and branding strategy across social media, print, electronic media and outdoor platforms is also crucial to ensuring that the festival reaches audiences beyond official circles. At the same time, the success of IFFJK will ultimately be measured not by the scale of its announcements but by the quality of its execution. Hospitality, transport, security, venue management, civic amenities, scheduling and coordination will all matter. The Chief Secretary’s emphasis on seamless inter-departmental coordination is therefore important. For DIPR, the inaugural festival is also an opportunity to establish a benchmark for future editions. If the event becomes an annual fixture, the department can gradually build a sustainable film platform that attracts filmmakers, encourages local talent, facilitates international collaborations and creates space for conversations around cinema. Jammu and Kashmir has long provided locations and inspiration for Indian cinema. IFFJK offers an opportunity to move beyond being merely a backdrop for films and become a platform where films are made, discussed, taught, judged and celebrated. The DIPR deserves appreciation for taking this initiative forward with ambition and institutional purpose. The challenge now is to ensure that the inaugural edition delivers on that promise. A successful IFFJK could give Jammu and Kashmir a new cultural identity on the international map—and provide DIPR with a significant new role in shaping the region’s creative and cultural outreach.

India’s national security landscape is changing rapidly. Threats that once depended primarily on physical movement, conventional networks and identifiable organisations are increasingly being shaped by digital platforms, cyber systems, artificial intelligence and sophisticated cross-border operations. The directions issued by Union Home Minister Amit Shah at the National Security Strategies Conference 2026 therefore deserve attention not merely as another security review, but as an indication of how India intends to prepare for a more complicated threat environment. Among the priorities identified at the conference were preventing infiltration, identifying and deporting illegal migrants in accordance with law, improving intelligence coordination and making greater use of artificial intelligence to detect emerging threats. These are legitimate security priorities. But their effectiveness will depend on whether technology is accompanied by strong institutions, professional policing and strict adherence to constitutional and legal safeguards. The emphasis on using AI to analyse intelligence available through the Multi Agency Centre is particularly significant. Security agencies today receive enormous quantities of information from different sources. The challenge is no longer simply collecting intelligence; it is determining what matters, connecting seemingly unrelated pieces of information and responding before a potential threat develops. AI can assist in identifying patterns that may otherwise escape human attention. It can help process large datasets, detect anomalies and support faster decision-making. But technology should remain an aid to intelligence professionals, not a substitute for human judgment. Algorithms can make mistakes, reproduce biases or generate false positives. A national security system that relies excessively on automated conclusions could create new risks while attempting to address existing ones. The same principle applies to illegal migration. Strengthening mechanisms to identify people living in the country without valid documents is necessary for effective border management and internal security. Yet enforcement must remain firmly rooted in law. Illegal migration should not become a justification for indiscriminate profiling or collective suspicion of communities. Identification, investigation and deportation must follow due process, with agencies relying on verified documentation and established legal procedures. The conference’s focus on terrorism, radicalisation, narcotics, cybercrime and proxy warfare reflects the interconnected nature of contemporary security threats. Terror networks increasingly exploit communication technologies, criminal networks can intersect with extremist financing, and cyber platforms can be used for recruitment, propaganda and coordination. These challenges cannot be addressed by one agency working in isolation. That makes intelligence sharing and coordination especially important. India has created several institutional mechanisms to improve cooperation among security and law-enforcement agencies. The real test is whether information moves quickly enough from one agency to another and, more importantly, whether it is converted into actionable intelligence. The discussion on strengthening investigations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and expediting trials involving fugitives also highlights another important dimension of national security: the criminal justice system. Strong security laws are meaningful only when investigations are professional, evidence-based and followed by timely trials. The pursuit of fugitives and the use of legally permissible trials in absentia must similarly operate within established judicial safeguards. Cybercrime presents an equally urgent challenge.

“The National Security Strategies Conference highlights the need to ground national security policy in operational reality rather than top-down decision-making. India’s evolving national security strategy requires a balanced framework that integrates modern technology—such as artificial intelligence—with human intelligence, inter-agency cooperation, and strong legal accountability. Ultimately, security effectiveness is measured not by the scale of surveillance, but by the state’s ability to neutralize threats early while preserving foundational legal and ethical principles.”

As India becomes increasingly dependent on digital infrastructure, the country’s security is no longer confined to its borders. Financial systems, government databases, communication networks, transport systems and critical infrastructure can all become targets. Cybersecurity therefore needs to be treated as a core component of national security rather than a specialised technical issue. The second day’s focus on emerging threats from sub-aerial systems and the security of the blue economy further underlines how broad the security environment has become. Drones and other unmanned systems have already demonstrated their potential to challenge conventional surveillance and border-security mechanisms. Maritime security, meanwhile, is becoming increasingly important as India’s economic and strategic interests expand across the oceans. The annual National Security Strategies Conference is valuable because it brings together senior leadership, operational officers and specialists. Security policy should not be designed exclusively from offices in national capitals. The experience of officers working on the ground often reveals practical weaknesses that may not be visible at the policy level. India needs a security architecture that combines technology with human intelligence, stronger institutions with inter-agency cooperation, and decisive enforcement with legal accountability. AI can make intelligence systems faster and smarter, but it cannot determine the values that should govern their use. The ultimate measure of a national security strategy is not the volume of surveillance or the number of databases created. It is whether the state can identify genuine threats early, protect citizens effectively, dismantle criminal and terrorist networks and enforce the law without compromising the principles that the security system exists to protect. In an age of AI and increasingly complex threats, India must therefore pursue security that is not only technologically advanced, but also legally sound, professionally implemented and accountable. That balance will be the real test of the country’s emerging national security strategy.

The latest increase in electricity tariffs in Jammu and Kashmir has triggered a political debate that was perhaps inevitable. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has pointed out that the present government has raised power tariffs by around 6.5 per cent, arguing that this is nearly half of the 13 per cent increase effected by the previous elected government. The comparison may have political relevance, but it does little to answer the more important question confronting ordinary consumers: Can people afford the higher electricity bills? Power tariffs are not merely a statistic to be debated between rival political dispensations. Electricity is an essential service, and for a household struggling with rising prices, irregular incomes and growing monthly expenses, even a modest increase can put additional pressure on the family budget. Therefore, the real debate should be about affordability, transparency and the quality and reliability of electricity supply—not simply about which government increased tariffs more. The Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission’s approval of an average 6.83 per cent increase in retail supply tariffs from September 1, 2026, comes at a time when consumers are already confronting a higher cost of living. The government may legitimately argue that the increase is lower than that imposed during the previous government’s tenure. But a lower increase does not automatically make the new tariff affordable for every section of society. There is another reason why the government cannot avoid difficult questions on the issue. The present administration sought the people’s mandate with a significant promise of providing 200 units of free electricity. That promise created expectations among households, particularly lower- and middle-income consumers that electricity bills would become easier to manage. Having campaigned on such an assurance, the government must now explain clearly how the promise is being implemented, who qualifies for the benefit and how the tariff revision affects consumers who were expecting relief. This is where the political argument over whether the previous government increased tariffs by 13 per cent and the current government by 6.5 or 6.83 per cent becomes inadequate. Voters did not cast their ballots merely to see one percentage compared with another. They expected better governance, relief from economic pressures and fulfillment of commitments made during the election campaign. The government’s responsibility, therefore, is not simply to defend the tariff hike but to explain its necessity in terms that consumers can understand.

“Electricity is a basic necessity, not a political bargaining chip—and consumers deserve transparency over partisan distraction. The current debate must move past historical government comparisons to focus on what actually hits monthly bills: ensuring tariffs remain fair, explaining why prices are rising, and setting a clear, accountable timeline to deliver the promised 200 units of free power.”

If the increase is required because of rising power purchase costs, transmission and distribution expenses, financial losses of power distribution companies or other structural pressures, these facts should be placed transparently before the public. At the same time, consumers have every right to ask what they are getting in return. If electricity tariffs rise, there must be a corresponding effort to improve reliability, reduce unscheduled power cuts, strengthen distribution infrastructure and address billing-related grievances. A consumer who pays more reasonably expects a service that is dependable and efficient. The Government also needs to distinguish between different categories of consumers. A tariff increase can have a very different impact on a low-income household, a small shopkeeper, a farmer and a large commercial establishment. Any relief mechanism, including the promised free-power scheme, must therefore be designed and implemented transparently so that the most vulnerable consumers are not disproportionately burdened. Political parties will naturally compare their records. That is part of democratic accountability. But the public interest demands a debate that goes beyond political scorekeeping. The question is not whether one government raised tariffs more than another. The question is whether the present tariff structure is fair, affordable and sustainable. The Government should also recognise that the promise of 200 units of free electricity was not an ordinary political slogan. It was an electoral commitment that shaped public expectations. The administration cannot now evade questions about the power tariff hike by turning the discussion into a comparison with the previous government. Ultimately, electricity is not a political commodity. It is a basic necessity. For consumers, the difference between 6.5 per cent and 13 per cent matters, but so does the final amount appearing on the monthly bill. The government would do well to focus less on winning the argument over percentages and more on ensuring that every household understands why tariffs have increased, what relief is available and when the promised 200 units of free power will become a meaningful reality. That is the debate consumers deserve—and the accountability an elected government must provide.

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.