Recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Iran have prompted renewed discussion among some Democratic lawmakers about the potential use of the 25th Amendment to remove a sitting president from office.

The debate, however, reflects more of a political signal than a viable constitutional pathway, given the significant institutional and partisan barriers involved.The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, was designed to clarify presidential succession and ensure continuity of executive authority.

It addressed longstanding gaps in the Constitution, particularly the absence of a clear mechanism for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. Historical data from the Congressional Research Service indicates that between 1789 and 1967, the vice presidency remained vacant for a cumulative total exceeding 37 years due to deaths, resignations, or succession.

The amendment comprises multiple sections, but current political discussion has centered on Section 4, which outlines a process for involuntarily transferring presidential powers if the president is deemed unable to discharge the duties of the office. Under this provision, the vice president, together with a majority of the cabinet or another congressionally designated body, can declare the president unfit.

If the president contests the determination, Congress must convene within 48 hours, and a two-thirds majority in both chambers is required to uphold the decision.While Section 3 of the amendment has been used in limited circumstances, primarily involving temporary medical incapacitation, Section 4 has never been invoked.

In 2021, then-President Joe Biden temporarily transferred authority during a medical procedure, illustrating the amendment’s routine procedural application rather than its more controversial provisions.

Calls to consider Section 4 have surfaced previously, most notably after the January 6 United States Capitol attack, when some Democratic leaders urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to initiate the process. Among those advocating such action were Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Those efforts did not advance, reflecting both political constraints and the high constitutional threshold required.The current discussion emerges in a similarly constrained environment. Republicans maintain narrow majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, making bipartisan cooperation essential for any attempt to proceed.

Analysts note that without substantial defections from within the president’s party, the two-thirds congressional requirement effectively renders the mechanism unattainable under present conditions.

Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, characterized the prospect as politically unworkable, citing the improbability of sufficient Republican support.

Public opinion data further underscores this dynamic, with approximately 82 percent of Republican voters expressing approval of Trump’s presidency, reinforcing party cohesion at a critical juncture.The political risks for Democrats are also significant.

Previous efforts to remove Trump through impeachment during his first term failed to secure conviction in the Senate, despite passage in the House. Those experiences continue to inform strategic calculations within the party, particularly as lawmakers prepare for upcoming midterm elections in which control of Congress remains contested.

Some Democratic legislators have indicated a preference to prioritize policy initiatives over procedural challenges to the presidency. Representative Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania stated that pursuing impeachment or similar measures at this stage may not represent the most effective use of legislative time, emphasizing instead issues such as economic policy, inflation, and childcare access.

Republican leaders have responded critically to the renewed focus on the amendment. House Speaker Mike Johnson described the discussion as politically motivated, arguing that it reflects a lack of substantive policy direction among Democratic lawmakers.

The exchange highlights the broader partisan divide that shapes both the feasibility and the framing of constitutional mechanisms in contemporary U.S. politics.

The renewed attention to the 25th Amendment illustrates its enduring relevance as a constitutional safeguard, while also underscoring the practical limitations of its most consequential provisions.

Although designed to address extraordinary circumstances, its application remains contingent on political consensus at the highest levels of government, a condition that appears absent in the current landscape.

Today, Soomro’s name is largely absent from Pakistan’s textbooks and official narratives.

In the narrative of Pakistan’s creation, the story is often framed as a unified struggle for a Muslim homeland. Yet, this overlooks the voices of dissent, none more compelling than Allah Bux Mohammed Umar Soomro, the former Premier of Sindh. A devout Muslim and staunch Indian nationalist, Soomro rejected the Muslim League’s Two-Nation Theory, advocating for a secular, united India. His defiance of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his mysterious assassination in 1943 expose the contradictions and betrayals at the heart of Pakistan’s founding.

A Muslim Nationalist’s Stand

Allah Bux Soomro was no ordinary leader. As Premier of Sindh, he refused to let his Muslim identity be weaponized for political ends. Aligning with Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, he championed a vision of India where civic identity trumped religious divides. “I am first an Indian and then a Muslim,” he declared, a statement that encapsulated his commitment to pluralism and unity.

His principles were matched by action. In 1942, Soomro returned his knighthood, a prestigious British honor, as a protest against colonial oppression and in support of the Quit India Movement. This bold move infuriated the British and alienated pro-British Muslim leaders, marking him as a true nationalist. While the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, avoided the Quit India Movement, Soomro’s government backed it, further antagonizing both colonial authorities and the League, which saw Sindh as crucial to its Pakistan agenda.

A Threat to Jinnah’s Vision

By 1943, Soomro’s influence was growing beyond Sindh, reaching Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). His message of secularism and unity resonated with Muslims who saw no conflict between their faith and Indian identity. This alarmed the Muslim League, which relied on communalism to consolidate power. Soomro’s popularity threatened Jinnah’s narrative that only the League spoke for India’s Muslims.

Jinnah viewed Soomro as a formidable obstacle, publicly dismissing him as a “Congress stooge.” Soomro’s principled stand made him a target, not just in Sindh but in regions critical to the League’s vision of Pakistan. His ability to rally diverse communities around a pluralist ideal posed a direct challenge to the League’s momentum.

A Mysterious Death

On May 14, 1943, Allah Bux Soomro was assassinated near Shikarpur, Sindh, reportedly by a hired killer posing as a beggar. The official account cited personal motives, but the political context suggests otherwise. Soomro had been ousted from his premiership under pressure from the British and the Muslim League. His rising influence, particularly as his ideas spread to Punjab, made him a threat to Jinnah’s communal agenda. The timing of his death, just as his vision gained traction, points to a calculated act to silence dissent.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a leading Muslim nationalist and Congress president, mourned Soomro’s death as a blow to India’s unity. In India Wins Freedom, Azad praised him as a “man of great character,” lamenting the loss of a leader driven by conscience, not communalism. The murder was not just a personal tragedy but a blow to the vision of a united India.

Erased from History

Today, Soomro’s name is largely absent from Pakistan’s textbooks and official narratives. This erasure is deliberate. His life and death challenge the myth that Pakistan was the unanimous will of Indian Muslims. Many Muslims, like Soomro, opposed partition, advocating for a democratic, pluralist India. His assassination silenced a voice that could have altered South Asia’s trajectory, sparing it the horrors of division.

The hypocrisy is stark: a movement claiming to protect Muslim interests eliminated a Muslim leader who dared to prioritize unity over division. Soomro’s death was not at the hands of Islam’s foes but those who used faith to justify power. His murder underscores the cost of dissent in a movement that brooked no opposition.

A Legacy for Today

As Pakistan grapples with religious extremism and identity crises, Soomro’s story holds vital lessons. The unresolved tensions of its founding—when voices like his were silenced—continue to shape its challenges. Glorifying myths about Pakistan’s creation only deepens these divides. Honoring Soomro means confronting the uncomfortable truths of the past and embracing the values he died for: democracy, justice, and interfaith harmony.

Allah Bux Soomro was more than a Sindhi leader; he was a symbol of what South Asia could have been—a region united by shared ideals, not torn by faith. His mysterious death remains a haunting reminder of the price paid for dissent and the enduring need to reclaim his vision of unity.

According to officials, the searches were related to possible violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). The agency targeted NGOs and firms funded by OSF and SEDF, as well as Aspada Investments Private Limited, a holding company of SEDF. Authorities stated that Aspada acts as an investment advisor and fund manager for SEDF in India and is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Mauritius-based entity.

Officials revealed that the agency traced a money trail of INR25 crore from Soros-linked companies to several Indian NGOs. Additionally, foreign direct investment (FDI) amounting to INR300 crore, funneled through OSF’s subsidiaries, is under scrutiny. It is believed that SEDF has funded over a dozen companies in India with investments totaling INR300 crore.

ED’s Investigation into Foreign Funding

A senior officer, speaking anonymously, confirmed that ED recently launched a FEMA probe against Soros and his companies. “Our teams carried out raids at eight locations in Bengaluru to investigate contraventions in FDI rules by SEDF and OSF and the subsequent utilization of those funds,” the officer said.

Preliminary investigations indicate that OSF was placed under the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) prior reference category in 2016, restricting it from making unregulated donations to Indian NGOs. However, officials suspect OSF circumvented these restrictions by establishing subsidiaries in India and routing funds under the guise of FDI and consultancy fees.

A second official noted that ED is examining the end-use of other FDI funds brought in by SEDF and OSF in India.

SEDF’s Investment History in India

According to VCCEdge, the data platform owned by HT Media, SEDF invested INR50 crore in its impact-focused subsidiary, Aspada Investments, in 2013. Aspada Fund 1, its first fund, later raised around INR271 crore, which it used to invest in over a dozen companies, including quick commerce platform Dunzo Digital, WayCool Foods and Products, and NeoGrowth Credit.

SEDF later sold a controlling stake in Aspada to LGT, a private banking and asset management group owned by the Princely House of Liechtenstein. In 2021, this entity was renamed Lightrock, which continues to invest in impact-driven businesses in India.

OSF’s Presence and Restrictions in India

OSF, one of the world’s largest private funders of human rights advocacy, impact investment, and justice-related initiatives, began operations in India in 1999. However, officials confirm that OSF does not have a formal office in the country.

The organization’s website acknowledges that its funding activities in India have been constrained since mid-2016 due to government restrictions.

Political Controversy Surrounding George Soros

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government has previously linked Soros to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. In December 2024, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey accused the Congress of collaborating with the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a global investigative journalism initiative allegedly backed by Soros’ OSF, to undermine India’s Parliament and government. BJP MP Sambit Patra also alleged that Rahul Gandhi was part of a “triangle” with Soros and OCCRP aimed at destabilizing India.

Neither OSF nor SEDF has responded to queries regarding the ED’s latest actions.

In its election manifesto released on Tuesday, the Congress said it will take strong steps to bring an IPL franchise to Madhya Pradesh if it unseats Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Madhya Pradesh will be among five states that will elect new legislatures next month ahead of general elections due by May 2024, when Modi and BJP will seek a third straight term.

The annual IPL, with an estimated brand value of $8.4 billion, is hugely popular in India. It is one of the richest leagues in the world and has been attracting top players and coaches to India since its inaugural edition in 2008.

The tournament currently has 10 teams from across India but none from Madhya Pradesh, one of the most populous states in the country of 1.4 billion.

But the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the custodian of the IPL, has said it has no immediate plans to add more teams.

The BCCI has strong links with the BJP – it is headed by Jay Shah, the son of federal interior minister Amit Shah – while IPL Chairman Arun Singh Dhumal is sports minister Anurag Thakur’s brother.

The IPL added two new franchises in 2022 when promoters of Lucknow and Ahmedabad cities paid a combined 127.15 billion rupees ($1.53 billion) to be part of the money-spinning league.

“The Congress demands that the bill be implemented as soon as possible,” said Gandhi, the first lawmaker to start the debate on the bill tabled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.

“For how many years women will have to wait for a larger role in the parliament?,” said Gandhi, 77.

The bill will require the approval of both houses of parliament and a majority of state legislatures to be passed.

While all political parties have welcomed the bill and are expected to vote in favour, its implementation depends on a complex drill of population census and boundaries of all political constituencies redrawn.

India’s once in a decade census was due to be completed in 2021 but was delayed because of the pandemic. Technical and logistical hurdles have set the survey back further.

Gandhi and other female lawmakers from regional parties also demanded a quota for women from backward castes within the overall 33% quota for women to ensure equal representation of women from all walks of life.

Increasing the number of women in India’s corridors of power is expected to serve as a game-changer for Modi’s ruling party as it aims to nominate women for a third of seats in the 2024 general elections.

Although Indian women are increasingly making their presence felt in society and professionally, they have largely been stuck on the sidelines of the political process, accounting for about one in 10 national and regional lawmakers.

“Women in India have made enormous sacrifices for the growth of India,” said Gandhi.

Italian-born Gandhi, the widow of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, has been the longest-serving president of the Congress party and has been credited with reviving the Congress when it won national elections in 2004.

Gandhi who could have become India’s first foreign-born prime minister, but had surprised everyone by turning down the top post and instead nominated economist Manmohan Singh to be prime minister.

“Come what may, my duty remains the same. Protect the idea of India,” Gandhi posted on social media after the verdict.

Following are some reactions from lawmakers and politicians:

Mallikarjun Kharge, president, Congress

“Truth Alone Triumphs! We welcome the verdict by the Hon’ble Supreme Court giving relief to Shri Rahul Gandhi. Justice has been delivered. Democracy has won. The Constitution has been upheld.”

Purnesh Modi, Bharatiya Janata Party State Lawmaker, Petitioner Against Gandhi

“Rahul Gandhi’s conviction was stayed in the Supreme Court today. In this legal process, we welcome the verdict. In sessions court our case will continue and our battle will continue.”

K.C. Venugopal, Member Of Parliament, Congress

“Justice has prevailed. No force can silence the voice of the people.”

Mehbooba Mufti, President, Jammu And Kashmir People’s Democratic Party

“I welcome the Supreme Court verdict staying Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in a case that had no legs to stand upon. Glad that he will be back in Parliament fighting for the idea of India.”

Mamata Banerjee, Chairperson, All India Trinamool Congress, West Bengal Chief Minister

“I am happy with the news about the MP-ship of Rahul Gandhi. This will further strengthen the resolve of the INDIA alliance to unitedly fight for our motherland and win. A victory of the judiciary!”

P. Chidambaram, Member Of Parliament, Congress

“The Supreme Court’s order today is a vindication of the argument that we have consistently pressed before every court – from the trial court to the Supreme Court … We maintain that the case was manufactured with the sole intention of keeping Mr Rahul Gandhi from Parliament.”

Supriya Sule, Member Of Parliament, Nationalist Congress Party

“In the pursuit of truth, the essence of Satyamev Jayate resonates once more. The unwavering voice of truth shall never be subdued. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision on Rahul Gandhi Ji’s case is a herald of justice, warmly embraced. A hearty welcome back to Parliament!”

Akhilesh Yadav, President, Samajwadi Party

“The Supreme Court has restored people’s faith in the Indian democracy and judiciary by staying Rahul Gandhi’s sentence.”

Gandhi was convicted in March in a case brought by a lawmaker from the western state of Gujarat belonging to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), over comments he made in 2019 deemed insulting to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other people surnamed Modi, including the lawmaker.

Gandhi, 53, scion of a dynasty that has given India three prime ministers, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment but the jail term was put on hold and he was granted bail.

He also lost his parliamentary seat following the conviction, since lawmakers sentenced to jail terms of two years or more are automatically disqualified.

Lower courts and the high court in Gujarat had rejected appeals by Gandhi to suspend the conviction, causing him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Washington (Reuters) – U.S. lawmakers on Thursday invited Israel’s president to address a joint meeting of Congress on July 19, a top honor aimed at celebrating Israel’s 75th birthday even as tensions rise with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government.

Isaac Herzog’s address will be the first by an Israeli president, a largely ceremonial role, since his father delivered remarks to the House of Representatives and Senate over 35 years ago, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said in a statement.

“The world is better off when America and Israel work together,” McCarthy said. “(We) continue to strengthen the unbreakable bond between our two democracies.”

Herzog’s visit to Washington follows a period of increased violence in the occupied West Bank, where a renewed settlement construction push by Netanyahu’s religious-nationalist government has drawn criticism from President Joe Biden’s administration.

Netanyahu has yet to be received at the White House despite winning a sixth term in November, an apparent signal of U.S. displeasure over his policies – including a contested plan to roll back the powers of Israel’s Supreme Court.

Netanyahu said in an interview published Thursday that he has was no longer seeking to grant parliament the authority to overturn Supreme Court rulings as part of the judicial overhaul plan. Washington has yet to comment on his pledge.

Recent violence in the West Bank, territory Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war and where Palestinians seek statehood, has included deadly clashes in the Palestinian city of Jenin, a fatal shooting by Palestinians near a Jewish setlement, and attacks on Palestinian villages by settlers.

Most countries deem the settlements as illegal. Washington last week objected to an Israeli decision to approve the construction of around 5,700 additional West Bank housing units for Jewish settlers.

Opposition parties slammed the Narendra Modi government in the Lok Sabha Sunday over its handling of the Covid-19 crisis — “unplanned” lockdown, rising number of cases, migrant crisis and the debilitating effect of all this on the economy.

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor led the opposition charge, opening the discussion with scathing criticism of what he alleged was the government’s propensity to take one-sided decisions without consulting stakeholders and betraying the basic tenets of a deliberative democracy.

“Among the countries of the world, some were able to get on top of the virus and controlled it effectively, others managed either to keep the economy going or to control the virus,” Tharoor said. “We are the poster child of the worst case scenario — we are the only ones that managed neither the economy nor the virus. We have the GDP shrinking, we locked down at 564 cases and are opening up at 54 lakh cases.”

He added that the pandemic has finally given the “government an excuse to hide its face”.

As the first speaker from the treasury benches, BJP MP Kirit Solanki unwittingly ended up endorsing Tharoor’s allegation — of the government relying on unilateral decisions — as he credited Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “single-handedly leading the battle”.

The charge that the government refused to consult states was a running theme throughout the discussion.

COVID Crisis took back-seat

DMK’s Dayanidhi Maran was among those who alleged that the Modi government had not taken the states and the nation into confidence. He made repeated sarcastic references to the “Sanghis” who burst crackers in March to celebrate the defeat of the virus and those who flocked to the streets to laud the work being done by healthcare workers.

Maran went on to accuse the government of jeopardising the entire nation in order to “topple the Madhya Pradesh government and so that the prime minister can get his photo opportunity with US President Donald Trump”.

Maran was referring to the US President’s visit in February when a crowd gathered at Motera Stadium for the ‘Namaste Trump’ event. He also highlighted the government’s unwillingness to call off the second leg of the Budget Session in March despite apprehensions and asking Rajya Sabha members to leave the House for wearing masks.

“Whenever the PM comes at 8 pm, bad news follows,” Maran said. “The lockdown was imposed with no strategic planning, states were unaware and chaos ensued. He asked people to clap and light lamps and a minister coined the term ‘Go Corona go’, ending up promoting English. But corona did not go.”

Maran also said reducing salaries of MPs would send the message to private companies to impose similar pay cuts.

Congress MP Karti Chidambaram, a Covid-19 survivor, called the Rs 20 lakh crore “Covid package” a “complete maya (illusion)”.

PM should lead again

Shiv Sena MP Arvind Sawant urged the prime minister to “continue to lead” and “not leave the states in the lurch”.

“You were giving us PPE kits and ventilators earlier,” Sawant said. “I don’t know what happened but you have now stopped that and are also refusing to give the GST compensation due to us…but you should check the status of the ventilators you gave earlier.”

Sawant recounted how the four-hour notice for lockdown on 24 March brought milling crowds on to the streets of Mumbai “throwing social distancing to the winds immediately”.

“If you had given time, people would have been able to decide what to do and not died while having a meal on railway tracks. PM asked us to do taali and thali and we did that because we had faith on him. But look what happened,” Sawant added.

Dr S.T. Hasan of Samajwadi Party made an impassioned plea for the import of the Russian vaccine. Dr Amol Kolhe of NCP said Indians withstood extreme hardships and clapped and banged thalis because of their “faith in the prime minister”.

“Look what happened after that. The pandemic didn’t end and our countrymen are scared. We are the second country in the world on deaths and cases. I want to know whether the country is in community transmission or not? If the answer is yes, all government policies have failed. It the answer is no then how do we have a lakh cases per day,” Kolhe said.

BJP’s Ramesh Bidhuri congratulated the country for having “a PM with foresight that ensured that the world was shattered by COVID but India stayed put”.

“Home minister Amit Shah despite being diabetic went himself to Lok Nayak Hospital for a first hand inspection,” Bidhuri said.

Article first published on ThePrint.

Abantika Ghosh is a journalist at The Print. She writes on health and politics. She tweets under @abantika77.

The settlement envisages the renovation of 22 existing mosques in Ayodhya

The primary Muslim litigant in the title dispute case has informed the Supreme Court that it is willing to drop its appeals in the matter – and its claims to the land on which the historic Babri Masjid stood for centuries before it was demolished by Hindutva activists and leaders in 1992 – provided the Centre is willing to guarantee that all other places of worship in India will be protected from similar encroachment.

“Settlement has been filed. I cannot say more now,” a source familiar with the proceedings told The Wire on Wednesday morning.
The court, however,  continued with its hearings, and at the end of the day’s proceedings said it was reserving its judgment

Mediation proposal

The surprise development came on the last day of the hearings scheduled by the five judge-constitution bench of the Supreme Court. In virtually day-to-day hearings over the past few weeks, the bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, had heard arguments from the two Hindu litigants in the case – the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas, controlled by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a front of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and the Nirmohi Akhara – as well as the Sunni Waqf Board.

Gogoi retires in the middle of November and the bench is expected to deliver its judgment in the landmark case by then.

According to informed sources, the Sunni Waqf Board and some but not all of the Hindu litigants have signed the settlement proposal, which has been submitted via the three-member mediation panel that the court had set up earlier this year.

Significantly, the VHP-backed Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas has not accepted the terms of the settlement.

Besides firm safeguards for all other mosques in India, the settlement envisages the renovation of 22 existing mosques in Ayodhya, permission to build another mosque in lieu of the Babri masjid at some other location, and the possibility of worship in a number of historic mosques which are currently under the care of the Archaeological Survey of India.

Headed by a former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice (retd) F.M.I. Khalifullah and comprising the respected advocate Sriram Panchu and the Art of Living founder Venkatratnam Ravishankar Ramanayakanpet (also known as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar), the mediation panel had earlier informed the court that an out-of-court-settlement could not be reached between the three parties to the dispute.

The Nyas and the Nirmohi Akhara want the land for the construction of a Ram temple, claiming the site as the birthplace of the Hindu god, and the former was earlier reportedly unwilling to accept any of the conditions that the Waqf board had mooted as part of any compromise.

Chief among these was an assurance that the Hindutva groups would drop their demands that other Muslim places of worship, especially in Mathura and Varanasi, be converted to temples.

Last month, however, the mediation panel informed the Supreme Court that were willing to take a second stab at mediation, largely at the urging of the Muslim side and the Nirmohi Akhara.

Asked what happens now that a settlement proposal has been formally submitted, sources familiar with the process said it was up to the bench to now decide how to proceed. “They could decide that having heard arguments for 40 days, they should adjudicate anyway. Or they may use the settlement agreement as the contours of their final orders.”

Asked if the bench could still rule in favour of Muslim claims to the title of the disputed land despite the Sunni Waqf Board’s willingness to compromise, the source said that the bench could disregard the settlement proposal altogether and proceed as it wished.

The Allahabad high court, in its judgment to the title suit dispute in 2010, had found some merit in the claims of each of the three parties and divided the 2.77 acres of land where the mosque stood equally between the three of them.

The 16th century mosque was built by the Mughal emperor Babar and became the subject of dispute in the 19th century, during British colonial rule.

Soon after independence, in December 1949, Hindutva activists surreptitiously placed idols of the baby Ram and Sita in the mosque, following which the premises were locked by the UP state government.

In February 1986, the locks were reopened as part of the erstwhile Rajiv Gandhi government’s policy of using communal politics for electoral gains. However, the biggest beneficiary of this strategy was the BJP, which used the Ramjanmaboomi issue to polarise society on religious lines and steadily enlarge its support base.

On December 6, 1992, senior BJP leaders Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others were present in Ayodhya when a large mob of political activists who had been mobilised for the purpose climbed atop the mosque and began demolishing it, Within hours, it was reduced to rubble.

The criminal case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Advani and others has been languishing for years. Despite the apex court saying in 2018 that the trial be expedited, no verdict is yet in sight.

Article first published on The Wire.