Dr. Subramanian Swamy: A Stalwart Defender of Dharma in the Face of Political Betrayal

In a resounding victory for Hindu rights and temple autonomy, Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s relentless legal efforts have once again safeguarded the sanctity of India’s sacred spaces. On March 6, 2025, the Uttarakhand government, under Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami, was forced to withdraw the controversial Char Dham Devasthanam Management Act through a voice vote in the state assembly. This Act, which sought to bring 104 temples, including the revered Char Dham shrines of Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri, and Yamunotri, under state control, was a blatant attempt to centralize power and exploit temple wealth for political gain. Dr. Swamy’s public interest litigation (PIL) played a pivotal role in exposing and halting this egregious overreach, reinforcing his unwavering commitment to protecting Dharma in the face of mounting challenges.

Dr. Swamy, a veteran politician, economist, and legal eagle, has long been a tireless advocate for the preservation of Hindu temple autonomy and the safeguarding of their spiritual and material heritage. His PIL, filed in response to the Uttarakhand government’s 2019 Char Dham Devasthanam Management Act, argued that the state’s attempt to assume control of these temples—and their vast reserves of gold, jewelry, and other valuables—violated constitutional rights under Articles 25, 26, and 31-A, which guarantee religious freedom and the right to manage religious institutions. The Act, passed under the BJP-led government, aimed to transfer temple assets to the custody of the Chief Minister, who seemed to be directed by PM Narendra Modi and HM Amit Shah to facilitate the transfer of this wealth. Courts, responding to Dr. Swamy’s PIL, ruled that the temple treasures belong to the deities, not the state, effectively thwarting this alleged scheme to loot temple wealth.

This victory is not an isolated incident but part of Dr. Swamy’s decades-long crusade to protect Hindu religious institutions from governmental interference and exploitation. His legal battles, including the successful challenge against the Maharashtra government’s takeover of the Vitthal-Rukmini temple in Pandharpur, demonstrate a consistent pattern of defending temple autonomy against encroachments by both state and central authorities. Dr. Swamy’s efforts underscore a deep commitment to Dharma—the eternal principles of righteousness and justice that form the bedrock of Hindu civilization. His courage in confronting powerful political figures, even within his own party, the BJP, is a testament to his integrity and dedication to the Hindu cause.

However, this triumph casts a harsh light on the betrayal of Hindutva by BJP central leadership, whose actions expose a shocking hypocrisy at the heart of their Hindu nationalist rhetoric. The BJP, under Modi and Shah’s leadership, has long positioned itself as the champion of Hindutva, promising to protect and promote Hindu interests. Yet, the attempt to seize control of the Char Dham temples and their wealth reveals a cynical agenda driven not by devotion but by greed and political opportunism. By directing the Uttarakhand Chief Minister to transfer temple gold and jewelry into their custody, Modi and Shah have betrayed the very principles they claim to uphold, turning sacred spaces into potential piggy banks for their personal or political enrichment. This act of sacrilege not only undermines the trust of millions of Hindus but also mocks the ideology of Hindutva, reducing it to a hollow slogan used to mask authoritarian and exploitative tendencies.

Current conduct of central leadership highlights the dangers of a government that prioritizes power and profit over the spiritual and cultural heritage of India’s majority community. Critics have long accused Modi’s administration of fostering a majoritarian agenda that excludes minorities while simultaneously exploiting Hindu institutions for political gain. This episode erodes their credibility as true guardians of Hindu values. Instead of fostering unity and reverence, their actions have sown division and distrust, tarnishing the legacy of Hindutva with accusations of corruption and sacrilege.

Dr. Swamy’s continuous efforts to save Dharma stand in stark contrast to this betrayal. His legal acumen, combined with his unwavering moral compass, has repeatedly thwarted attempts to undermine Hindu temple autonomy, from Tamil Nadu’s HR&CE Act to the Char Dham controversy. His willingness to challenge powerful figures within his own political party demonstrates a rare courage and conviction, making him a beacon of hope for those who believe in the preservation of India’s spiritual heritage.

As India navigates the complexities of its democratic and religious identity, Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s vigilance serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding Dharma against powerful machinations. Meanwhile, Modi and Shah’s actions in the Char Dham case demand introspection and accountability. If Hindutva is to remain a meaningful ideology rather than a tool for exploitation, its leaders must prioritize the sanctity of Hindu institutions over personal or political gain. Dr. Swamy’s triumph is not just a legal victory but a moral one—a clarion call to protect the soul of India from those who would desecrate it for their own ends.

Analyzing Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s Critique of Narendra Modi’s Foreign Policy Amid Trump’s Return

New Delhi, March 6, 2025 – In a sharp post on X, veteran politician and economist Dr. Subramanian Swamy has reignited debates over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign policy, particularly in the context of U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Replying to a post by senior journalist Suhasini Haidar, Dr. Swamy argued, “Modi has no contingency plans. But this much is clear: Trump is allowed to treat Modi as a Butler. China treats Modi as a person who can be pushed around. India’s land is for China to occupy at will. Russia can bribe Modi through Adani, and can sell anything to us.”

Dr. Swamy’s remarks refer to a column by former Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, published in The Indian Express on the same day. Saran warned that under Trump’s administration, India risks becoming a “convenient pawn” for the U.S. in its geopolitical rivalry with China, with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad)—comprising India, the U.S., Japan, and Australia—potentially reduced to a “bargaining tool” against Beijing. Dr. Swamy’s post amplifies this concern, framing Modi’s leadership as strategically deficient and overly accommodating to global powers. 

Dr. Swamy’s critique comes at a pivotal moment in India-U.S. relations. In February 2025, Modi visited Washington, D.C., for bilateral talks with Trump, focusing on a proposed trade agreement. However, the meeting avoided addressing U.S. bribery charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and his associates, linked to a $250 million scheme involving solar power contracts with the Indian government. These charges, filed by U.S. prosecutors in November 2024, have raised questions about Modi’s ties to Adani and potential vulnerabilities in India’s foreign policy, as alluded to in Swamy’s reference to Russia “bribing Modi through Adani.”

Saran’s column, which Dr. Swamy builds upon, underscores Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy, rooted in a 19th-century imperial mindset. Saran cautions India to maintain a delicate balance—being “accommodating on lesser issues” while resisting on critical ones—to avoid entanglement in U.S.-China tensions. Dr. Swamy, however, takes a more unambiguous view, accusing Modi of lacking strategic foresight and allowing India to be “pushed around” by China, which has occupied Indian territory in disputed regions like Ladakh since 2020, and by Russia, amid allegations of corruption involving Adani.

Strategic Implications

Under Trump’s first term (2017–2021), Modi and Trump forged a “comprehensive global strategic partnership,” sharing positions on counterterrorism and the Indo-Pacific. Yet, Saran’s recent analysis suggests this partnership may now serve U.S. interests more than India’s, with the Quad risking demotion to a tactical tool against China. Dr. Swamy’s post suggests Modi is ill-equipped to navigate this shift, potentially exposing India to exploitation by Trump, China, and Russia.

Looking Ahead

As Trump’s “America First” policies reshape global dynamics, India faces a delicate diplomatic tightrope. Dr. Swamy’s post taps into broader anxieties about Modi’s ability to safeguard India’s sovereignty and strategic autonomy.

The ongoing Adani controversy, coupled with border tensions with China and Russia’s influence, underscores the challenges ahead. Whether Modi can recalibrate India’s foreign policy to avoid becoming a “pawn” in global power games remains a pressing question, one that Dr. Swamy’s post brings to the forefront of public discourse.

The Untold Story of Ram Jethmalani's regret for supporting Modi

Ram Jethmalani, a renowned Indian lawyer, former Union Minister, and once a vocal supporter of Narendra Modi during the 2014 general elections, became one of the Prime Minister’s most outspoken critics in later years. Disillusioned by unfulfilled promises, Jethmalani publicly expressed regret for backing Modi and sought forgiveness from the Indian public for what he described as misleading them. Below is a chronological account of his key public statements against Modi, reflecting his growing discontent.

2015: The Bihar Elections Spark Outrage

Jethmalani’s shift in stance became notably public during the 2015 Bihar Assembly elections. Campaigning against the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), he openly accused Modi of betraying the electorate. At a public event, he declared, “Modi has cheated the people. He must suffer a defeat in Bihar because he has cheated people of the country.” He expressed personal dismay, adding, “I feel like a victim of fraud myself for having supported him.” His criticism centered on Modi’s failure to deliver on the promise of repatriating black money stashed abroad—a cornerstone of the BJP’s 2014 campaign that Jethmalani had once championed.

2016: A Public Confession in Delhi

By 2016, Jethmalani’s disillusionment had deepened, and he took his critique to a broader stage. Speaking at an event in Delhi, he made a striking admission: “I am making a confession that I helped them [BJP] to cheat you, I have come to seek your forgiveness.” This statement underscored his regret for endorsing Modi, particularly in light of the unfulfilled pledge to recover Rs 90 lakh crore in black money and distribute Rs 15 lakh to every poor family—a claim later downplayed by BJP president Amit Shah as an election “jumla” (gimmick). Jethmalani’s plea for forgiveness highlighted his belief that Modi’s leadership had misled the nation.

2016: Reiterating the Call in Lucknow

Later that year, during a visit to Lucknow, Jethmalani doubled down on his stance. Addressing an audience, he said, “I feel cheated and consider myself guilty that I helped Modi. I have come here to tell you not to believe Modi.” This marked a consistent theme in his rhetoric: personal accountability for having promoted Modi and a warning to the public against continued trust in the Prime Minister. His statements in Lucknow reinforced his narrative of betrayal, focusing again on the gap between Modi’s promises and his actions.

Jethmalani’s criticisms were rooted in his initial optimism about Modi’s leadership, particularly on issues like economic reform and anti-corruption. As a legal luminary and former BJP member, his support carried weight during the 2014 campaign. However, his later statements reflected a fallout, driven by what he saw as Modi’s failure to deliver on grandiose pledges. His critiques, as recorded, focused on policy failures rather than personal complicity in wrongdoing.

Jethmalani passed away in September 2019, leaving behind a complex legacy as both a one-time Modi ally and a vocal detractor. His public statements from 2015 to 2016 remain a notable chapter in India’s political discourse, illustrating a rare instance of a prominent figure retracting support with such candor and contrition.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s Fearless Crusade: The 2024 PIL Exposing SEBI Chief Madhabi Puri Buch

In an era where regulatory bodies often operate under intense scrutiny yet evade accountability, one man stands resolute in his mission to unveil corruption at the highest echelons of power: Dr. Subramanian Swamy. Known for his unrelenting tenacity and fearless pursuit of justice, Dr. Swamy once again proved his mettle by filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in February 2024 in the Delhi High Court, targeting Madhabi Puri Buch, the Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). His PIL exemplifies his decades-long battle against the "big sharks" of corruption, cementing his legacy as a lone warrior unafraid to challenge the establishment.

The PIL: Unmasking Conflict of Interest and Regulatory Failure

Dr. Swamy’s PIL, filed in February 2024, centers on a glaring conflict of interest involving Madhabi Puri Buch and a massive ₹5,100 crore deal between Axis Bank and Max Life Insurance. The petition shows Axis Bank of engaging in fraudulent transactions, selling shares of Max Life at ₹166 each in March 2021 to Max Financial and Mitsui Sumitomo, only to repurchase a larger stake (12.002%) shortly thereafter at a drastically reduced price range of ₹31.51–32.12 per share. This maneuver, Dr. Swamy contends, allowed Axis Bank and its affiliates—Axis Securities Limited and Axis Capital Limited—to reap "undue profits" in a non-transparent manner, violating mandatory guidelines set by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).

At the heart of the PIL is Buch’s past association with Max Healthcare Institute Limited, where she served as an Additional Director and Director from February 4, 2015, to April 3, 2017. Dr. Swamy argues that this tenure creates a conflict of interest, suggesting that SEBI’s failure to promptly investigate the Axis-Max deal stems from Buch’s prior ties to the Max Group. In an affidavit submitted on March 13, 2024, he explicitly linked her role at Max Healthcare to SEBI’s apparent inertia, questioning whether her influence as Chairperson has stymied regulatory action. The Delhi High Court, while disposing of the PIL on August 19, 2024, noted that SEBI and IRDAI were already examining the matter and urged them to conclude their probes swiftly. However, Dr. Swamy’s bold move had already ignited a public debate, exposing vulnerabilities in SEBI’s oversight under Buch’s leadership.

Madhabi Puri Buch: A Trailblazer with a Controversial Past

Madhabi Puri Buch, appointed SEBI Chairperson on March 2, 2022, holds the distinction of being the first woman and the first private-sector professional to lead the regulatory body. An alumna of the prestigious Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Buch’s career spans over three decades in finance, with significant stints at ICICI Bank, ICICI Securities, and Vodafone Idea. Her rise to prominence was notably shaped by her close association with KV Kamath, a towering figure in Indian banking who mentored her during her tenure at ICICI Bank. Kamath, a former CEO of ICICI Bank and later Chairman of the New Development Bank, is credited with grooming Buch, who worked under his leadership before ascending to senior roles within the ICICI Group.

Buch’s private-sector credentials were initially hailed as a fresh perspective for SEBI, a body traditionally led by career bureaucrats. However, her extensive corporate ties—particularly with Max Healthcare and ICICI—have come under scrutiny, raising doubts about her impartiality. Critics, including Dr. Swamy, argue that her background predisposes her to favor corporate interests over regulatory rigor, a perception amplified by her alleged inaction on high-profile cases.

The Adani Conundrum: A Rubberstamp Chairperson?

Perhaps the most damning critique of Buch’s tenure is SEBI’s apparent reluctance to act decisively against the Adani Group, despite allegations of accounting fraud, market manipulation, and money laundering leveled by U.S.-based short-seller Hindenburg Research in January 2023 and August 2024. The Hindenburg reports accused Buch and her husband, Dhaval Buch, of holding stakes in obscure offshore funds, EM Resurgent Fund and Emerging India Focus Funds. While the Buchs have denied these claims, asserting that their investments predated her SEBI tenure and that all disclosures were made, the controversy has fueled speculation that she has acted as a rubberstamp Chairperson, shielding powerful corporate entities like Adani.

Under Buch’s watch, SEBI’s investigation into the Adani Group has progressed at a glacial pace. Despite a Supreme Court-appointed expert committee—chaired by former judge Abhay Manohar Sapre and including KV Kamath—tasked with probing SEBI’s handling of the Adani case, no significant punitive action has emerged as of March 2025. The committee’s report, released in 2023, highlighted SEBI’s failure to identify the ultimate beneficial owners of 13 foreign portfolio investors linked to Adani since 2016, yet it controversially gave the group a clean chit.

This leniency contrasts sharply with SEBI’s stringent actions elsewhere, such as the recent punishment of Anil Ambani’s entities, prompting analysts to question whether selective enforcement reflects Buch’s biases. Dr. Swamy’s PIL, though focused on the Axis-Max deal, indirectly bolsters this narrative, suggesting a pattern of regulatory capture under Buch’s leadership.

Dr. Swamy’s Tenacity: A Beacon of Hope

Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s decision to file the PIL against Buch in 2024 is not an isolated act but a continuation of his storied career as a crusader against corruption. A former Cabinet Minister, Harvard-educated economist, and founder of the Janata Party, Dr. Swamy has a track record of taking on powerful figures—from his 1997 petition against P. Chidambaram to his recent legal battles over economic reforms. His foresight in targeting Buch’s alleged conflicts of interest predates the Hindenburg exposé, proving once again that he is often the first to smell smoke where others see only fog.

Dr. Swamy’s PIL has forced SEBI and Buch into the spotlight, compelling regulators to address long-simmering concerns about transparency and accountability.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability

Dr. Swamy’s PIL stands as a testament to the power of individual resolve against systemic corruption. His fearless pursuit has exposed cracks in SEBI’s facade of being an impartial and transparent regulator. Whether Buch’s legacy will be defined by her trailblazing ascent or her alleged complicity with “big sharks” remains undecided, but one thing is certain: Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s vigilance ensures that the fight for justice in India’s financial markets will not fade quietly into the night.

Linguistic Harmony and Political Opportunism: Decoding Tamil, Sanskrit, and the Hindi Debate

Dr. Swamy took to X to call out DMK's doublespeak on the issue of Hindi language imposition. His succinct statement not only underscores the deep historical and linguistic ties between Tamil and Sanskrit but also critiques the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) for its stance against Hindi, revealing a paradox in its language politics. 

Let’s unpack the similarities between Tamil and Sanskrit, Dr. Swamy’s advocacy for Sanskritized Hindi, and why the DMK’s opposition might be more about political mileage than principle.

Tamil and Sanskrit: A Shared Linguistic Legacy

Tamil and Sanskrit, often framed as representatives of Dravidian and Indo-Aryan linguistic families, respectively, share a richer history of interaction than popular narratives suggest. Dr. Swamy’s claim that 40% of Tamil vocabulary is borrowed from Sanskrit is grounded in linguistic scholarship. Words like "Durga" (a goddess in Hindu mythology) and "Karunanidhi" (meaning compassionate leader, also the name of a late DMK stalwart) exemplify this influence. Historical evidence traces this interplay to the first millennium BC, when Tamil-speaking regions engaged with Sanskrit through trade, religion, and literature.

Tamil’s Sangam literature (circa 300 BC–300 AD) reflects early Sanskrit loanwords, particularly in religious and administrative contexts, as Buddhism and Jainism—often mediated through Sanskrit and Prakrit—flourished alongside Tamil traditions. Over centuries, the Bhakti movement further deepened this exchange, with Tamil poets like the Alvars and Nayanars incorporating Sanskrit terms into devotional works.

Sanskrit, as the liturgical language of Hinduism and a repository of ancient Indian knowledge, found resonance in Tamil Nadu’s temple culture and intellectual traditions. The very name "Tamil Nadu" carries "Nadu" (land). Far from being adversaries, Tamil and Sanskrit have co-evolved, each enriching the other while preserving distinct identities.

Dr. Swamy’s Case for Sanskritized Hindi

Dr. Swamy’s reference to Article 351 of the Indian Constitution is key to understanding his position. This article mandates the Union to promote Hindi as a unifying language, drawing "primarily on Sanskrit" and secondarily on other Indian languages. His emphasis on "Sanskritised Hindi" aligns with this vision—a standardized Hindi enriched by Sanskrit’s vast lexicon, distinct from regional dialects like Bhojpuri or Awadhi. For Dr. Swamy, this is not an imposition but a constitutional ideal, reflecting India’s pluralistic heritage where Sanskrit serves as a linguistic bridge across regions.

His argument suggests that Tamil speakers, already familiar with Sanskrit-derived terms, should find Sanskritized Hindi accessible rather than alien. By highlighting Tamil’s Sanskrit borrowings, he implies that resistance to Hindi is less about linguistic incompatibility and more about political posturing—a jab aimed squarely at the DMK.

The DMK’s Language Politics: Principle or Ploy?

The DMK’s opposition to Hindi, as Dr. Swamy notes, is a hallmark of its identity, rooted in Tamil Nadu’s resistance to perceived linguistic hegemony. This stance traces back to the 1930s and intensified during the 1965 anti-Hindi agitations, when the party mobilized masses against mandatory Hindi education, fearing it would marginalize Tamil speakers in national life. The protests, marked by violence and self-immolations, led to the 1967 amendment ensuring bilingualism (English and Hindi) in official use—a compromise the DMK championed.

Yet, Dr. Swamy’s critique exposes a contradiction: if Tamil already embraces Sanskrit’s influence, why does the DMK reject a Sanskritized Hindi? The answer lies in politics, not linguistics. For decades, the DMK has wielded language as a tool to stoke regional pride and counter north Indian dominance, often framing Hindi as a symbol of cultural erasure. This narrative has morphed into a convenient political weapon. By raking up the language issue, the DMK sustains its vote base, portraying itself as Tamil’s guardian against a monolithic "Hindi heartland."

This approach, however, ignores Tamil’s own syncretic evolution and the practical benefits of a lingua franca like Hindi in a diverse nation. The DMK’s rejection of Hindi—especially a Sanskritized version that resonates with Tamil’s vocabulary—seems less about protecting Tamil identity and more about perpetuating a divisive us-versus-them rhetoric. In an era of globalization, where Tamil Nadu thrives on IT exports and cultural outreach, such insular politics risks alienating the state from broader national conversations.

Conclusion: Unity in Diversity, Not Division

Dr. Swamy’s post is a call to recognize India’s linguistic interconnectedness, where Tamil and Sanskrit exemplify a shared heritage that Hindi, as envisioned by the Constitution, could extend. Tamil’s 40% Sanskrit borrowings are not a weakness but a strength, reflecting centuries of cultural synthesis. By contrast, the DMK’s persistent anti-Hindi stance, while historically significant, increasingly feels like a relic exploited for electoral gain rather than a principled stand.

India’s unity lies in embracing its diversity—not pitting one language against another but celebrating their overlaps. Tamil and Sanskrit, far from being at odds, remind us of this truth. It’s time the DMK moved beyond language wars and engaged with a future where Tamil thrives alongside, not against, India’s multilingual fabric.