In recent years, Sonam Kapoor has been acting in boundary-breaking films that have expanded the horizons of Bollywood and that desire to tackle different subjects has led her towards The Zoya Factor.
Her newly-released romantic-comedy is a big-screen adaptation of the acclaimed 2008 film about an unlucky girl, who suddenly becomes a good luck charm for the Indian cricket team and unexpectedly finds love.
Eastern Eye caught up with Sonam to discuss The Zoya Factor, superstition and inspirations.
Is it a coincidence that all your recent roles are so different to each other?
I have been deliberately choosing different projects, because I like to do different things and don’t want to be typecast into a particular genre.
What did you like about The Zoya Factor?
I thought it was a lot of fun, an easy-going film and harmless entertainment. It had something quirky about it and I really loved the book when it came out, which is written by Anuja Chauhan. I was also dying to play a relatable, fun, young girl.
Tell us about your character?
I play Zoya Solanki and she is born in 1983 on the day India won the cricket world cup. She is actually lucky for everybody, except herself. She is unlucky in everything. She is an advertising executive and is sent to work on a Pepsi commercial with the Indian cricket team. She meets Dulquer Salmaan’s character, who plays for the Indian cricket team and falls in love with him. But the conflict is that she is lucky for the team, but he doesn’t believe in luck and only in hard work. She is a regular girl who has issues with her love life, professional life and life in general. I think she is pretty relatable to young urban girls out there right now.
How does Dulquer Salmaan compare to other leading men you have worked with?
I think he is amazing. I have worked with some incredible actors and he is in the top few in that list of amazing talents.
How much of a sports fan are you in real life?
I love sports. I like cricket, but my favourite sport is basketball. But, yes, I do like cricket because I am an Indian and don’t know any Indian who doesn’t like cricket.
How superstitious are you in real life?
I am perhaps as superstitious as the average person. I think it’s about having a natural synergy to doing things that might not be logical, but that is just an Indian thing.
Are you superstitious when it comes to work?
I don’t know about that, but I do believe in hard work. If you work hard enough you can change your destiny or destiny will favour you. In real life, I believe that I can work hard and change my life.
Do you have a lucky charm?
I don’t, but I do believe that everything good that is happening in my life recently is because of my husband (Anand Ahuja). He brings in a lot of joy and fortune into my life.
What according to you is the definition of luck?
I don’t think there is any definition for luck. I think when things go right, despite the circumstances, you consider yourself lucky. So usually you feel lucky in hindsight and think, ‘oh that happened despite all these circumstances’.
What do you do on days you don’t feel so lucky?
I just pray and ask god for help.
What is your favourite moment in the movie?
It is when I am with my dad and brother in the film. I think, those scenes are really funny. Obviously, working with Dulquer was fabulous too.
Comedy is the most difficult genre, but you are a natural at it. Where does that come from?
I don’t know, I just love doing it I guess. Comedy is very difficult, but you have to make it just natural and fun. I just enjoy that genre a lot and have a natural affinity for it. It just works well in that way. It is my genre and I like that space. I hope those who like seeing me in dramas, like me as much in comedy.
What is the master plan going forward?
I do have a couple of announcements, but can’t speak about them right now. I will speak about them as soon as The Zoya Factor releases. But, yes, I will keep mixing characters and genres as I don’t like being stuck in the same place. I like doing different things.
Is there a territory you haven’t ventured into, but would like to explore?
I really want to do horror. No one has offered me a film in that space yet.
What inspires you professionally?
Content and working with good people. Those two things are important because I want to work with people I like. Even if it was some big filmmaker, if I thought they were a nasty person I wouldn’t want to work with them. I want to work with good co-stars, and do good work because, at the end of the day, you need to be happy going to work. That, to me, is really important.
You are a strong symbol of girl power, how important is that for you?
It is super important to have a sense of self-respect because as soon as you have that, you can conquer the world. So I think it is essential, especially, for women in this age to have that.
Do you have ambitions away from cinema?
I have my clothing brand Rheson and my husband’s brand Bhane. For me, it’s important for young people to get sustainable clothing that stands the test of time. The best quality clothing that stands out and is amazing. I love dressing up and love seeing young people dress up as well.
I have been interviewing you for nearly a decade and you haven’t changed. What has kept you so grounded?
Family and friends. I think it is really important to have the right people around you. As soon as you have that, they tell you the truth always, no matter how bitter it is. When you don’t have sycophants and have the right people, you don’t change. So, it is very important to have someone who tells you the truth always.
How close is The Zoya Factor to the original book?
Well, Anuja (Chauhan) had a lot to do with the screenplay, so we have tried to keep it as
authentic as possible, but things have changed because fitting a hundreds of page book into two hours is very hard, so we changed a couple of things.
Tell us, why should we watch The Zoya Factor?
It’s a family film and it’s only two hours. It’s a lot of fun and has all the ingredients. It is just a great, fun film. These are stressful times and there are a lot of films with heavy drama in them, but if you wanna have a good time, chill out and watch a cute romantic comedy with a quirk in it, then The Zoya Factor is for you.
Anniversaries can catalyse action. The government appointed the first Windrush Commissioner last week, shortly before Windrush Day, this year marking the 77th anniversary of the ship’s arrival in Britain.
The Windrush generation came to Britain believing what the law said – that they were British subjects, with equal rights in the mother country. But they were to discover a different reality – not just in the 1950s, but in this century too. It is five years since Wendy Williams proposed this external oversight in her review of the lessons of the Windrush scandal. The delay has damaged confidence in the compensation scheme. Williams’ proposal had been for a broader Migrants Commissioner role, since the change needed in Home Office culture went beyond the treatment of the Windrush generation itself.
The Windrush commissioner, the Reverend Clive Foster, a pastor in Nottingham, found himself on home turf in opening a Windrush event at Nottingham Forest’s City ground. Forest legend, Viv Anderson spoke of the racism that his pioneering generation of players faced, being pelted with apples, pears and bananas as a 19 year old, when sent by Brian Clough to warm up on the touchline at Carlisle in his first away game. The event captured the power of story-telling across the generations about past progress and today’s challenges. The 50th anniversary of Anderson becoming England’s first black full international cap, which coincides with co-hosting Euro 2028, offers a landmark moment for football to tell the story of its journey towards inclusion.
Whether Britain should become a multi-ethnic society was fiercely debated in the era of Enoch Powell, two decades after the Windrush docked. This had become a settled social and political fact by the turn of the century. Indeed, Powell himself saw mass repatriation as a time-limited agenda, impossible once half of the Commonwealth-descended population were British-born by the 1980s. The Conservatives moved on to Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit’s case for integration via assimilation. David Cameron later sped up the visible ethnic diversity at the top of the party. After the Windrush scandal, it was the incumbent Conservative governments which officially recognised National Windrush Day and commissioned the National Windrush Memorial in Waterloo station. Yet, the 2020s online right is dividing over how far to re-racialise arguments about who is truly British.
LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 22: Baroness Floella Benjamin speaks during the unveiling of the National Windrush Monument at Waterloo Station on June 22, 2022 in London, England. The photograph in the background is by Howard Grey. (Photo by John Sibley - WPA Pool/Getty Images)
Former Tory and Ukip MP Douglas Carswell was once the most vocal critic of anti-migration nativism among Brexit campaigners, repudiating Powell to avoid Nigel Farage putting ethnic minorities off. So how odd it is to see Carswell flip to tweeting, “Out. I don’t care how long you’ve lived here” in calling for the ‘mass deportation’ of Pakistanis from Britain. Carswell told me he now believes the ‘old demonisation’ of such arguments as racist will fail. Moving to the pro-Trump heartlands of Mississippi for his new think-tank gig has badly skewed his perceptions of how the British public think. Former Reform MP Rupert Lowe and Conservative peer David Frost are recommending accounts that promote prejudice.
Think-tanker David Goodhart last week proposed moving the capital from London to York – telling Evening Standard readers that 2030s London may have too few white people to stay as the capital city. Goodhart began arguing that Britain had become too diverse back in 2004, when the visible minority percentage was in single digits. It goes beyond an argument about the pace of change of immigration when the white British score is made the central indicator of how British a place is. That casts millions of British-born minorities as, by definition, diluting Britishness rather than having a shared stake within it.
Can this government tell a shared story of how we got here and where we are going? Or will it tend to communicate to segments of majority and minority audiences in parallel on separate occasions? Downing Street is now working at pace to deepen the government’s policy agenda. The existence of a new social cohesion taskforce may reflect how anniversaries catalyse attention. The anniversary of August’s riots will be a natural focal point for scrutiny of how far the government has been able to combine getting tough on the riots in real-time with a long-term plan to address the causes of cohesion. The third anniversary of the Leicester disorder of 2022 will also attract further scrutiny into when the delayed independent inquiry report into the local and national lessons may finally materialise.
The prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, regrets the ‘island of strangers’ controversy over his immigration white paper – so he hopes to place as much emphasis on the case for integration as his fear of the risks of its absence. One test of the government this summer is whether it can navigate the contested language of identity more confidently. What will matter most is whether action can be sustained to address the vacuum in national policy once the anniversaries that spur flurries of action go past.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
Portraits of Iranian military generals and nuclear scientists, killed in Israel’s last Friday (13) attack, are seen above a road, as heavy smoke rises from an oil refinery in southern Teheran hit in an overnight Israeli strike last Sunday (15)
THERE is one question to which none of us has the answer: if the ayatollahs are toppled, who will take over in Teheran?
I am surprised that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has lasted as long as he has. He is 86, and would achieve immortality as a “martyr” in the eyes of regime supporters if the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, succeeded in assassinating him. This was apparently Netanyahu’s plan, though he was apparently dissuaded by US president Donald Trump from going ahead with the killing.
One thing I do know about the regime in Teheran is that it is deeply pragmatic when it comes to its own survival. Right now, it faces the greatest threat to its existence since the Islamic Republic was founded in 1979, after the Shah fled the country.
There was a point in my life when I was spending so much time in Teheran – as the Daily Telegraph’s Iran correspondent – that my hotel suggested I leave my tin trunk behind rather than keep hauling it back and forth between Teheran and London. I suspect it is still somewhere in the basement of the Intercontinental Hotel. I am referring to 1979, when I first arrived in the city as a young reporter on my first major foreign assignment. What was meant to be a three-month stay turned into nearly two years, after militant students captured the American embassy and kept the hostage crisis going for 444 days. I also reported on the long and bloody war between Iran and Iraq, in which a million people died.
My contacts book tells the story of contemporary Iran – and tragically, almost everyone listed in it met a violent death. For example, foreign minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh was executed by the regime for allegedly plotting a coup against Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the revolution’s spiritual leader. Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, the second most powerful figure after Khomeini, was blown up in a bombing that destroyed the Islamic Republican Party’s headquarters in Teheran. (When I once asked Beheshti for help in extending my visa by a week, he picked up the phone – and I ended up staying for another year.) I know all too well the parts of Teheran now being bombed by Israel.
Although most of my reporting was from the capital, I did travel outside Teheran, particularly to the holy city of Qom. This was where Khomeini was based in the early days until for health reasons he was moved in April 1980 to Jamaran, a village in the foothills of the Alborz mountains north of Teheran, near the Niavaran Palace – the former residence of the Shah. Khomeini issued his fatwa against Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses on February 14, 1989, and died on June 3 that same year, aged 86. Since then, Khamenei has ruled. Given the Shia reverence for martyrdom, his death could only enhance his symbolic power – and there is no guarantee it would bring down the regime. My guess is that the ayatollahs are in a dilemma. They know that while they can inflict civilian casualties, they cannot win a war against Israel. As ever, they will be searching for a face-saving way to end the nightly hostilities. The Israeli prime minister, who has likely been planning a strike on Iran’s nuclear sites for years, may not be ready to stop now.
When I first went to Iran, the population was 37 million. Today, it stands at 90 million. Undoubtedly, there are Iranians who would welcome the overthrow of the ayatollahs. But equally, most of the population have known nothing but life under an Islamic regime. The Revolutionary Guard Corps is largely drawn from the younger generation. Iranian scientists almost certainly possess the fundamental knowledge needed to build an atomic bomb. Their facilities may have been destroyed, but their collective expertise cannot be erased. Iran could also withstand the loss of a million lives in a prolonged conflict with Israel.
Israel, to be sure, has a powerful military backed by the United States. But its population is just 10 million, compared to Iran’s, which is approaching 100 million.
The Islamic Republic is built to take advantage of chaos. If I had to make a guess – based on years of reporting on the ayatollahs and watching the regime adapt – it is that politics in Iran is going to move from a state of chaos to even greater chaos.
Keep ReadingShow less
A woman poses with a sign as members of the public queue to enter a council meeting during a protest calling for justice for victims of sexual abuse and grooming gangs, outside the council offices at City Centre on January 20, 2025 in Oldham, England
WAS a national inquiry needed into so-called grooming gangs? Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer did not think so in January, but now accepts Dame Louise Casey’s recommendation to commission one.
The previous Conservative government – having held a seven-year national inquiry into child sexual abuse – started loudly championing a new national inquiry once it lost the power to call one. Casey explains why she changed her mind too after her four-month, rapid audit into actions taken and missed on group-based exploitation and abuse. A headline Casey theme is the ‘shying away’ from race.
The (Alexis) Jay inquiry (in 2014) found ethnicity data too patchy to draw firm conclusions. Casey shows that too little has changed. Ethnicity data on perpetrators is published – but the police fail to collect it in a third of cases. That low priority to ethnicity data collection is a problem across policing – forming an impediment to scrutiny of ethnic disparities of every kind.
In Greater Manchester, Casey reports perpetrators of sexual abuse generally reflect the local population, but with a disproportionate number of Asian perpetrators in group-based offending. There was a misplaced ‘political correctness’ when police forces and councils were responding to group-based abuse by British Pakistani perpetrators. Yet, there was nothing ‘politically correct’ about a sexist, classist culture that did not believe the victims. They were often vulnerable, adolescent girls with a history of living in care or with repeated episodes of going missing – and were seen as wayward teenagers, treated as ‘consenting’ to sex once they had turned thirteen.
Our society was much too slow to act on the abuse of children in every setting. The trigger for the national inquiry into child sexual exploitation was the outpouring of allegations about Jimmy Saville. In every setting, the instinct was more often to cover up rather than to clean up. Care homes failed to protect the most vulnerable. Prestigious public schools put containing reputational damage first. The focus on institutions meant that group-based offending formed only one strand of the national inquiry, without the scale to dig fully into local experiences.
There is a key difference between group-based and individual offending. Groups are a joint enterprise, so depend on a shared rejection of social norms among the perpetrators. It is important to be able to talk confidently about toxic sub-cultures of misogyny and abuse within British Pakistani communities, and to support women from within Asian communities and feminist allies who have been seeking to challenge and change it. So why has it seemed so difficult to say this – and to have taken too long to act upon it?
When writing my book How to be a patriot a couple of years ago, I suggested that one key driver of this misplaced reluctance to discuss cultural factors over this issue reflects a confusion and conflation between ethnicity, faith and culture. If people intuit that talking about cultural factors must mean something like ‘the inherent properties of an ethnic and faith group’, there is a fear that this will inevitability generalise about and stereotype whole groups. Yet, few people would struggle to acknowledge the role of cultural factors in the role of the
Church in twentieth century Ireland. A social norm that saw sex and sexuality as a taboo subject, combined with institutional deference to the church, left children unprotected – until there was significant pressure for change. So ‘cultural factors’ were part of the problem – but that did not mean that all Catholics were child-molesters. The trial in France of 51 men involved in raping one woman similarly illustrates the culture of misogyny in France among a sub-group of men willing to join in a rape gang when invited to do so.
So the irony is that it would perpetuate precisely that kind of ethnic stereotype to fail to police the law so as not to offend the Pakistani Muslim community, by seeming to turn the behaviour of a criminal sub-group into a community characteristic. Failing to address sexual exploitation for fear of extremist exploitation of the issue was always self-defeating. Being able to address the issue is a key foundation for being able to challenge effectively those whose motive is to spread prejudice.
The reviews by Jay and Casey into group-based exploitation in Rotherham had profile and consequences in 2015. The entire council leadership resigned. In most other places, victims went and felt unheard. There was a sound logic that local inquiries were most likely to have the granular focus to deliver accountability – but few areas volunteered to host them. Those that did happen lacked the teeth to compel cooperation.
Casey’s proposed model is essentially for local hearings, backed by statutory national powers. It is a chance to move on from partisan blame games and ensure that the victims of historic abuse are finally heard – rebuilding confidence in policing and prosecuting without fear or favour.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
The tidal wave of top Indian stand-up stars touring the UK continues with upcoming shows by Shraddha Jain this July. The hugely popular comedian – who has over a million Instagram followers – will perform her family-friendly show Aiyyo So Mini Things at The Pavilion, Reading (4), the Ondaatje Theatre, London (5), and The Old Rep Theatre, Birmingham (6). The 90-minute set promises an entertaining take on the mundane and uproarious aspects of everyday life.
Shraddha Jain
MEMOIR NIGHT Acclaimed author Arundhati Roy will mark the publication of her hotly anticipated memoir Mother Mary Comes to Me with a live event at London’s Cadogan Hall on September 4. The Booker Prize-winning author of The God of Small Things will reflect on her life and work in what promises to be one of the year’s most compelling interview-based events. The evening will also include an opportunity for audience members to ask their own questions.
Arundhati Roy
SPECIAL AUTHOR SELFIE Acclaimed author Onjali Q Rauf shared this great photo with historian William Dalrymple from the recent Hay Festival. What made this snap extra special is that they delivered Eastern Eye newspaper’s best two books of 2024. While Rauf wrote the year’s best fiction, The Letter With The Golden Stamp, Dalrymple delivered the greatest non-fiction book of 2024, The Golden Road: How Ancient India Transformed the World. Both brilliant books are highly recommended.
William Dalrymple and Onjali Q Rauf
DREAM TEAM WINS AGAIN Producing power couple Sargun Mehta and Ravie Dubey have scored another success with their latest release, Saunkan Saunkne 2. The Punjabi comedy sequel received critical acclaim and performed well at the box office. Actress Mehta was especially praised for her dynamic double role opposite Ammy Virk and Nimrat Khaira This latest triumph adds to the growing list of achievements for the husband-and-wife team, who also run the entertainment platform Dreamiyata Dramaa. The YouTube channel, now nearing 1.4 million subscribers, continues to produce popular original TV serials.
Ravie Dubey and Sargun Mehta
THE YOUTUBE DUMP One recent decision that made little sense was quietly dumping the 2023 Pakistani film Money Back Guarantee onto YouTube. With streaming platforms seemingly buying anything and a wide range of video-on-demand services available, the political satire heist comedy – headlined by Fawad Khan – surely deserved better. YouTube is typically a last resort when all other options fail. What made the move even more baffling was the near total lack of promotion, leaving most film fans unaware that it was available to watch for free. Unsurprisingly, it generated little buzz or interest – another example of why Pakistani cinema is in the doldrums.
Money Back Guarantee
LITTLE FILM BUZZ Despite a glitzy world premiere at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, Indian film Homebound has failed to make a meaningful impact. Unlike other festival favourites, it received little coverage from global media, prompting producers to share handpicked audience reviews instead. This meaningful movie with a message has also struggled to stand out due to its ill-judged title. Not only does the English-language title alienate core Hindi-speaking audiences, it is identical to a 2021 British horror film that was widely savaged by critics. Several other films and TV shows with the same or similar name have appeared in the past 15 years, making it even harder for the film – starring Ishaan Khatter and Vishal Jethwa – to find visibility.
Homebound
DOOMED DUTT BIOPIC Recent reports suggest a biopic on legendary Bollywood actor and filmmaker Guru Dutt is in the works. This is not the first time a film based on his life has been discussed, but like earlier attempts – including those centred on icons such as Meena Kumari and Madhubala – the project has yet to materialise. The reason is clear: telling an honest story would require confronting the darker aspects of their lives, making it difficult to secure life rights from those involved. Bollywood also has a tendency to whitewash difficult truths, which can compromise the integrity of such projects and limit their commercial appeal. If a truly candid account of Dutt’s life were ever made, many film fans might find it hard to forgive the way he reportedly treated his wife, acclaimed singer Geeta Dutt.
Guru Dutt in Chaudhvin Ka Chand
SARITA STUNS IN NEW SERIES The recently launched third season of Sex and the City spin-off And Just Like That has received more positive reviews than its previous seasons. Sarita Choudhury’s glamorous realtor remains the standout new character, continuing to make such an impact that many feel she deserves far more screen time. The 58-year-old British actress is simply brilliant in the sassy role and looked stunning as she joined fellow cast members for a recent photocall in Paris. She has seamlessly filled the space left by Kim Cattrall, and her performance is so compelling that a spin-off series focused solely on her character would be hugely entertaining.
Sarita Choudhury
DILJIT’S DETECTIVE DUD Bollywood film Detective Sherdil is set to premiere on ZEE5 on June 20, following a high-profile announcement. Despite being headlined by Diljit Dosanjh and Diana Penty, one major red flag suggests this quirky detective mystery-comedy may fall flat: it is being released directly to a streaming platform, bypassing cinemas entirely. This often signals a lack of confidence in the project. ZEE5 is typically seen as a last resort when bigger platforms like Netflix or Amazon decline interest – which further works against the film. Although whodunnits are trending globally, the genre remains underdeveloped in Indian cinema, and that adds to the low expectations surrounding this release.
THE US president Donald Trump and billionaire businessman Elon Musk went to war on social media.
Geert Wilders brought the Dutch government down after less than a year. Nigel Farage scrambled to hold his Reform team together.
Populism is a potent political force – but this week demonstrated the power of populist politicians to destabilise themselves too.
A Trump-Musk break-up always was more a question of when, than if, given the egos involved. Musk criticised Trump for his large spending bill. Trump threatened retribution against Musk’s companies – knocking a sixth off the Tesla share price. Musk declared Trump would not be president without his money. “Such ingratitude,” he tweeted. Trump acolyte Steve Bannon declared that he wanted to see Musk deported.
Musk is the Citizen Kane of our times. Even having the biggest media megaphone of the age and the highest spending did not guarantee political success. Trump came to see Musk as a political liability, as growing mistrust of the erratic billionaire’s motives offset the power of his money.
Musk is much more toxic in Britain than America. That story can be told in three words – familiarity breeds contempt. Most people had no firm opinion of Musk before he bought Twitter three years ago. YouGov shows disapproval of Musk rocketing from 60 per cent to 70 per cent to 80 per cent over the past year.
Most British Twitter/X users feel he made the platform worse. No other platform did so much to amplify the misinformation and hatred that fuelled the racist riots. Reform voters had been the only pro-Musk segment post-riots, but Musk’s attack on Farage for refusing to embrace Tommy Robinson split the Reform voters against him too.
Twitter/X is a tinderbox – the irresponsibility of its ownership exacerbates the real and present danger it presents during any future flashpoint. Yet Musk’s relationship with Trump was a significant impediment to tackling this. The platform uses its relationship with the Trump administration as a shield, threatening the UK or EU governments if they intervened. The Trump-Musk break-up could offer a new opportunity to at least make the platform uphold its duties to remove unlawful content. It is awash with rape and deportation threats – which the Twitter/X’s broken complaints system usually defends. That is a breach of the platform’s legal duties to provide an equal service to women or to ethnic minorities.
Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf
The government recently announced its preferred candidate for the EHRC [Equality and Human Rights Commission] chair, Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, who will now face parliamentary committee hearings. MPs should ask her whether the regulators’ legal powers apply when major platforms breach their duties.
The Washington social media war of words was in stark contrast to how Nigel Farage handled a twitterstorm within the Reform party.
His party chair, Zia Yusuf, declared it “dumb” for the party’s new MP to be asking the prime minister last week to ban the burqa. Yusuf then quit, declaring that trying to make Farage prime minister was no longer a good use of his time.
Farage gave a strikingly unTrumpian response. He empathised with the racism that Yusuf has faced as a Muslim public voice – though attributing much of it to ‘Indian bots’ deflected attention from the racism within the online right.
Farage’s emollience was rewarded. Yusuf declared his resignation was a mistake. He even implausibly claimed he would probably vote to ban the burqa himself. He told the Today programme that Reform would deport 1.2 million illegal migrants – a patently impossible pledge, even if there were that many people without secure legal status. Yusuf moving towards the party’s base might signal an ambition to be a Reform general election candidate.
Farage handled the crisis with skill: reinforcing his rejection of the overtly racist fringe, while hardening the party line on integration. Yusuf was not offered his old job as party chair back. He will volunteer, instead, as chair of a “DOGE” [Department of Government Efficiency] taskforce, named in tribute to Musk.
Reform have talked up Yusuf as having “professionalised” the party from a low base. Yet the DOGE initiative could hardly have begun more unprofessionally. Yusuf declared a ‘gotcha’ moment – claiming to have found Kent County Council spending £87 million a year on recruitment advertising. This was an absurdly false claim. Former Kent County Council leader, Roger Gough, pointed out that Yusuf had simply not understood the document. Kent was raising revenue by hosting a national framework, yet Yusuf had attributed any possible spending across England as profligacy by the council.
Whether his mistake was unwitting or more cynical, it resonated by confirming the biases of Reform’s supporters. How long it takes Yusuf to retract his mistaken Week One headline claim is now a simple good faith test of whether the DOGE process attempts to be at all credible.
Yusuf is presented by Reform as the professional among populists – that may demonstrate just how untested the party’s credentials to provide a potential government still are.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.