In the bustling corridors of Indian politics, a new name has recently captured the nation's attention: Neelam Azad. This woman, found actively participating in protests and chanting "Jai Bhim" outside the Parliament, is not an unfamiliar figure in the landscape of Indian demonstrations.

Neelam's journey into the world of protests and activism is a storied one. She has been seen at various demonstrations, including those involving farmers and wrestlers, marking her presence in diverse causes. Her participation isn't just passive; it's charged with an energy that draws attention. This has led many to label her a 'career protestor,' someone who seems to thrive in the heat of social and political activism.

Her involvement extends beyond mere attendance. Neelam has actively campaigned for the Congress party, showcasing her alignment and belief in their ideology. This political association adds a layer of complexity to her profile, painting her as not just a protestor but also an active participant in the political arena.

The event that has thrust Neelam Azad into the limelight occurred on the 13th of December. It was an ordinary day at the Parliament until it was disrupted by an extraordinary event. Four individuals breached the security perimeter of the Parliament complex, equipped with colored smoke canisters – an unusual and alarming choice for a protest tool.

While two of these protestors made a dramatic entry into the well of the Lok Sabha from the Visitors’ Gallery, creating a scene seldom witnessed in the hallowed halls of Indian democracy, two others, including Neelam Azad, chose a different approach. They were found outside the Parliament, their actions no less dramatic. As they released colored smoke, creating a vivid yet disturbing spectacle, they chanted slogans loudly, disrupting the usual tranquility of the area.

Neelam Azad, in particular, was vociferous in her sloganeering. Even as the police moved swiftly to detain her, she continued to shout her slogans, a clear act of defiance against the authorities. This act of protest, occurring in such a sensitive location and in such a brazen manner, has raised many eyebrows and questions about her intent and the nature of her activism.

While the right to protest is a fundamental aspect of democracy, the manner in which Neelam Azad chose to express her dissent has drawn significant criticism. Protesting outside the Parliament, a symbol of Indian democracy, with such disruptive methods, strays far from peaceful and constructive activism. It veers into the territory of what many would consider 'anti-national' – a term often used to describe actions that go against the spirit of national unity and integrity.

Her actions on December 13th not only violated the sanctity of a vital democratic institution but also posed security risks. The use of colored smoke canisters, an unconventional and potentially hazardous method, underlines a recklessness that cannot be overlooked in any democratic protest. The choice of slogans and the method of their delivery point to a deliberate attempt to provoke and disrupt, rather than engage in meaningful dialogue or dissent.

Neelam Azad's history of participating in various protests and her political affiliations further complicate her image. They raise questions about her motivations and the authenticity of her activism. Is she genuinely invested in the causes she champions, or are her actions driven by political agendas?

Neelam Azad, the woman who made headlines for her anti-national activities outside Parliament, takes a deeper turn as we delve into her background and motivations. Contrary to the image of a spontaneous protester, new revelations paint a picture of someone deeply entrenched in political activism and partisan politics.

Neelam's family offers a narrative that she is driven by personal struggles, primarily her unemployment. They suggest that her participation in the farmer protests was a result of her own frustrations and challenges. However, this portrayal conflicts with emerging details about her prolonged involvement in politics. It appears that Neelam Azad's activism is not a recent development born out of personal grievances but a well-established pattern over the years.

Her sustained participation in several protests highlights a more profound commitment to political causes than previously understood. This revelation challenges the notion that her actions are merely the outburst of an unemployed individual. Instead, they suggest a calculated, ongoing engagement with political activities.

The Undated Video: Campaigning for Congress and INLD

Adding a significant layer to her profile is an undated video that has surfaced, showing Neelam Azad in a different light. In the video, she is seen actively campaigning for the Congress party and the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD). Her involvement with these parties is not passive; she is seen fervently appealing to her audience, advocating for a change in the ruling party.

In her own words, Neelam attacks the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), labeling them as 'cruel' and unfavorably comparing them to other parties like the Congress and INLD. She is heard saying, ‘We will change the party in power. We will bring Congress to power, or bring INLD. BJP is very much cruel, other parties are not that cruel, they listen to the problems of the poor farmers.’ This statement not only reveals her political leanings but also underscores a deep-seated bias against the BJP, portraying them as inimical to the interests of farmers.

Neelam Azad's actions and the content of the video raise serious concerns. By participating in protests under the guise of an aggrieved citizen while actively campaigning for specific political parties, she blurs the lines between genuine activism and political maneuvering. Her critique of the BJP, while a valid expression in a democratic setup, becomes questionable when juxtaposed with her overt support for their rivals. This dual role of protestor and political campaigner undermines the authenticity of her participation in these protests.

Furthermore, her description of the BJP as 'cruel' and her glorification of other parties as more sympathetic to farmers' issues indicate a highly biased and one-sided view. This kind of rhetoric, particularly when it involves sensitive issues like the plight of farmers, can be divisive and detrimental to the fabric of national unity. It promotes a narrative that is not just critical but borders on hostility towards a democratically elected government.

The undated video of Neelam campaigning for Congress and INLD, likely shot during the farmer protests at the Delhi borders, is a crucial piece of evidence. It not only shows her political affiliations but also her active role in influencing public opinion during a critical and sensitive time. This involvement during the farmer protests highlights her tendency to engage in politically charged situations, casting doubt on the purity of her intentions as a protester.

A visit to Neelam Azad's Facebook profile opens a window into her world of activism. The profile is a testament to her participation in various protests across Delhi in recent years. This digital footprint solidifies the image of Neelam not just as a casual participant but as a regular fixture in the protest scene.

Her brother’s statement to the media confirms her active role in the 2020 farmer protests. Despite her impressive educational qualifications, including a BA, MA, B.Ed, M.Ed, and M.Phil, and having cleared CTET and NET, Neelam remains unemployed. Her brother suggests that this unemployment is what led her to join the protests. However, given her continuous engagement in various demonstrations, it seems her involvement goes beyond mere frustration over joblessness. It appears more as a deliberate choice to be in the midst of political unrest.

Earlier this year, Neelam's presence was noted at the wrestlers' protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. This participation is particularly intriguing given that her connection to the wrestling community or issues is not clear. It raises questions about her motives: Is she genuinely concerned about the issues at hand, or is her presence at these protests driven by other, possibly political, motivations?

Her detention alongside Sakshi Malik’s mother during these protests in May further illustrates her frontline involvement in contentious situations. Although she was released after a few hours, her actions at the protest were notable enough to warrant police intervention. The image she posted of being carried away by police personnel from the protest site is symbolic of her confrontational approach to activism.

Neelam Azad's pattern of participating in various protests, irrespective of her personal connection to the issues, suggests a penchant for involvement in any form of political dissent. This behavior, especially when coupled with her anti-national activities and her documented campaigning for specific political parties, paints a picture of an individual whose actions are driven less by personal grievances or a commitment to specific causes, and more by a broader agenda of political disruption.

Her educational qualifications juxtaposed with her consistent presence at protest sites across the capital city raise important questions. Is her activism a genuine expression of frustration over unemployment and social issues, or is it a manifestation of a deeper, possibly orchestrated, involvement in anti-establishment activities?

Neelam Azad's participation extends beyond sporadic protests. She has been actively involved with groups like Krantikari Yuva Sangathan and Pragatishil Azad Yuva Parishad, known for organizing protests. Her association with these organizations is not merely nominal; she has been a part of various demonstrations demanding government jobs. This involvement suggests a deeper commitment to protest culture, beyond the occasional expression of dissent.

Her alignment with these organizations raises questions about her motivations. While advocating for employment is a legitimate cause, the nature and frequency of her protests, especially those deemed anti-national, point to a pattern of behavior that goes beyond mere activism for employment issues. It hints at a deliberate strategy of continuous engagement in disruptive activities, potentially undermining national interests.

Even after the controversial farm bills, which triggered massive farmer protests, were withdrawn, Neelam continues to actively participate in such demonstrations. This persistence is noteworthy. The withdrawal of the bills was a significant concession by the government, addressing the primary grievance of the protesting farmers. Yet, Neelam's continued involvement suggests that her activism is not solely issue-based but possibly driven by broader anti-establishment sentiments.

Photographs on her Facebook profile corroborate her ongoing participation. She is seen in protest marches organized by the Jagruk Kisan Mazdoor Union. These images are not just snapshots of a moment in time; they are evidence of her sustained engagement in protests, even when the original triggering issues have been addressed.

The critical question that arises from Neelam Azad's relentless involvement in protests is the true nature of her activism. Is she genuinely championing the causes she protests for, or is her participation part of a larger agenda of political disruption and anti-national activities? Her continued engagement in protests, even after the resolution of key issues, and her association with multiple organizations known for organizing demonstrations, point to a concerning pattern.

This pattern of behavior, especially in the context of her previous anti-national acts and political campaigning, paints a picture of an individual whose commitment to protest goes beyond social or economic grievances. It suggests a deeper involvement in activities that potentially destabilize social order and challenge the democratic fabric of the nation.

Neelam Azad identifies as an Ambedkarite, drawing inspiration from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a key figure in Indian history known for his role in drafting the Constitution and championing the rights of marginalized communities. Her brother reveals that she has been significantly influenced by both B.R. Ambedkar and Bhagat Singh, another prominent Indian freedom fighter. This influence is evident in her activities; she has been distributing books on Bhagat Singh and the Indian Constitution, indicating her commitment to these ideologies.

While aligning with Ambedkar's principles and admiring Bhagat Singh's revolutionary spirit is in itself a positive reflection of her engagement with Indian history and civil rights, the way Neelam channels these influences into her actions raises concerns. The distribution of literature and attending events related to Ambedkar are commendable activities. However, when combined with her history of participation in various protests and her recent anti-national acts, it raises questions about her interpretation and application of these ideologies.

Neelam Azad's opposition to government policies is also apparent in her stance against the Agnipath scheme of the Indian armed forces. In June 2022, she expressed her dissent by writing, ‘Boycott Agnipath scheme, no youth should join it.’ This statement reflects her outright rejection of a significant defense policy initiative by the Indian government. The Agnipath scheme, intended to revolutionize the recruitment process in the armed forces, has been a subject of national debate. Neelam's call for its boycott and urging youth not to participate in it is a direct challenge to a governmental policy, adding to her portfolio of actions against established authority.

Neelam Azad's amalgamation of Ambedkarite principles, admiration for Bhagat Singh, and opposition to government policies like the Agnipath scheme paints a complex picture of her activism. While her ideological leanings towards figures representing social justice and freedom are noteworthy, her methods of expressing dissent and her participation in anti-national activities are problematic.

The critical issue with Neelam Azad's approach lies in her apparent disregard for democratic processes and constructive dialogue. Her method of protest, especially in sensitive areas like outside the Parliament and in her call for boycotting a national defense initiative, crosses the line from peaceful advocacy to disruptive activism. This behavior not only undermines the democratic ethos but also potentially incites unrest and disunity among the public.