Where Is Amit Shah? Perhaps That Is the Wrong Question

“Where is Amit Shah?” That was the question being shouted in Parliament. Congress wanted the Home Minister in the House, demanding answers and accusing the government of avoiding the Opposition.

It made for good parliamentary theatre. But there was a simpler fact: Shah was not missing. He was working elsewhere.

While the Opposition was looking for him in Parliament, Shah was reported to be engaged in political activity outside the House. And then came the more interesting development: his late-night visit to Mumbai in the middle of the parliamentary session. 

That makes Maharashtra the place to watch.

The state's politics has already been through several upheavals. Sharad Pawar's party has split. Uddhav Thackeray's political space has shrunk. Eknath Shinde has his own position and his own calculations. The old political map of Maharashtra no longer exists.

In such a situation, eight MPs can matter more than eighty speeches.

The source suggests that Shah's Mumbai visit involved meetings with people close to Sharad Pawar. If so, the purpose may have been less about making a public statement and more about understanding where the numbers are moving.

This is the part of politics that rarely makes exciting television.

There are no slogans, no microphones and no angry exchanges. There are meetings, conversations, calculations and, above all, arithmetic.

And arithmetic is what matters in Parliament.

The Opposition can demand Shah's presence every day. The government can answer that ministers will attend according to the business of the House. Meanwhile, the real political work may be taking place somewhere else.

This is particularly important because the NDA's numbers have become a subject of discussion in the context of future legislative and constitutional questions, including delimitation.

But it would be foolish to turn every meeting in Mumbai into a secret political coup. Indian politics produces enough surprises without commentators inventing a few more.

A photograph of two politicians shaking hands does not necessarily mean an alliance. A late-night meeting does not necessarily mean a defection. Sometimes a meeting is simply a meeting.

But sometimes it is not.

That is why Maharashtra matters.

The interesting thing about Shah's politics is not that he is always visible. It is almost the opposite. He has built a reputation for doing political work away from the glare and allowing the results to speak later.

That makes the Congress question — “Where is Shah?” — slightly amusing.

Perhaps they are looking in the wrong place.

Parliament is where political arguments are displayed. It is not always where political decisions are made.

The real work may happen in Delhi offices, Mumbai meetings, party rooms and quiet conversations that never make it to television.

And if Shah's Mumbai visit does eventually produce a change in the political arithmetic, today's absence from Parliament will look rather different in retrospect.

That is the danger of judging politics by the camera.

The camera sees the speech. It sees the slogan. It sees the protest. It sees the politician entering Parliament.

It does not always see the meeting that changes the numbers.

So Congress can continue asking where Amit Shah is. That is its political right.

But the more useful question for everyone watching Maharashtra is: what is happening while Shah is away from the cameras

The answer may emerge not in Parliament, but in the numbers.

For now, the safest conclusion is also the simplest: Amit Shah may not be missing at all. It is only the cameras that have lost sight of him.