Gen Z are our own, protesting doesn’t make them anti-national: Mohan Bhagwat
Mumbai, August 6, 2026 — In a candid interaction with young students on Thursday, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat firmly rejected the idea that India’s Gen Z becomes anti-national simply by raising its voice. Speaking at the 15th anniversary celebrations of India’s International Movement to Unite Nations (IIMUN) at the Nita Mukesh Ambani Cultural Centre, he told a gathering of around 2,000 Gen Z and Gen Alpha participants that the younger generation belongs to the country and that agitation does not erase that belonging. Want to make it clear that if Gen Z engages in any agitation, they are not anti-national. They are our own people; they are our next generation,” Bhagwat said. He stressed that a sense of belonging and mutual respect must form the foundation of any conversation between generations. Only then, he argued, can real dialogue happen — one in which elders understand the concerns of the young and the young, in turn, understand the perspective of those who came before them. The remarks came against the backdrop of recent student-led protests, particularly over alleged irregularities and paper leaks in examinations such as NEET. Those demonstrations had grown intense in the national capital and elsewhere, with reports of police action including the use of tear gas and, in some accounts, pellet guns. Bhagwat was careful not to pronounce judgment on the specific incidents. He said he did not have complete, verified information about what had transpired between the police and the protesters, and therefore preferred not to draw conclusions. At the same time, he made his personal stance clear: “I will trust Gen Z blindly.” He described the grievances being voiced by young people — especially those related to the education system — as genuine. “There is a lot that needs to be done in Indian education; since it’s not happening, it’s being talked about,” he observed. Protest, in his view, is itself a form of dialogue in a democracy. When concerns are not heard through quieter channels, people may turn to agitation. The purpose of that agitation, however, should be to build consensus and correct systems, not to deepen divisions or target individuals. Bhagwat repeatedly returned to the character of the new generation. He said Gen Z and Gen Alpha are more honest than the existing generation. Appeals to patriotism and a spirit of service, he believed, find a genuine response in them. Unlike earlier generations that often accepted the word of elders without question, today’s young people ask for logical answers and also for affection and respect. “When we were at the age of Gen Z, we would listen to our elders. We never used to question. Now Gen Z wants logical answers,” he noted. He was clear that he would never tell young people they should not protest. Democracy, he said, provides ways of going about it. The methods laid out in the Constitution and the ideas of B.R. Ambedkar remain the framework. If youth are shouting, he suggested, it is usually not for the sake of opposition but for improvement. The task before society is to recognise that relationship of belonging and respond with dialogue rather than labels. The interaction itself was freewheeling. Students raised questions on education, jobs, reservation, social media, and even broader issues of national life. Bhagwat engaged with the questions directly, at one point picking up a contemporary expression from the audience and trying it out to laughter and applause. The tone of the evening was not one of lecture but of conversation — an older leader speaking to the generation that will inherit the country’s future. Bhagwat’s comments carry weight because of the organisation he leads and the moment in which they were delivered. In recent weeks, sections of public discourse had begun to question the motives of student protesters, sometimes casting them in an unfavourable light. By stating so plainly that these young people are “our own” and that protest does not make them anti-national, the RSS chief sought to shift the conversation toward understanding and engagement. He also touched on the practical need for better communication. Dialogue should always be the first step, he said. When something goes wrong that should not have happened, there is usually a deficiency somewhere that needs fixing. Whose responsibility it is may be debated later; the more important point is that the deficiency must be addressed. As the interaction drew to a close, the emphasis remained on relationship rather than confrontation. The younger generation asks questions and seeks logical answers. The older generation, Bhagwat suggested, must answer with both reason and warmth. Only then can the dialogue that democracy requires truly take place. Sources: India Today, The Indian Express, The Times of India, LiveMint, The Statesman, Firstpost, Times Now, NDTV, Deccan Herald, Outlook India, The Hindu, PTI, ANI (reports dated August 6, 2026). @Rohit Manral
‘India has always been a great friend and will remain so’: Sheikh Hasina
Sheikh Hasina spoke yesterday like someone who has carried the same thought for fifty years. No big speeches, no careful wording. Just the plain truth as she sees it. India has always been a great friend, she said, and it will remain so. She was talking from New Delhi, two years to the day after she left Bangladesh. The country she once led had turned against her. Crowds filled the streets. She had to go. India took her in, the same way it took her in long ago. She went back to those old days without any drama. In 1971, when everything was falling apart and people were running for their lives, India opened its borders. In 1975, after her father and almost her whole family were killed, India gave her and her sister a place to stay. She lived there six years. That memory never left her. Whenever Bangladesh was in real trouble, she said, India stood next to it and gave shelter. Governments come and go, she added, but that friendship stays. It was the first time she had talked properly to the press since she fled. The meeting was private. India made sure everyone knew it had nothing to do with the event. Dhaka had already complained. None of that seemed to matter to her. She just wanted to say what she felt. She has been living quietly under Indian protection all this time. Her son later said the government treated her with the same respect they would give a sitting head of state. The security never slipped. She has not forgotten that kindness either. But the real point of her words was not about staying safe in India. It was about going home. She plans to return in December. She knows what might be waiting. They may lock her up. They may even try to kill her. She said she is ready for that. Fear cannot decide her duty anymore. She cannot sit here while people she still calls her own are suffering. Her return is not about power, she insisted. It is about trying to help put the country back on its feet, back toward development and the values she believes in. She asked for the ban on her party to be lifted. She asked for her people who are in jail to be freed. She said she wants only to stand with ordinary Bangladeshis again. There was no anger in her voice, just that same steady belief. Her son was more direct. He warned that things in Bangladesh are turning dangerous, that militants once locked away are free again, and that this is not only Bangladesh’s problem. India should pay attention. Hasina herself stayed softer. She kept coming back to the older story, the one about a friendship that has lasted through many different governments on both sides. Anyone who has listened to her over the years will know these words. She has said them before, after elections, in interviews from exile, whenever the subject of India came up. India helped Bangladesh come into being. India sheltered her when she had nowhere else. Later the two countries fixed their borders, grew trade, and worked together on security. She has always called that partnership one of the most important things her country has. On this anniversary she simply said it once more, without any decoration. India stood with Bangladesh in its hardest hours, and she believes it will keep doing so. She is still in India for now. She even mentioned wanting to visit Nizamuddin Dargah before she leaves. When December comes, she says she will go. What happens after that, nobody can say for sure. But the friendship she spoke about is the one thing she seems completely sure of. Sources: Contemporary reports from Hindustan Times, NDTV, News18, The Indian Express, Reuters, The Hindu and ThePrint on Sheikh Hasina’s remarks of 5 August 2026. @Rohit Manral
Centre Summons Meta Public Policy Head Again Amid Row Over PM’s Video: Sources
New Delhi: The Centre has once again summoned Meta’s global public policy head, Joel Kaplan, this time for a meeting this week, sources said, as the government continues to press the company over the brief removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s video from Facebook last month. According to people familiar with the matter, Kaplan has been asked to meet officials on Wednesday. Technical officials from Instagram have also been called in. The government wants a clearer picture of how Meta’s algorithms decide what content gets more reach, especially after receiving multiple complaints that certain anti-government posts appear to travel farther on the platforms than others. This is the second time in about a week that Kaplan has been summoned. The first notice went out after Meta temporarily took down a video the Prime Minister posted on 23 July. In that selfie-style message, recorded amid the student protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party over alleged paper leaks in competitive exams, Modi told young people the issue was serious, that culprits had already been arrested, and that the government would bring stronger laws with fast-track courts and stricter penalties. The post, first put up on Instagram and later shared on Facebook, was restricted for several hours. Users in India who tried to view it saw a notice saying the media was unavailable in their region due to a legal request. Meta later restored it and said the content had been “removed in error.” Company sources told the government it was a glitch in the automated content filters that were scanning shared versions of the video and somehow flagged the original post as well. IT Secretary S. Krishnan made it clear the explanation did not fully satisfy the ministry. He called the removal of content from the Prime Minister’s verified handle “an extremely disturbing occurrence” that should never have happened. While he noted Meta’s apology, he said the technical-glitch account was not adequate and that deeper discussions were needed on both policy and technical levels. Sources say the government is now likely to seek a written apology from Meta for the incident and a detailed written submission explaining the so-called glitch. Officials also want to understand the safeguards the company has put in place since then. Meta has told the ministry that posts from the Prime Minister and certain other high-profile accounts will now face additional layers of review by senior company officials before any restriction can be applied. The idea is to prevent a repeat. The issue did not stay limited to the ministry. On Monday, Meta officials faced pointed questions from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology. Members told the company that a simple apology was not enough. They wanted to know who authorised the takedown, why objectionable content targeting the Prime Minister stayed up while his own message was pulled, and what protection ordinary users could expect if even the head of government’s verified post could disappear for hours. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who chairs the panel, later said Mark Zuckerberg himself must apologise. If he does not, Dubey warned, Meta’s safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act could be at risk in several cases. The timing of the original video made the episode more sensitive. It came during weeks of student agitation over exam irregularities that eventually led to the resignation of the then education minister. The Instagram version of the message crossed hundreds of millions of views. The Facebook restriction, even if brief, raised questions inside the government about whether the company’s systems treat content from Indian public figures with the care required under Indian law. Alongside the video row, the ministry has been raising broader concerns with Meta. These include the spread of deepfakes and synthetically generated content, compliance with the IT Rules, and earlier notices over child sexual abuse material appearing in paid advertisements. Officials have repeatedly said messages conveyed to Meta’s India team did not seem to be reaching the company’s global leadership in the United States with enough urgency, which is why the summons now go directly to senior global executives. Meta has maintained that the removal was an unintended error and has pointed to the new protocols for prominent accounts. The company has also said it is cooperating with investigations, including a separate case registered by Hyderabad cybercrime police against its India head and certain accounts over AI-generated and morphed videos targeting the Prime Minister that circulated during the same protest period. For the government, the episode has become a test of how global platforms handle content that originates from the highest elected offices in the world’s largest democracy. Officials insist they are not seeking special treatment so much as consistent application of rules and reliable systems that do not treat a verified message from the Prime Minister as routine user content that can be swept up by an automated filter. The row has already drawn attention beyond the immediate parties. It has renewed debate about the balance between platform autonomy and the responsibilities that come with operating in a large democracy where social media remains a primary channel for official outreach and public discourse. For now, the summons signal that the matter remains open and that the Centre expects Meta’s global leadership to engage directly and substantively. Sources: NDTV, The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Print, News18, PTI reports, statements by IT Secretary S. Krishnan, and comments by Parliamentary Standing Committee members. @Rohit Manral
Bankipur Shock: Prashant Kishor Ends BJP’s 30-Year Grip as Opposition Cheers, Datia and Manjalpur Bring Mixed Results
Look, Monday’s bypoll results came in and suddenly everyone was talking. Prashant Kishor, the guy who spent years helping other parties win elections, walked into Bankipur in Bihar and took the seat that the BJP had held since 1995. He beat Neeraj Kumar Sinha by a bit over 19,000 votes. Kishor got around 64,000. That seat belonged to Nitin Nabin, who had become BJP’s national president and then moved to the Rajya Sabha. For three decades nobody had touched Bankipur. Now it’s gone. Kishor was contesting for the first time under his own party, Jan Suraaj. People in Patna’s urban pockets seemed ready for something different. Younger voters, middle-class families, folks tired of the same old promises – they showed up. Kishor himself didn’t act like he’d just solved everything. After the win he said there would be no overnight miracles. He used the moment to take a hard swipe at Bihar Chief Minister Samrat Chaudhary, saying the result showed people hadn’t accepted the current leadership and that Bihar needed better hands at the top, no matter which party. The opposition wasted no time celebrating. They called it a clear message. CPI(ML) Liberation’s Dipankar Bhattacharya congratulated Kishor and said Bihar’s youth had delivered a sharp blow to what he described as an arrogant and incompetent government. Others piled on, saying even the BJP’s strongest urban seats are no longer safe. For a new party still finding its feet, grabbing a BJP fortress in Patna felt bigger than just one seat. It wasn’t a clean sweep against the BJP though. Over in Madhya Pradesh’s Datia, Congress managed to hold on. Ghanshyam Singh beat BJP’s Ashutosh Tiwari by a little more than 6,000 votes. Singh got about 66,757, Tiwari around 60,741. That seat had become vacant after the previous Congress MLA’s conviction. The BJP didn’t field former home minister Narottam Mishra, and that decision had already created some local anger among Mishra’s supporters. Congress was happy to keep what it already had. Gujarat told a different story. In Manjalpur, the BJP stayed comfortable. Satish Patel (some reports call him Satendrabhai Patel) defeated Congress’s Bhikhabhai Rabari by over 30,000 votes. Patel secured 55,481 against Rabari’s 24,851. Turnout was low, around 37.5 percent, but the margin was still solid. The seat had fallen vacant after the death of BJP MLA Yogesh Patel. Even with fewer people voting, the organisation held. These were three different fights in three different states, yet the Bankipur result dominated the conversation. Losing a seat the party had owned for thirty years, and losing it to a political newcomer who used to work behind the scenes, stung. BJP leaders spoke about introspection. They pointed to Manjalpur as proof that their core strength remains, especially in Gujarat. Still, the losses in Bihar and Madhya Pradesh will force some hard questions inside the party. For Kishor the real test starts now. Winning is one thing. Delivering in Bankipur, with all the expectations that come with beating the BJP in its old stronghold, is another. In Bihar’s crowded opposition space, his win also changes the maths a bit. Tejashwi Yadav and the RJD will be watching closely. A new player with a high-profile victory can shift the conversation, even if it’s just one seat for now. Voters in these places sent different signals. In Bankipur they were ready to try someone new. In Datia they stuck with the sitting party. In Manjalpur they stayed with the familiar. Bypolls don’t rewrite the whole political map, but they do act like early warning systems. Monday’s results suggest that in some pockets, especially urban Bihar, patience is running thinner than the BJP expected. Kishor has the seat. The opposition has a talking point. The BJP has some explaining to do in two states and a solid hold in a third. That’s where things stand after a day that felt bigger than three assembly bypolls usually do. Sources: Coverage from Times of India, NDTV, India Today, Hindustan Times, LiveMint, Newsgram, and Election Commission figures reported across these outlets on 3 August 2026. @Rohit Manral