NEW DELHI: Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Sunday alleged that "anti-India gangs and some politicians" had hatched a conspiracy, similar to the violent incidents witnessed in Bangladesh and the riots, arson and looting seen in France, to instigate youngsters and spread violence on Indian streets.
In a post on X written in Hindi, Rijiju claimed that those behind the alleged conspiracy had "forgotten that India is neither Bangladesh nor France".
He added that while regime change in India was "absolutely possible", it could come about "only through elections, not through Soros" — a reference to Hungarian-American activist and philanthropist George Soros, whom the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has long accused of working against India's interests through his Open Society Foundations.
Along with the post, the minister shared a short video clip featuring senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, AISA leader Neha Bora, activist Yogendra Yadav and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi speaking about regime change. The compilation appeared designed to suggest a coordinated political narrative around the theme.
The remarks come against the backdrop of a series of protests in Delhi this month against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Student groups, civil society organisations and opposition parties have questioned the conduct of the revision exercise, while the BJP has accused opposition leaders of attempting to engineer a 'regime change' outside the electoral process.
The regime-change charge has been voiced at the highest levels of the ruling party. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh had earlier accused the Congress of seeking regime change through the "Bangladesh route", drawing a parallel with the student-led uprising that toppled the government in the neighbouring country. Congress MP Kapil Sibal countered that it was the people who desired change, framing the debate as one about democratic aspiration rather than conspiracy.
Prashant Bhushan, one of the figures featured in the video shared by Rijiju, responded sharply to the minister's allegations. "We are only appealing to save the electoral democracy in this country," he said. "If such barbarism continues, there will definitely be a regime change. We all want a regime change. Is there anything wrong with that? Regime change is a democratic right of every citizen, and creating disaffection against the government is not an offence."
Bhushan's response framed the demand for regime change as an ordinary and legitimate feature of democratic politics — the expectation that a government which loses public confidence will be voted out — rather than as an extra-constitutional project.
His assertion that "creating disaffection against the government is not an offence" echoed long-standing jurisprudence on sedition and free speech, under which criticism of the government, however sharp, does not by itself constitute a criminal act.
It is significant that in the remarks cited, Rijiju did not provide specific evidence to substantiate the allegation of a coordinated conspiracy. The post relied on the video compilation and the asserted parallel with events in Bangladesh and France rather than on disclosed intelligence or documented linkages. Opposition leaders and civil society voices are likely to seize on this gap, arguing that the conspiracy framing is a political device to delegitimise protest.
The references chosen by the minister carry particular resonance. Bangladesh witnessed a dramatic student-led uprising that forced a change of government, an event that has been invoked repeatedly in Indian political debate — by the opposition as an example of youth power and by the ruling party as a cautionary tale of instability.
France, meanwhile, has seen recurrent episodes of street rioting, arson and looting in recent years, which the minister's post appeared to cite as the kind of disorder the alleged conspirators wished to import into India.
The invocation of George Soros taps into a narrative the BJP has cultivated over several years. The party and its supporters have repeatedly alleged that Soros and the network of organisations funded by his Open Society Foundations have acted against India's interests, citing his public criticism of the Indian government at international forums. Soros's foundations have in turn maintained that their work supports democracy, human rights and open societies worldwide.
The "not through Soros" formulation in Rijiju's post suggests that the minister sought to link the domestic protests to this alleged external hand.
The episode also highlights the central role of the Special Intensive Revision in the current political confrontation. The SIR — a comprehensive exercise to revise electoral rolls — has become one of the most contentious issues in Indian politics this year, with the opposition alleging that the manner of its implementation could disenfranchise legitimate voters, and the Election Commission maintaining that the exercise is a routine and necessary updating of the rolls.
The demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has given the protests a sharp institutional target.
Student politics has been a significant strand of the agitation. AISA, whose president Neha Bora features in the minister's video, has been at the forefront of campus mobilisations in Delhi, and Bora herself has faced preventive detention and a peace-bond notice from the Delhi Police in connection with the protests — developments that have themselves become part of the contested narrative about the state's response to dissent.
The exchange between Rijiju and Bhushan captures a broader clash over the boundaries of legitimate political opposition in India. For the government and the ruling party, talk of regime change outside the electoral cycle evokes the spectre of destabilisation, particularly when linked to foreign figures and to upheavals abroad.
For the opposition and civil liberties advocates, the insistence that regime change can only mean electoral change is itself the point — and any attempt to criminalise the aspiration is an attack on democratic rights.
Whether the minister's allegations gain further traction will depend on whether the government produces material to support them or whether they remain, as at present, a rhetorical framing of an ongoing political confrontation. For now, the war of words has added another layer to an already charged atmosphere in the national capital, where protests, detentions and competing narratives about democracy continue to unfold.
(Reporting based on The Hindu and The Times of India.)