How Amit Shah built and unleashed a 90-minute takedown on Naxalism debate

Amit Shah on Monday declared in Lok Sabha that the country has become free from Naxals. For nearly two hours before he spoke, Shah said nothing, but everything in the Lok Sabha seemed to be building towards his moment. What began as a quiet, watchful presence slowly unfolded into a charged political showdown, where silence gave way to strategy, and strategy to a sharp, full-throttle counterattack.

A QUIET BUILD-UP BEFORE THE STORM

Two hours before he rose to speak, Home Minister Amit Shah had already taken his position inside the Lok Sabha. At around 4 pm, he walked in, dressed in a crisp white kurta, his stole carrying the colours of the Indian flag. He wasn’t there to speak yet; he was there to listen.

When I entered the House at 4.10 pm, Amit Shah was seated in the front row, attentive, almost still, watching every speaker closely.

A glance across the aisle told a different story. The Opposition benches were sparsely occupied. No Rahul Gandhi, no Priyanka Gandhi Vadra of the Congress, no Dimple Yadav of the Samajwadi Party. Even the Trinamool Congress benches lacked their usual presence.

The contrast was striking: a fully alert Home Minister on one side, and a noticeably thin Opposition on the other.

EVERY WORD NOTED, EVERY ARGUMENT STORED

As MPs spoke, one detail stood out. Every time Amit Shah picked up on a point, he wrote it down.

This wasn’t casual note-taking. It was deliberate. He appeared to be preparing to respond point by point, argument by argument. By 4.40 pm, the Opposition benches were even thinner, with barely a dozen MPs present.

The stage was being set, quietly.

MOMENTS OF DISRUPTION AND PERSONAL TESTIMONY

At 4.45 pm, Kumari Selja, who was in the Chair, called out, "Dubey, you can speak," referring to BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, triggering a brief ripple of laughter in the House.

Dubey began on a deeply personal note. He spoke about his grandfather, who was killed by Naxals 35 years ago, and how his family is still searching for his remains. It was a moment that shifted the tone — from political debate to personal loss.

Soon after, actor-turned-MP Kangana Ranaut walked in at 4.49 pm, dressed in a white saree with a black border, quietly taking her seat.

But the calm didn’t last.

When Dubey touched upon the Congress-CPI(M) alliance, Congress leader Deepender Hooda rose to counter him. What followed was a brief but sharp exchange, with accusations and counter-accusations flying for nearly two minutes.

SIGNALS, NOTES AND STRATEGY

As Dubey concluded, Amit Shah gestured to him. Dubey immediately walked over, and the two spoke briefly — a quiet, focused exchange. From where I sat, it was clear Shah was referring to specific points Dubey had raised.

Minutes later, Dubey returned with a piece of paper, handing over detailed notes the Home Minister had asked for.

For a political reporter, these are revealing moments, glimpses into how strategy is shaped in real time.

KANGANA RANAUT’S COMBATIVE TURN

Next to speak was BJP's Kangana Ranaut. As she began, both Amit Shah and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju put on their headphones, listening intently.

True to her style, Kangana launched a sharp attack on the Congress leadership, naming Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, while crediting Prime Minister Narendra Modi for changes in tackling Naxalism.

The reaction was immediate. Opposition MPs, led by Manickam Tagore, rose in protest, demanding proof and raising slogans. The Chair had to intervene, asking them to maintain order.

Through it all, Kangana remained composed, measured in tone, but firm in her accusations. Her delivery did not go unnoticed. As she finished, Kiren Rijiju, walking past her, acknowledged her speech.

6.04 PM: AMIT SHAH RISES

At exactly 6.04 pm, Amit Shah finally stood up. At that moment, I glanced toward the visitors’ gallery. Among those present was Chhattisgarh Home Minister Vijay Sharma, seated in the VIP section — a significant presence, given the state’s deep link to the issue of Naxalism.

Shah began not with present-day politics, but by turning to history. He accused Indira Gandhi of politically accommodating Naxal ideology, a remark that immediately drew protests. Congress's Manickam Tagore rose, pointing fingers, even asking fellow Congress MPs to take notes as Shah spoke.

SHARP EXCHANGES AND STRONG WORDS

Shah’s speech quickly turned combative.

"Gareebi ke kaaran Naxalvaad nahi phaila, balki Naxalvaad ke kaaran gareebi phaili (Naxalism did not spread because of poverty; rather, poverty spread because of Naxalism)" ,he said, flipping the Opposition’s long-held argument.

Pointing towards the Opposition benches, he demanded to know why such an ideology had ever been supported, triggering another flashpoint.

Hanuman Beniwal of the Rashtriya Loktantrik Party stood up, questioning whom Shah was pointing at. The Home Minister’s response was sharp: it depends on your ideology.

Moments later, his tone hardened further: "Yeh BJP ki sarkar hai... jo hathiyaar ka istemaal karte hain, agar samajhte hain toh theek hai, nahi toh force ka istemaal kiya jayega. (This is a BJP government those who use weapons. If they understand, that’s fine; if not, force will be used."

DATES, DATA AND A POLITICAL MESSAGE

Midway through his speech, Amit Shah introduced a structured narrative. He spoke about reviewing nearly 2,000 articles over six days, claiming they sympathised with Naxals but not with their victims.

Then came the timeline:

— August 20, 2019: A key meeting in the Home Ministry to begin rehabilitation and reintegration efforts

— August 24, 2024: His announcement that India would be Naxal-free by March 31, 2026

Each date was presented as part of a larger political argument — that the government had both intent and a roadmap.

A CHARGED END TO A 90-MINUTE SPEECH

Amit Shah spoke until 7.25 pm. As he concluded, the Opposition benches erupted once again with slogans, interruptions, and demands for answers.

But by then, the tone of the debate had been firmly set.

In those 90 minutes, Amit Shah moved from quiet note-taking to an aggressive, full-throttle political counterattack, blending history, data, and rhetoric.

For someone watching from inside the House, it wasn’t just a speech. It was a carefully constructed political performance — one that began in silence and ended in a roar.

- Ends

Tune In