The post made by Madhu Kishwar on March 25 on X presented the charges, references and personal experiences together at several levels. The central claim of this post was that there have been discussions in some internal circles of the BJP and the RSS for years, in which there has been talk of possible links between Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s personal life and political appointments of women leaders.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe post described these discussions as “whispers” or “whispers”, indicating that these allegations were never formally recorded or substantiated, but limited to informal negotiations and insider claims. Despite this, the author tried to present them as a long-standing pattern that saw the political rise of various women leaders in this context after 2014.
In the same sequence, names like Smriti Irani were referenced, although no specific allegations or incidents were explained in detail about them. This mention was mostly indicative, trying to show that some appointments have been raised, but no direct evidence was presented in support of these questions.
This explains why I kept a safe distance from Modi from the time he assumed power in May 2014. I did not even go to gift him a copy of my book on him. Just sent an unsigned copy through his favourite bureaucrat Bharat Lal!
— Madhu Purnima Kishwar (@madhukishwar) March 25, 2026
The names of women who were made MPs and ministers by… https://t.co/vgboxAndqq
An important part of the post was also an attempt to add to the old controversies. It mentioned the 2013 surveillance episode, called ‘Snoopgate’ in the media. Referring to an alleged case in this context and the persons associated with it, it was indicated that such allegations have become part of public discussion in the past as well. However, these references were also repeated without any new evidence.
In addition, subrahmanyam swami Previous statements of K were included in the post, in which he had given some indications in public forums, but did not name a person explicitly. These statements were also tried to show that such discussions were not limited to private circles only, but also publicly exposed from time to time.
An emotional and personal side of the post also comes up, where the author mentioned that after hearing these alleged discussions she was mentally affected and around 2015 she needed treatment for depression. He also claimed that when he raised the matter with a senior RSS functionary, it was not taken seriously and was termed irrelevant.
However, documentary evidence, official records or independent confirmation were not presented in the entire post to substantiate any claim. But to prove his point, he has claimed to provide evidence when the time comes.
As of now, all the claims made in this post are unproven and no official inquiry or confirmation has come out in their support. Despite this, this development has become an example of how personal statements, historical context and political signals can take the form of a major public dispute.
