A government’s foremost responsibility is to protect the nation, uphold constitutional order and ensure that public institutions are not subverted by those seeking power through unlawful means. Against this backdrop, the Yogi Adityanath-led BJP government in Uttar Pradesh has put the spotlight on a contentious question: should participation in activities described as anti-national or aimed at destabilising an elected government disqualify a person from securing public employment? The proposal, if implemented through a legally sound framework, could become a significant test of the government’s resolve to protect public service from those who undermine the very institutions they aspire to serve. Bharat has every reason to remain vigilant against attempts to destabilise democratically elected governments through unlawful means, organised violence or foreign-backed interference. The upheavals witnessed in neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal offer important lessons about political instability, popular discontent and the consequences of eroding public trust. Democracies must distinguish between peaceful political mobilisation and activities that threaten constitutional order. The distinction is fundamental, not a concession to the Opposition. The government’s argument would be stronger if the proposed legislation clearly defined the prohibited conduct, established a credible evidentiary threshold and provided an independent mechanism for review and appeal. In that context, the Yogi government’s move to make a ‘Verification Certificate’ mandatory for all government job aspirants, irrespective of their political ideologies, provided they have not been involved in agitations that caused damage to public property or raised slogans threatening the government with disintegration, such as those raised in full public glare by Neha Bora of AISA in the presence of Congress party leaders the other day while invoking ‘Bangladesh-type’ regime change, is a welcome move. A Verification Certificate needs to become a powerful rider to prevent such ‘sick minds’ from entering government institutions under the garb of ‘freedom of expression’. Yes, public employment should not be available to individuals who have been lawfully found responsible for serious acts of violence or offences that legitimately bear on their suitability for public service. The rule of law must protect both the State and the citizen.
Yogi Adityanath’s political standing rests substantially on his administration’s emphasis on law and order, infrastructure development and the delivery of welfare schemes. Uttar Pradesh, once routinely burdened with the Bimaru label, has made considerable strides in expressways, transport infrastructure, industrial investment and defence manufacturing. The state has also expanded welfare delivery and employment opportunities. Yet, unemployment, uneven development and the sheer scale of its population remain formidable challenges. These problems cannot be wished away by legislation or political rhetoric. The government’s credibility will ultimately depend on measurable outcomes, not merely its ability to project a tough image. The recent Legislative Council elections offer a timely reminder that political confidence must not turn into complacency. The BJP won six of the 11 seats, while the Samajwadi Party secured five, including victories in both Varanasi constituencies. The result was not a sweeping defeat for the BJP, but neither was it a mandate to disregard the Opposition. With Assembly elections due in 2027, Yogi’s administration will have to defend its record before voters, rather than presume that electoral victory is assured. Private opinion polls may provide indications, but they cannot substitute for the electorate’s verdict. Meanwhile, the Congress and its allies continue to challenge the BJP on multiple fronts, including their campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Such political confrontations are part of democratic life. If the Opposition crosses the legal line, the law must take its course; if it raises legitimate questions, the government must answer them. Labelling every critic a conspirator would weaken, rather than strengthen, the democratic case the BJP seeks to advance. The proposed crackdown, therefore, deserves scrutiny on its merits. Protecting national security and the integrity of public institutions is a legitimate objective. But the government must explain precisely who will be denied a character certificate, on what evidence, under whose authority and with what safeguards against misuse. Young Indians should be warned against violence and unlawful subversion, not against exercising their constitutional freedoms. A strong government does not need to fear dissent. It needs the confidence to distinguish dissent from sabotage, criticism from conspiracy, and political opposition from criminal conduct. If Yogi Adityanath’s initiative can achieve that distinction through clear law and fair procedure, it could reinforce public confidence.
