Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath launched a sharp critique against opposition parties in Parliament, accusing them of a selective and politically motivated approach to human rights issues. The CM's remarks came during a debate on the supplementary budget on 24 December 2025.
Accusation of Selective Outrage and Appeasement
Adityanath directly targeted the opposition's contrasting stance on international conflicts. He pointed out that while certain political groups were vocal about the situation in Gaza, they maintained a conspicuous silence regarding reported atrocities against the Hindu minority in neighbouring Bangladesh. He framed this discrepancy as a core element of what he termed the opposition's 'appeasement policy'.
The Chief Minister argued that this selective outrage was not merely an oversight but a calculated political strategy. He suggested that such an approach prioritizes vote-bank politics over consistent humanitarian principles, especially concerning the welfare of Hindu communities abroad.
Linking Present Issues to Historical Partition
Delving into a historical perspective, Yogi Adityanath made a significant connection between current events and the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. He asserted that the division of the country laid the groundwork for the persecution of Hindus in the region.
"Had there been no division of the country, there would not have been any atrocities on the Hindus," Adityanath stated emphatically during the parliamentary debate. This statement positioned the ongoing concerns about minority safety as a direct consequence of historical decisions, a point often highlighted in the political discourse of the ruling party.
Political Repercussions and Narrative Setting
The CM's comments are seen as a strategic move to reinforce a key political narrative ahead of crucial state and national elections. By highlighting the opposition's silence on Bangladesh, he aims to consolidate his core support base and challenge rivals on the grounds of ideological inconsistency.
The debate on the supplementary budget, typically a forum for financial scrutiny, thus became a platform for a broader ideological and political confrontation. Adityanath's intervention shifts the focus from pure fiscal policy to questions of national identity, historical justice, and the opposition's commitment to all sections of society.
This episode is likely to intensify the ongoing political debate around secularism, minority rights in neighbouring countries, and India's foreign policy stance. It reinforces the ruling party's emphasis on a strong, unambiguous stance regarding the safety of Hindu minorities across the subcontinent.
