Editorial

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has launched a fierce political attack on the Congress over its sudden distancing from the M. K. Stalin-led DMK in Tamil Nadu, accusing it of “betrayal” and “backstabbing” an ally that stood with it for decades. The remarks come amid dramatic political realignments in Tamil Nadu after the rise of C. Joseph Vijay and the emergence of a new coalition arrangement in the state.

While Modi’s criticism may appear politically sharp and timely, it also exposes the deep contradictions that define contemporary Indian politics. Alliances in India today are increasingly driven not by ideology, governance, or public welfare, but by raw electoral arithmetic. The Congress may indeed have abandoned the DMK at a crucial political moment, but the BJP itself has hardly been immune from similar accusations across states where former allies have been discarded once political utility ended.

The real concern is not merely whether Congress “betrayed” the DMK, but what this episode reveals about the erosion of ideological consistency in Indian democracy. Tamil Nadu politics has historically revolved around Dravidian identity, social justice, and regional autonomy. Yet, recent developments indicate that personality-driven politics and opportunistic alignments are replacing long-standing political commitments.

For decades, the Congress benefited electorally from its partnership with the DMK. Even Modi acknowledged that the Congress-led UPA governments depended heavily on DMK support before 2014. If that alliance could collapse overnight in pursuit of a new political equation, it raises uncomfortable questions about the reliability of coalition politics itself.

However, the BJP’s attempt to occupy the moral high ground also deserves scrutiny. Indian voters have repeatedly witnessed alliances formed and broken across Maharashtra, Bihar, Karnataka, and Jammu & Kashmir with equal political convenience. Therefore, selective outrage over “betrayal” sounds less like principled criticism and more like electoral messaging aimed at exploiting divisions within the opposition.

The larger tragedy is that governance issues — unemployment, inflation, federal tensions, education, and social harmony — are being overshadowed by political theatrics and shifting loyalties. Tamil Nadu’s electorate has traditionally shown political maturity and independence. It remains to be seen whether voters will reward these new alignments or punish what many may view as naked political opportunism.

Ultimately, this controversy is not about loyalty between parties. It is about the decline of political ethics in a democracy where alliances are increasingly temporary vehicles for power rather than instruments of public service.

Gianni Infantino’s public endorsement of Iran’s national team as they prepare for their fourth successive FIFA World Cup carries the familiar ring of sporting optimism. “The very best” to a squad that has earned its place on merit, he says, even as the shadow of recent conflict looms over the tournament. Yet behind the platitudes lies a more complex reality: Iranian football federation president Mehdi Taj has outlined ten specific conditions for participation, seeking guarantees on visas, security, respect for national symbols, and the treatment of delegation members—including those with ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

This is not mere procedural haggling. It reflects the deep entanglement of geopolitics with sport. Iran’s matches are scheduled on U.S. soil amid a fragile ceasefire following hostilities that killed thousands and displaced millions. U.S. officials have signaled players are welcome but warned that IRGC-linked personnel will face restrictions, citing national security. Past incidents, such as Taj’s denied entry to Canada, underscore genuine concerns over harassment or political targeting. Tehran’s insistence on assurances—visas without obstruction, protection of the flag and anthem, robust security protocols—stems from legitimate fears that its team could become a proxy battleground for broader animosities.

FIFA’s position is principled in theory: football transcends borders, and qualification should not be undone by politics. Infantino has repeatedly affirmed Iran’s participation and scheduled meetings to address concerns. The organization’s statutes emphasize non-discrimination and the autonomy of sport. Yet history shows selective enforcement. Russia faced bans after invading Ukraine; other nations navigate sanctions or boycotts with varying success. Consistency matters. If FIFA truly believes in universality, it must pressure hosts to facilitate safe passage without compromising reasonable security. Conversely, Iran must recognize that hosting rights come with obligations. Demanding blanket exemptions for military-affiliated figures risks alienating partners and inviting legitimate scrutiny.

The 2026 tournament, co-hosted by the United States, Mexico, and Canada, was meant to celebrate unity in diversity. Instead, it risks becoming a diplomatic minefield. For Iranian players and fans, football offers rare escapism and national pride amid hardship. Denying them the stage over unresolved tensions punishes athletes for state policies. Yet unchecked political posturing from any side undermines the game’s integrity. Sport cannot ignore reality—wars have consequences—but neither should it serve as an extension of foreign policy.

Ultimately, compromise is essential. FIFA should broker clear protocols balancing safety with inclusion. Iran should focus on the pitch rather than maximalist demands. The beautiful game thrives when it prioritizes human connection over division. Infantino’s well-wishes are welcome, but words alone will not suffice. Success demands action: visas issued, security delivered, politics set aside for 90 minutes. Anything less risks turning a global festival into another arena of grievance.

• SAS Kirmani