sabrang SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/author/sabrang/ News Related to Human Rights Mon, 25 Nov 2024 13:41:03 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png sabrang SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/author/sabrang/ 32 32 Democracy in question: Allegations of bias, EVM manipulation, and questions of legitimacy post 2024 Maha election result https://sabrangindia.in/democracy-in-question-allegations-of-bias-evm-manipulation-and-questions-of-legitimacy-post-2024-maha-election-result/ Mon, 25 Nov 2024 13:41:03 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=38948 Opposition leaders question the integrity of the electoral process, citing delayed poll dates, unexplained vote surges, and anomalies in EVM tallies, while calling for a return to paper ballots to restore faith in democracy

The post Democracy in question: Allegations of bias, EVM manipulation, and questions of legitimacy post 2024 Maha election result appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections have ignited a firestorm of controversy, with allegations of electoral manipulation, procedural bias, and discrepancies in Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) tallies dominating political discourse. The Mahayuti alliance’s landslide victory has come under intense scrutiny, as opposition leaders, activists, and voters express doubts over the fairness of the process.

From delays in election announcements to alleged EVM tampering, leaders of the opposition, activists and people of Maharashtra are arguing that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has failed to uphold its constitutional duty of ensuring free and fair elections. Accusations range from strategic postponements favouring the BJP to technical irregularities in voting data that cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the results.

Adding to this controversy are the public protests and political demands for a return to paper ballots, with several leaders suggesting that EVMs have compromised electoral integrity. These claims are not isolated; they are part of a broader pattern of growing scepticism about the credibility of electronic voting systems in India.

Below we have provided a list of such instances of disproportionate vote surges and the constituency-level irregularities that have surfaced till now. As calls for transparency and accountability grow louder, the debate over the Maharashtra elections raises fundamental questions about the health of India’s democracy and the trustworthiness of its electoral processes.

Electoral irregularities: A crisis of credibility

The 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections have been marred by widespread allegations of vote discrepancies, procedural lapses, and potential manipulation of EVMs. These irregularities, some of which mentioned below, have cast a shadow over the Mahayuti alliance’s victory and raised critical questions about the integrity of the electoral process.

Issue: Unexplained vote discrepancies

  1. Unusual surge in votes from Lok Sabha to Assembly Elections
    • In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP contested 28 seats and received 14.9 million votes. Since each parliamentary seat includes six assembly segments, this means they averaged 88,713 votes per assembly segment.
    • However, in the Vidhan Sabha elections, where they contested 149 seats, the BJP’s vote count rose to 17.29 million votes, an increase of nearly 2.38 million votes.
    • This translates to an average of 116,064 votes per assembly seat, showing a sudden increase of over 28,000 votes per seat compared to the Lok Sabha. Such a sharp rise is unusual and has raised concerns about potential manipulation or unexplained factors influencing the results.

  1. Discrepancies in voting and counting in 95 constituencies
    • Allegations have been raised that in 19 constituencies, more votes were counted than were actually cast, suggesting the possibility of extra votes being added to EVMs.
    • Furthermore, there are claims that in 76 constituencies, fewer votes were counted than cast, indicating potential tampering or technical faults.
    • While in 193 constituencies, the vote counts matched the polling data, the irregularities in almost one-third of the state’s constituencies cannot be ignored.
    • Detailed booth-level inspections (through Form 20) may uncover even more discrepancies, highlighting the need for an immediate and thorough investigation.

Issue: Constituency-level irregularities

  1. Constituencies with fewer votes counted

Regions such as Nagpur Central, Shirpur, Aurangabad West, and Baramati show significant shortfalls in the votes counted compared to those polled. This pattern suggests the possibility of EVM malfunctions, mismanagement, or intentional suppression of votes.

  1. Constituencies with excess votes counted

In stark contrast, areas like Aurangabad East, Vaijapur, Malegaon Central, and Boisar reported higher votes counted than recorded during polling. These anomalies suggest potential manipulation of voting machines or interference during the vote-counting process.

Issue: Allegations of EVM manipulation

  1. EVM anomalies and discrepant results: In Avadhan village, Congress candidate Kunal Baba Patil reportedly received zero votes, despite public protests from villagers affirming that they had voted for him. This raises critical concerns about the reliability of EVMs in accurately recording votes.

Further investigations revealed variations in vote data stored in EVMs on polling day (November 20) versus counting day (November 23). Such discrepancies point to vulnerabilities in the EVM system and the possibility of tampering during the interim period.

  1. Suspicious routers found near polling stations: Reports emerged of routers being discovered outside polling stations, raising alarms about potential external interference with EVM data. Police investigations are underway, but the mere presence of such devices suggests laxity in ensuring the security of election infrastructure.

Issue: Unusual voting pattern in Nanded Lok Sabha by-election

In the Nanded Lok Sabha by-election, held alongside the Maharashtra Assembly elections, Congress secured victory in the parliamentary seat but lost all six assembly segments within the same constituency.

Despite polling simultaneously, it has been provided Congress received 5.87 lakh votes for the Lok Sabha seat but only 4.27 lakh votes across the six assembly segments—a shortfall of 1,59,323 votes. This translates to an average of 26,500 Congress voters per assembly seat who seemingly switched their preference at the assembly level.

The party lost the six assembly seats by a combined margin of 1,84,597 votes, a striking contradiction to their success in the Lok Sabha seat. The anomaly raises serious questions about voter behaviour, as it seems unlikely that such a significant portion of voters would favour the BJP-led alliance for the assembly while supporting Congress in the parliamentary race.

Congress has called for an investigation into this unexpected and puzzling voting pattern.

Issue: Unexplained rise in voters in Karad (South) constituency over six months:

Within the Satara Lok Sabha constituency in western Maharashtra is the Karad (South) Assembly Constituency (AC). The Lok Sabha Elections 2024, six months before saw a total voting of 1,98,633 votes. Udayanraj Bhosale got 92,814 votes and Shashikant Shinde 92,198 votes. Six months later, the Vidhan Sabha Karad South Constituency had a total voting of 2,40, 743 Votes, that is approximately 41,000 extra votes. The victorious Atul Baba Bhjosale got 1, 39,505 votes and Prithviraj Chavan 1,00,150 votes. This means that the 40,000 plus that had miraculously increased in six months (votes/voters) all went to the winning candidate!

Now, if we compare this to the 2019 data, Vidhan Sabha Karad South AC had 2,10, 436 Votes/Voters. The winning candidate Prithviraj Chavan got 92,296 votes and Bhosale 83,166 votes. Ironically the six month surge of 41,000 votes has been unmatched! Votes that have not increased in five years (Vidhan Sabha 2019 and Lok Sabha 2024) have increased in the past six months. When political parties (opposition) collect the booth-wise updated data they will be able to study where and in which booths these voters have increased and decreased. Then there may be some answers/accountability?

Opposition raises more accusation against ECI- delay in poling date, EVMs, lack of clarity

Leaders of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) accused the ECI of delaying the announcement of poll dates, giving the BJP-led Mahayuti alliance a strategic advantage. Congress leader Supriya Shrinate had criticised the timing of the elections, claiming the delay allowed the ruling coalition to launch populist schemes like the Ladki Bahin Yojana, influencing voter sentiment. Shrinate expressed her disappointment with the results, noting, “Our campaign was strong, but maybe the public expects more from us. We will deliver on those expectations.”

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut went further, questioning the legitimacy of the results. He remarked, “This is not the people’s mandate. Something is fishy in these election results.” Raut cited the disproportionate seat distribution—BJP securing 125 seats, Ajit Pawar’s NCP faction 40, and Shinde’s Shiv Sena 60—as improbable, suggesting that such an outcome did not align with public sentiment. He demanded a re-election using paper ballots, saying, “Let this result stay, but conduct the election again with paper ballots, and then show us the same result.”

The integrity of EVMs has come under intense scrutiny, with many of the opposition leaders citing them as a central issue in the election’s credibility:

  1. Discrepancies in counting:
    • Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) leader Fahad Ahmad accused the BJP of manipulating results in Anushakti Nagar. He claimed he was leading after 17 rounds of counting, but EVMs with 99% charge showed his opponent, Sana Malik, leading after additional rounds. Ahmad alleged that this discrepancy indicated deliberate tampering.
    • Similar complaints were raised in other constituencies, with many pointing out irregularities in vote tallies between polling day and counting day.

2. Broader criticism of EVM reliability:

    • Congress leader Udit Raj bluntly stated, “As long as there are EVMs, elections cannot be fair.” He argued that the trends in Maharashtra clearly indicated tampering, attributing the BJP’s victory to the EVM system rather than a genuine mandate.
    • Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi echoed these concerns, stating that people repeatedly warned about EVM vulnerabilities during the campaign. “A question mark definitely arises on these elections,” she said.

      3.Calls for paper ballot reforms:

    • Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Sukhwinder Singh Sukhu joined the chorus of critics, urging a return to paper ballots for future elections. His stance aligns with concerns raised by Karnataka Home Minister G. Parameshwara, who highlighted the potential security risks of electronic voting systems.

Electoral system under scrutiny

Rising doubts about the credibility of the ECI have intensified as opposition leaders question its impartiality. People have argued that the institution appears to favour the ruling party, with its decisions allegedly timed and tailored to bolster the BJP’s chances. The delay in poll announcements is viewed as a strategic manoeuvre to allow Mahayuti leaders to roll out last-minute voter-wooing schemes.

In addition to administrative biases, opposition parties allege that EVMs were compromised to alter the outcomes. Discrepancies in vote tallies in 95 constituencies—where some EVMs recorded more votes than polled and others fewer—have raised suspicions of large-scale manipulation. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut remarked, “They have done some ‘gadbad’ (mess). They have stolen some of our seats.”

Impact on public trust and democracy

The controversy surrounding the Maharashtra elections has shaken public confidence in the electoral system. The ECI’s perceived partisanship and refusal to address these concerns transparently further erode faith in the democratic process. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut encapsulated this sentiment, saying, “The people of Maharashtra are not dishonest. This outcome does not reflect their will.”

Amid these allegations, demands for accountability and transparency have grown louder:

  • Re-election with paper ballots: Opposition leaders insist that reverting to manual voting is essential to restore credibility.
  • Independent audit of EVMs: A forensic analysis of EVM discrepancies in key constituencies could uncover potential tampering.
  • ECI’s role under question: The commission’s failure to provide satisfactory explanations for delays, EVM anomalies, and voter grievances has drawn widespread criticism. As a taxpayer-funded body, the ECI is expected to uphold neutrality and public trust.

Related:

UP by-elections: Reports of serious disturbances and disruption of voters

VFD’s draft reports points to “electoral manipulation and irregularities” in Haryana and J&K 2024 assembly elections

Elections amidst glitches: Maharashtra’s crucial poll day unfolds with complaints of barricading and EVM glitches

The post Democracy in question: Allegations of bias, EVM manipulation, and questions of legitimacy post 2024 Maha election result appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> VFD’s draft reports points to “electoral manipulation and irregularities” in Haryana and J&K 2024 assembly elections https://sabrangindia.in/vfds-draft-reports-points-to-electoral-manipulation-and-irregularities-in-haryana-and-jk-2024-assembly-elections/ Mon, 25 Nov 2024 12:20:25 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=38941 Vote for Democracy (VFD) raises alarm over possible electoral manipulation in Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir's 2024 Vidhan Sabha elections, citing unexplained vote surges, suspicious turnout data, and a lack of transparency, casting doubt on the Election Commission of India's handling of the polls

The post VFD’s draft reports points to “electoral manipulation and irregularities” in Haryana and J&K 2024 assembly elections appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On November 19, in its most recent draft report, Vote for Democracy (VFD) has raised serious concerns over the integrity of the Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir 2024 Vidhan Sabha elections, highlighting troubling allegations of electoral manipulation, unexplained vote percentage increases, and a lack of transparency in the election process. The detailed report from VFD exposes significant discrepancies in the election data, pointing directly to flaws in the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) handling of the polls.

The VFD report reveals a disturbing trend of manipulated voter turnout data, particularly in Haryana, where the official voter turnout spiked by 6.71% between October 5 and 7, 2024—a shift equating to an additional 1.3 million votes. This surge is both unusual and unexplained, raising suspicions of data manipulation to favour certain political parties. Key districts, including Panchkula and Charkhi Dadri, experienced extraordinary turnout increases of over 10%, all of which disproportionately benefited the BJP in closely contested constituencies. These irregularities call into question the veracity of the official turnout figures and their role in influencing the election results. (See table 5 of the report)

Moreover, the ECI has failed to release raw vote counts, again, instead opting to publish district-wise turnout percentages. This deliberate opacity prevents any meaningful scrutiny of the electoral process. Alarmingly, last-minute revisions to the voter turnout figures just hours before counting on October 8 suggest an attempt to hide discrepancies and manipulate the results. Such actions undermine the transparency and legitimacy of the entire process.

Further troubling findings from the report suggest a mismatch in the EVM vote tallies at various booths, notably in regions where the BJP secured narrow victories. The hike in EVM votes in areas such as Panchkula (10.52%) and Charkhi-Dadri (11.48%) after the polls raised serious red flags. In addition, the BJP’s strong performance in just 10 districts, where it won 37 out of 44 seats, contrasted starkly with its poor showing in the remaining 12 districts, where it secured only 11 out of 46 seats. These discrepancies are not easily explained by local issues or voter preferences, raising concerns about the manipulation of voting data to favour the ruling party. (See table 23 and 24 of the report)

The report also traces a pattern of irregularities extending back to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, where similar unexplained voter turnout increases were observed. The consistency of such data manipulation raises doubts about the Election Commission’s ability to conduct fair and free elections, casting a shadow over its credibility.

In Haryana, the manipulated voter turnout figures are believed to have directly impacted the results, especially in 17 constituencies where the margin of victory was under 5,000 votes. In these tight races, the inflated voter turnout figures helped secure BJP victories, while smaller parties like the INLD (Indian National Lok Dal) saw minimal benefits. In total, the report suggests that the turnout manipulation likely contributed to the BJP’s win in at least 24 additional seats across Haryana.

Similar irregularities have been alleged in the Jammu & Kashmir elections, where last-minute jumps in voter turnout percentages further fuel concerns about the overall fairness of the election process. The widespread nature of these discrepancies calls into question the legitimacy of the entire electoral process in both states. (See table 30 of the report)

The findings of this report, coupled with the overall lack of transparency and consistency in electoral data, raise serious questions about the integrity of the electoral process in Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir. VFD calls for an immediate and independent investigation into these allegations. The lack of transparency, data manipulation, and inconsistencies in the reported turnout figures demand urgent action to restore public trust in the electoral system. The ECI must release all raw data, explain the anomalies, and take responsibility for these discrepancies to ensure such manipulation does not occur in future elections.

Why was this exercise important?

This exercise was particularly timely as the upcoming state elections in Jharkhand and Maharashtra will soon test the transparency and integrity of India’s electoral system. As citizens prepare to vote, it is essential that every vote is accurately counted and reported. By focusing on raw vote counts rather than percentages, the call for transparency ensures that the true outcome of the election is clear and verifiable. Vote counts, which are exact and definitive, eliminate the risks associated with rounding errors or vote leaks that percentages can sometimes obscure. The publication of real, raw vote counts empowers voters and election observers to trust that the process reflects the will of the people, without distortion.

Moreover, the use of Forms 17-A and 17-C, which provide real-time and final tally records of votes, serves as a safeguard against discrepancies or manipulation, offering candidates and citizens alike the tools to verify the accuracy of election results. This call to action emphasises the need for consistency and transparency, ensuring that all votes are recorded and counted faithfully.

In light of the forthcoming elections in Jharkhand and Maharashtra, this initiative is even more critical. These elections offer a chance to reinforce the integrity of the democratic process, ensuring that voters’ voices are heard and respected without interference. Transparency across all stages of voting—from booth-wise queue data to VVPAT verification—is vital for fostering public trust in the electoral system. The call for video evidence and polling officer accountability further strengthens this transparency, ensuring that every step of the process is open to scrutiny.

As highlighted in the VFD report, the integrity of elections hinges on transparent practices that prevent tampering, miscounts, and data manipulation. With the stakes high in these state elections, ensuring a clear, accurate, and transparent voting process is essential not only for the credibility of the elections but also for the health of India’s democracy.

VFD’s finding in Lok Sabha Elections 2024

Notably, VFD had also released its detailed report on the conduct of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections during an event on July 22, 2024 at the YB Chavan Centre in Mumbai. The report, titled “Report: Conduct of Lok Sabha Elections 2024 – Analysis of ‘Vote Manipulation’ and ‘Misconduct during Voting and Counting’,” highlighted alleged election malpractices, including discrepancies in EVM vote counts, vote manipulation, and misconduct by the Election Commission of India and Returning Officers. It revealed a troubling 5 crore “dumped” votes, with the vote hike disproportionately benefiting the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA), raising doubts about the integrity of the election process.

Vote for Democracy (VFD)

According to its website, Vote for Democracy (VFD) is a Maharashtra-level citizens’ platform comprising individuals and organizations, established in 2023. The organization is working to ensure voter registration, raise voter awareness, and promote hate-free elections where accountability and transparency are paramount.

The Executive Summary of Report can be accessed here.

The Full Report can be accessed here.

 

Related:

Vote for Democracy (VFD) releases report on the conduct of General Election 2024

925 Complaints of Booth capturing in Elections 2024

TODAY, is WORSE than the ‘EMERGENCY!’

The post VFD’s draft reports points to “electoral manipulation and irregularities” in Haryana and J&K 2024 assembly elections appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force https://sabrangindia.in/sambhals-darkest-hour-5-dead-scores-injured-in-mosque-survey-violence-as-up-police-face-allegations-of-excessive-force/ Mon, 25 Nov 2024 11:12:40 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=38936 Amid rising tensions in Sambhal, police deny responsibility for the death of five innocent Muslim youth, pointing to injuries among their own, while videos and eyewitness accounts paint a different picture; internet shutdown, prohibitory orders, and detentions underway

The post Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The recent unrest in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district, which erupted during a controversial court-ordered survey of a mosque, has left a trail of tragedy, claiming five lives and injuring scores of others. Among the dead are three young men, victims of bullet wounds, whose families allege were killed by police firing—a charge vehemently denied by the authorities. Yet, haunting videos circulating on social media paint a harrowing picture: officers in riot gear openly firing in the midst of chaos, flames rising in the background, and civilians frantically fleeing in terror. These images starkly contradict official claims, raising profound questions about the Uttar Pradesh Police’s handling of the crisis.

This tragedy is not just about the lives lost but also about the failure of those tasked with protecting lives and maintaining order. The administration insists it used “minor force” to quell the protests, but eyewitness accounts and on-ground visuals tell a different story—one of heavy-handedness, tear gas, pellet guns, and a disregard for measured restraint. Instead of calming tensions, the police’s actions escalated the violence, turning a fragile situation into a full-blown disaster. Families of the deceased, already reeling from grief, are now grappling with the knowledge of the state, which should have protected their loved ones, may have caused to their deaths.

While officials insist that gunfire originated solely from the protesters, autopsy reports indicating deaths caused by .315 bore firearms undermine this assertion and cast doubt on the legitimacy of their account.

The premature and unprovoked lathi charges seen in other videos only added fuel to the fire. Peaceful protesters, raising slogans with no evidence of stone-pelting, were subjected to indiscriminate violence by law enforcement. These actions turned what could have remained a peaceful demonstration into a violent confrontation, marking a failure of the police to fulfil their primary duty of maintaining order without escalating tensions.

Sambhal, a district with a long-standing reputation for communal harmony, now stands fractured and traumatised. This devastating episode highlights systemic failures at multiple levels: an administration that rushed into action without adequate preparation, a police force that abandoned the principles of restraint and accountability, and a judicial system whose hasty orders acted as a spark in a tinderbox. As the dust settles, the scars left behind by the violence in Sambhal will serve as a grim reminder of how easily institutional failures can upend lives, disrupt communities, and tarnish the very fabric of democracy.

Reacting immediately and sharply to the violence, a day after the results to nine by-polls in the state, including the Sambhal seat were declared, Member of Parliament and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav also criticised the Uttar Pradesh state government, alleging that the BJP had orchestrated the violence to divert attention from electoral malpractices and governance failures. Yadav has urged the Supreme Court to take immediate cognisance of the situation, calling for an independent investigation into the incidents. By-polls in UP had taken place on November 20.

“The conspiracy to spread tension in the name of a mosque survey cannot go unchecked. The BJP government and its administration orchestrated this violence to deflect attention from their political manipulations and failures,” Yadav said.

He described the police actions as disproportionate and part of a broader strategy by the BJP to create polarisation for political gain. Yadav emphasised that the BJP had no interest in genuine conflict resolution and instead sought to use communal tension to strengthen its political narrative.

Fatalities and injuries raise alarm

The district of Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh descended into violence on Sunday, November 24, after a court-ordered survey of the Mughal-era Jama Masjid escalated into violent clashes. By the morning of November 25, the death toll had risen to five, though Moradabad Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh officially acknowledged only four. He revealed that one family neither informed the police nor submitted the body for autopsy, raising concerns over transparency and accountability in the administration’s handling of the crisis.

Among the deceased were Naeem (Kot Kurvi locality), Bilal (Sarai Tareen), and Numan (Hayat Nagar), their families grieving the loss of loved ones amidst a turmoil that, many argue, could have been avoided. Injuries from the clashes were widespread, with reports indicating that 20 police personnel, including senior officers, sustained injuries. Officials claimed these injuries resulted from “miscreant gunfire,” but widespread public scepticism has arisen due to video evidence showing police firing live ammunition.

A tragic reflection of police mismanagement and deep contradictions

The tragic events in Sambhal, where five individuals lost their lives and scores were injured, expose a troubling pattern of administrative failure and blatant contradictions in the actions and narratives of law enforcement. What should have been a peaceful legal procedure—a court-ordered survey of a mosque—devolved into chaos, violence, and death. The cracks in the police’s official account, highlighted by eyewitness testimony and video evidence, paint a picture of a deeply flawed approach that not only failed to prevent violence but actively exacerbated it.

The spark for the unrest was a sudden petition claiming that the Jama Masjid stood on the site of a Harihar temple, prompting a court to order an immediate survey, without giving a hearing to the other side (Mosque Committee). The survey nevertheless took place with the local community cooperating fully. Tensions had been simmering since the initial survey earlier in the week. On Sunday, as the survey team arrived, flanked by police and other officials, the situation escalated. According to police accounts, crowds of protesters began gathering near the mosque, shouting slogans and allegedly hurling stones. Divisional Commissioner Singh described the scene as a “coordinated attack” on the police and survey team, alleging that three separate groups launched assaults from different directions. Police officials, including Superintendent of Police Krishna Kumar Vishnoi, claimed to have used only “minor force” to disperse the crowd, including tear gas and lathi charges. However, these claims fall apart under scrutiny when juxtaposed with the evidence emerging from the ground.

The police, has been silent on the questioning and deeply troubling presence of unauthorised individuals accompanying the survey team and chanting the polarising slogan “Jai Shri Ram.” In today’s fraught socio-political climate, this chant, while religious for some, has become a symbol of majoritarian aggression. For it to resound during a legally sensitive survey of a disputed mosque was not only inflammatory but deeply irresponsible. These individuals, unauthorised to participate in the survey process, actively inflamed tensions, turning what should have been a neutral court-directed operation into a spectacle of intimidation. The administration’s failure to restrain them reflects a troubling bias and raises critical questions: Who allowed these individuals to accompany the team, and why was their inflammatory behaviour permitted in an already charged environment?

Social media is awash with disturbing videos that directly challenge the police narrative and point to excessive use of force. One particularly harrowing clip shows riot-gear-clad officers cornering individuals in narrow smoke-filled alleys, firing indiscriminately with live rounds, raising serious concerns about the proportionality of the police response. Another video captures officers pulling individuals from a peaceful protest and beating them with batons, despite there being no visible provocation. Such scenes starkly contradict police claims of restraint and raise pressing questions about accountability.

In another video, which is a drone footage of the Sambhal violence shot during the survey being conducted by the team of advocate commissioner, a cleric could be heard requesting the mob, vandalising a car parked near the mosque, to disperse.

The videos, eyewitness testimonies, and the administration’s actions expose the glaring disconnect between the police’s claims and the reality on the ground. They paint a damning picture of an institution unprepared and unwilling to uphold its duty of impartiality and restraint. Sambhal’s tragedy is a grim indictment of law enforcement’s failure to protect lives and ensure fairness, leaving deep scars on a community already grappling with distrust and fear. This incident underscores an urgent need for accountability and systemic reform, lest such tragedies continue to erode the very fabric of justice and democracy.

In view of these contradictions, District Magistrate Manish Pensiya’s statements about maintaining “communal harmony” ring hollow when juxtaposed with the state’s heavy-handed approach. The administration’s failure to anticipate the volatile situation, despite clear signs of tension in the days leading up to the survey, reveals a glaring lack of foresight and preparation. 

Jama Masjid in Chandausi: A heritage monument caught in the crossfire

The Jama Masjid in Chandausi, located in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district, is not just a religious edifice but a nationally recognised heritage monument. Declared a “protected monument” under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904, it has held this status since December 22, 1920. The mosque, prominently featured on the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) Agra Circle website, represents architectural brilliance and historical significance. Yet, this symbol of India’s shared cultural legacy is now at the centre of a highly contentious legal and communal battle.

Allegations that the mosque was constructed over the ruins of an alleged Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Harihar have placed it under a spotlight fraught with historical revisionism, legal dilemmas, and communal discord. The claim, rooted in assertions that the temple was destroyed by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1529, has been amplified by a petition filed by eight individuals, several of whom have a history of involvement in contentious disputes over religious sites. Their demands range from recognising the mosque as a temple to permitting Hindu worship at the site.

This case raises significant concerns about the preservation of heritage, judicial accountability, and the ethical responsibility of maintaining communal harmony. One can say that the legal proceedings surrounding the Jama Masjid reflect an erosion of procedural fairness, with decisions appearing to prioritise political expediency over historical or legal integrity.

The judicial response and its fallout: The controversy deepened when, on November 19, 2024, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aditya Singh issued an immediate directive to survey the mosque based on the petitioners’ claims, without serving notice or hearing the other side. Within hours, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, and a survey was ordered to include videography and photography. While ostensibly aimed at determining the mosque’s historical foundations, this decision has been criticised for its unprecedented speed and lack of procedural safeguards.

Key issues surrounding the court’s response include:

  1. Bypassing procedural norms: The court did not provide adequate time for the mosque committee, ASI, or other stakeholders to respond to the allegations. The hurried survey order—issued on the same day the petition was filed—raises questions about judicial neutrality and accountability, especially in a case involving a monument of national importance.
  2. Contravention of monument protection laws: The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, strictly prohibits unauthorised surveys, excavations, or alterations to protected sites. The court’s directive, issued without explicit approval from the ASI, undermines these protections and sets a potentially dangerous precedent.
  3. Most questionably, the order defied the basics of natural justice as it did not hear the Mosque Committee before passing the order.
  4. Encouraging polarising agendas: By validating the claims of the petitioners without substantial evidence, the judiciary inadvertently bolstered narratives that aim to communalise historical monuments. Such actions risk normalising attempts to reinterpret historical legacies through a divisive lens.
  5. Judicial overreach: The judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter appears compromised in this instance. The extraordinary haste with which the survey was ordered has led to widespread scepticism about the court’s motivations, further eroding public trust in its independence.

It is essential to that the individuals behind the petition include figures like Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, known for his involvement in controversial and high-profile disputes such as the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath case. Their claims, often rooted in unverified assertions of historical wrongs, form part of a larger pattern aimed at reclaiming purported Hindu heritage sites. The said strategy is less about historical accuracy and more about advancing a communal agenda that deepens societal divides. The broader implications of such cases are profound, the present one can even call it violence as a consequence of judicial haste. They risk transforming judicial processes into tools for majoritarian politics, undermining the secular fabric of the Constitution. In recent times, there have been repeated cautions against using history as a battleground for contemporary disputes, but these warnings seem increasingly unheeded in the current climate.

Opposition criticises UP government over Sambhal violence, alleges conspiracy

The violence in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district has drawn sharp criticism from opposition leaders, who have accused Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and the ruling BJP government of orchestrating unrest under the guise of conducting a court-ordered mosque survey. Congress and Samajwadi Party leaders have described the incident as a deliberate attempt to incite communal tensions and destabilise the region’s long-standing harmony.

Congress terms it a “well-planned conspiracy”: Congress leader Pawan Khera condemned the Sambhal violence in unequivocal terms, calling it a “well-planned conspiracy” by the Yogi Adityanath-led government. Khera, Chairman of the Media and Publicity Department of the All India Congress Committee (AICC), accused the state administration of fostering a climate of fear and violence.

“No citizen in Uttar Pradesh is ‘safe’ under CM Adityanath, who gave the reprehensible slogan of ‘Batenge toh Katenge’ (Those who divide will die). This is evident from the deplorable incidents in Sambhal today,” Khera said in a strongly worded statement.

Referring to widely circulated videos of police allegedly firing at protesters, Khera argued that these visuals reveal the “horrifying result of a well-planned conspiracy” by the BJP and RSS. He claimed the violence in Sambhal was orchestrated to fracture the communal harmony of western Uttar Pradesh, a region historically known for its peace and goodwill.

Khera went further, alleging that the BJP government had no intention of resolving the mosque dispute in a just or peaceful manner. “In this entire matter, the BJP neither wanted the survey to proceed nor to stop it; its sole objective was to destroy harmony,” he asserted.

The Congress leader further accused the BJP of perpetuating hatred and systematically targeting minority communities, calling the Modi-Yogi administration a “double-assault government” that considers minorities as second-class citizens.

Khera criticised the judiciary’s role, stating that the court’s order for an immediate survey of the mosque came without giving the mosque committee or local Muslim leaders a fair hearing. He claimed that this rushed decision was a deliberate strategy by the government to provoke unrest.

“It is public knowledge that the court ordered an immediate survey without hearing the other side. No action was taken against the rioters who accompanied the survey team, making it clear that the Yogi government has intensified the politics of violence and hatred post the state by-elections,” Khera remarked.

Khera also invoked Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s campaign against divisive politics, urging the people of Sambhal to reject hatred. “Rahul Gandhi has continuously spoken about ‘Nafrat Ke Bazaar Mein Mohabbat Ki Dukaan’ (spreading love in a marketplace of hatred). In this spirit, I appeal to the people of Sambhal to maintain unity, amity, and harmony while legally protecting their rights,” he said.

Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also took to ‘X’ to share their displeasure on the manner in which the UP government handled the situation.

A broader pattern of state-endorsed violence: Both opposition parties have pointed to a recurring pattern in the BJP’s approach to governance in Uttar Pradesh, accusing the Yogi administration of fostering communal divisions as a political tool. Khera and Yadav highlighted how incidents like the violence in Sambhal have become disturbingly frequent, where minorities bear the brunt of state actions.

Khera stated that the BJP government has intensified its communal agenda following recent by-elections, further eroding trust between communities. “The BJP is guilty of setting fire to the peace and harmony of Sambhal. Their communal politics is a calculated attempt to keep society fractured and polarised,” Khera argued.

The opposition’s critique of the Sambhal violence has raised serious questions about the handling of the incident by the state government. Both Congress and the Samajwadi Party have demanded accountability from the Yogi administration and a fair inquiry into the events leading to the violence.

With videos and eyewitness accounts contradicting police narratives, the demand for an impartial investigation is gaining traction. Meanwhile, the incident has further polarised an already charged political environment, with the opposition accusing the BJP of prioritising its communal agenda over the welfare and safety of the state’s citizens.

Sambhal District under strict restrictions amid post-riot tensions

In the wake of the recent violent clashes during the court-mandated mosque survey, authorities in Sambhal district have implemented stringent measures to restore order and prevent further unrest. The district administration has imposed prohibitory orders, restricted movement of outsiders, suspended internet services, and issued a series of directives to curb potential threats.

As per multiple media news, the Sambhal District Magistrate has issued a formal notification barring the entry of external individuals, social organisations, or public representatives into the district without prior approval. The notification, dated October 1, 2024, and referenced as order number 942/Judicial Assistant/Section-163/2024, aims to contain the volatile situation in the region.

“A prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Indian Citizens Security Code, 2023, has been imposed in Sambhal district and will remain effective until November 30,” the circular states. It further specifies, “No external person, social organisation, or public representative will be allowed to enter the district without the explicit permission of the competent authority. Violating this order will be treated as a punishable offence under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”

The directive underscores the urgency of maintaining order and preventing external influences from exacerbating the fragile situation. Officials have emphasised that the order is integral to the overarching prohibitory measures implemented in early October and is to be enforced immediately.

In addition to this, internet services across the district have been suspended for 24 hours. The temporary shutdown is intended to curb the spread of misinformation, inflammatory content, and the organisation of disruptive activities through social media platforms.

In a parallel move, the district administration has issued strict prohibitions on the possession or collection of materials that could be used as projectiles or weapons. A notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) explicitly bans citizens from purchasing or stockpiling stones, soda bottles, or any flammable or explosive substances.

The notice warns of strict action against violators, including legal penalties. To reinforce this measure, local municipal authorities have been directed to confiscate construction materials, such as loose bricks or debris, found lying on roads or in public areas.

Detentions and targeted legal actions: As per the UP police statement, the district police have intensified their operations to identify and detain individuals involved in Sunday’s violent clashes. According to the Superintendent of Police, around 20 individuals have been taken into custody so far. These arrests follow allegations of stone-pelting and acts of violence that occurred during the controversial survey of the mosque. The officials have announced plans to charge those detained under the National Security Act (NSA). While law enforcement claims this is necessary to deter future violence, many view it as an overreach designed to intimidate dissenters. The administration has also issued warnings against spreading rumours, threatening legal action against anyone found inciting unrest through social media.

Law enforcement officials have assured the public that further arrests will follow as investigations progress. The local administration has also deployed additional police forces in sensitive areas to maintain peace and deter further incidents. Yet, these measures fail to address the fundamental questions of police misconduct and administrative failure. By focusing solely on punitive actions against protesters, the state has sidestepped its responsibility to investigate its own role in escalating the violence.

Police defence

The deaths in Sambhal, including that of Naeem, have become a flashpoint of conflicting narratives between law enforcement and the victim’s family. Naeem’s parents have accused the police of fatally shooting their son, arguing that his death was the result of unwarranted police firing. Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh, however, vehemently denied the allegations, stating that police injuries sustained during the clashes make it implausible for officers to have been the aggressors. “Police cannot shoot at themselves,” Singh asserted, referencing the injuries suffered by law enforcement, including the SP’s Public Relations Officer, who was shot in the leg, and other officers who sustained pellet wounds and fractures. Singh also attempted to deflect blame onto Naeem’s family, stating, “It was the responsibility of the family members to restrain their son if he was planning to throw stones.”

Superintendent of Police (SP) Krishna Kumar Bishnoi added to the official narrative, maintaining that the police employed only pellet guns for crowd control during the clashes.

In one video of SP Krishan Kumar, he can be seen using a loudspeaker to urge the alleged stone-pelters not to indulge in violence.

“Do not spoil your future for these politicians,” he is heard saying through his megaphone in one of the videos.

Despite these official accounts, Singh painted a broader picture of chaos, claiming, “There were three groups who were firing at each other. We have evidence, but our priority right now is to restore peace.” This assertion seeks to shift attention away from the police and onto unidentified groups allegedly involved in the violence. Yet, this explanation does little to address the critical question of how Naeem and others sustained gunshot wounds if the police only used pellet guns and tear gas.

Meanwhile, Singh confirmed to PTI that several police personnel had sustained injuries, including the PRO (Public Relations Officer) of the SP, who had been shot in the leg. Additionally, the police circle officer was struck by pellets, a constable suffered a severe head injury, and the deputy collector sustained a fractured leg. Singh’s emphasis on the injuries to police personnel served to bolster the administration’s stance that the violence originated from the protesters, not the authorities.

The conflicting statements from law enforcement officials, combined with the autopsy findings and eyewitness accounts, create a troubling narrative. The administration’s insistence on the protesters’ culpability is sharply contradicted by emerging evidence, including visual records of officers firing live rounds in smoke-filled streets. Singh’s comments, such as suggesting families “restrain” their loved ones, have been widely criticised as attempts to deflect accountability. These discrepancies, coupled with the police’s refusal to address these contradictions transparently, have only deepened public distrust and magnified calls for an independent investigation to establish the truth behind the tragic events in Sambhal.

An uncertain path ahead

As Sambhal grapples with the aftermath of Sunday’s clashes, the district remains on edge. The closure of schools and markets reflects a community paralysed by fear and uncertainty. While the administration insists it is working to restore normalcy, its actions have done little to inspire confidence. The incident in Sambhal is a stark reminder of the volatile interplay between legal disputes over religious sites and the state’s handling of communal tensions. It also underscores the urgent need for accountability in law enforcement, especially in sensitive situations where lives are at stake. Until these issues are addressed, legally and constitutionally, incidents like these will continue to mar the state’s fragile social fabric.

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Rajasthan HC finds no caste intent in words like ‘Bhangi’, ‘Neech’, ‘Bhikhari’, ‘Mangani’, drops SC/ST Act charges

 

 

The post Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque https://sabrangindia.in/uttarakhand-high-court-orders-security-condemns-hate-speech-over-uttarkashi-mosque/ Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:22:26 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=38929 The Uttarakhand High Court intervenes in the Uttarkashi Jama Masjid dispute, ordering stringent security around the mosque and action against hate speech. The court is hearing a petition filed by Alpsankhayak Seva Samiti, seeking protection for the mosque and measures to prevent further escalation of communal tensions stirred by right-wing groups

The post Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The Uttarakhand High Court has intervened in the ongoing controversy over the Jama Masjid in Uttarkashi, directing authorities to ensure security around the mosque and take strong action against the rising tide of hate speech and threats of demolition. The dispute, which has pitted local right-wing groups against the mosque, has escalated tensions in the region, prompting court intervention to maintain law and order.

On November 22, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal heard a petition (WPCRL/1275/2024) filed by the Alpsankhayak Seva Samiti (ASS), a minority organization. The court directed the District Magistrate (DM) and Superintendent of Police (SP) in Uttarkashi to provide stringent security for the mosque, which has been targeted by right-wing groups alleging its illegal construction. These groups have called for a Mahapanchayat (community gathering) on December 1 to demand the mosque’s demolition.

In its oral observations, the High Court emphasized that India is a country governed by the rule of law, not a theocracy. “No one should indulge in hate speech or threats of destruction,” the bench remarked, as Times of India reported.

Background

The row over the mosque dates back to September 2024 when members of the Sanyukt Sanatan Dharam Raksha Sangh, along with other right-wing groups, organized a rally in Uttarkashi demanding the mosque’s removal. They alleged that the mosque was illegally constructed on government land. The protests led to violent clashes between demonstrators and police, with at least four officers injured during a November 3 rally. Police had to resort to lathi charges and flag marches to restore order.

In their petition, the ASS, through its president Mushraf Ali and Istiak Ahmed, highlighted the mosque’s historical and legal status. The petitioners claim that the mosque was built in 1969 on land purchased by Istiak Ahmed’s father, Yasim Beg, and was later registered as a Waqf property in 1987 following a notification by the Uttar Pradesh Waqf Commissioner. The mosque, located near Varunavat Mountain, has been a place of worship for the Sunni Muslim community for over five decades, as Times of India reported.

However, the protests have centered on the assertion by right-wing leaders that the mosque’s construction was illegal and it should be demolished. Leaders of the Sanyukt Sanatan Dharam Raksha Sangh have spread claims that the mosque was unlawfully built on government land. These allegations have fueled the demand for its demolition, despite the mosque’s legal recognition as a Waqf property.

The ASS petition, filed in response to these demands, has raised concerns over the safety of the mosque and its worshippers. The petitioners argue that the local authorities have failed to protect the mosque from threats and acts of violence, forcing them to seek judicial intervention.

The High Court’s intervention came after a series of violent incidents linked to the protests. On October 24, a rally organized by the right-wing groups turned violent, leading to stone-pelting and police baton charges. At least 27 people, including nine police officers, were injured during the confrontation. The police subsequently filed an FIR against 200 unidentified individuals and arrested key organizers, who were later granted bail.

Direction to maintain law and order in, and around the mosque

In addition to calling for heightened security, the High Court urged the state to take explicit direction from the Director General of Police (DGP) to maintain law and order. The court has scheduled a fresh hearing for November 27, at which further actions to address the growing tensions will be discussed.

The bench directed that “In the meantime, respondent nos. 2 & 3 are directed to maintain law and order in, and around, the place of worship mentioned in the Writ Petition, and to ensure that no untoward incident happens by any person till the next date of listing.”

The petitioners have also emphasized the violation of the Supreme Court’s guidelines on hate speech. As reported by The Indian Express, advocate Imran Ali Khan, representing the petitioners, argued that the hate speech against Muslims and the mosque by the protestors was a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s directive in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India. The Supreme Court had ruled that authorities must take suo motu action against hate speech, even in the absence of formal complaints, and register cases under Sections 196 and 197 of the Indian Penal Code.

The rising tensions have also attracted national attention, as the issue strikes at the heart of ongoing debates over religious tolerance, freedom of worship, and the rule of law in India. The Uttarakhand High Court’s ruling is seen as a critical stand in upholding these values and ensuring that religious communities are protected from violence and intimidation.

As the court proceedings continue, all eyes will be on the government’s response and its ability to maintain peace in the region. With the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) also planning to participate in the Mahapanchayat on December 1, the coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether the state can quell the rising unrest and ensure the safety of the mosque and its community members. However, the challenge now lies in the hands of the state authorities to act decisively and prevent further escalation.

The Uttarakhand High Court order dated November 22, 2024 can be accessed here

Download PDF


Related:

Stop Nov 4 Mahapanchayat in Uttarakhand & “Dharma Sansad” in December: Former civil servants to Amit Shah

Uttarkashi: Cross marks, “leave” threats on Muslim shops, hatred spreads to other towns: Uttarakhand

APCR’s Fact-Finding Report: Congress ministers remarks escalated the communal tensions in Himachal Pradesh

The post Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> CJP files complaint against BJP, MNS, and Shinde-Led Shiv Sena alleging silence period breach during Maharashtra polls https://sabrangindia.in/cjp-files-complaint-against-bjp-mns-and-shinde-led-shiv-sena-alleging-silence-period-breach-during-maharashtra-polls/ Sat, 23 Nov 2024 11:43:34 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=38926 Complaint flags political ads in top newspapers as unlawful electioneering, urging strict measures to uphold fairness in electoral process

The post CJP files complaint against BJP, MNS, and Shinde-Led Shiv Sena alleging silence period breach during Maharashtra polls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> In a move to uphold the integrity of electoral processes, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had filed a complaint with Maharashtra State Election Commission on November 21, highlighting violations of the mandated 48-hour silence period prior to polling during the ongoing Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha elections.

In the said complaint, CJP pointed out that leading political parties, such as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), and the Shinde faction of Shiv Sena, placed full-page advertisements in prominent newspapers such as The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Mid-Day, and Maharashtra Times. These advertisements, published during the silence period, are seen as attempts to influence voter sentiment and solicit votes, a direct breach of electoral ethics and established legal guidelines.

Undermining Electoral Integrity

CJP emphasised that the silence period is a critical safeguard designed to ensure that voters have an impartial environment to make informed decisions, free from last-minute persuasion. By publishing political propaganda during this period, CJP contends, political parties and media outlets have undermined this democratic safeguard, distorted the electoral playing field, and eroded public trust in the electoral process. The complaint elaborates on the potential long-term repercussions of such violations. It warns that these actions set a dangerous precedent, enabling wealthier political parties to leverage financial muscle for electoral advantage, further marginalising independent candidates and smaller parties.

Legal and ethical breaches

CJP has drawn attention to several legal and ethical frameworks that these actions contravene:

  • Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: Prohibits election propaganda during the 48-hour silence period. While print media is not explicitly mentioned, CJP argues that the intent of the law is clearly violated through such advertisements.
  • Press Council of India (PCI) guidelines: These guidelines mandate neutrality in election reporting and prohibit paid news, especially during the silence period.
  • Model Code of Conduct: Though not legally binding, the Code discourages indirect campaigning and other actions that influence voters during the restricted period.
  • Constitutional principles: By compromising the level playing field, the advertisements allegedly violate Article 324 of the Constitution, which mandates free and fair elections.


Demands for action

In its submission, CJP has called on the Maharashtra State Election Commission to take decisive action, including:

  1. Investigating the advertisements to determine if they qualify as paid news or unauthorised election propaganda.
  2. Penalising political parties and media outlets responsible for the violations.
  3. Issuing public clarifications and warnings to reinforce the sanctity of the silence period.
  4. Strengthening surveillance mechanisms to prevent further breaches.

Preserving democracy

CJP underscored the critical role of the Election Commission in safeguarding democracy. The organisation has urged for strict enforcement of electoral laws, noting that failure to act decisively risks normalising unethical practices, diminishing public trust, and weakening the democratic framework. The complaint is a reminder of the need for vigilance in ensuring that elections remain free, fair, and reflective of the people’s informed choice, untainted by manipulative tactics or undue influence.

The complete complaint may be read here:

Download PDF

 

Related:

Voting manipulation and police brutality plague 8 out of 15 by-poll seats; Muslim voters denied their right to vote in UP

Elections amidst glitches: Maharashtra’s crucial poll day unfolds with complaints of barricading and EVM glitches

UP by-elections: Reports of serious disturbances and disruption of voters

Communal rhetoric in Jharkhand elections: CJP files complaint against MP CM Mohan Yadav and BJP candidate Satyendra Tiwari

The post CJP files complaint against BJP, MNS, and Shinde-Led Shiv Sena alleging silence period breach during Maharashtra polls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> 2024: Love Jihad – A Socio-Political Weapon: Caste, Endogamy, and Hindutva’s Grip on gender and social boundaries in India https://sabrangindia.in/2024-love-jihad-a-socio-political-weapon-caste-endogamy-and-hindutvas-grip-on-gender-and-social-boundaries-in-india/ Sat, 23 Nov 2024 05:25:21 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=38920 This article examines how "Love Jihad" reinforces caste hierarchies, Hindutva politics, and patriarchal control in India’s 2024 socio-political landscape

The post 2024: Love Jihad – A Socio-Political Weapon: Caste, Endogamy, and Hindutva’s Grip on gender and social boundaries in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> This article explores the discourse around the term “Love Jihad” in India, mainly focusing on how its propagation functions as a socio-political tool to uphold caste hierarchies through preserving upper-caste Hindu endogamy, especially in year 2024.

Through a critical analysis of media narratives, state interventions, and cultural rhetoric, the article examines how the term “Love Jihad” taps into historical anxieties about caste boundaries and sexual control over Hindu (upper-caste) women. Additionally, it highlights how this narrative operates within a broader framework of Hindutva politics that seeks to maintain socio-religious boundaries and reinforce patriarchal control, therefore, its impact on the everyday lives of women in society.

Locating the violence

Behind the meticulous task of monitoring and verifying hate crime cases compiled by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), integral to the organisation’s ‘Hate Hatao’ program across India, a trend can be discerned over the past four to six years. This regular monitoring is reflected in the Nafrat ka Naqsha (map) that meticulously depicts such classified incidents for ready reference. There have been multiple cases of crimes related to disrupting interfaith marriages, attacking Muslim men for “hanging out with Hindu women,” and vice versa by accusing couples involved in this association of “love jihad.”[1] For instance, on January 20, 2023, in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, a 24-year-old Hindu woman was celebrating her birthday with her friends when a mob, allegedly comprised of Bajrang Dal men, barged into the house and started assaulting the Muslim men on allegations of “Love Jihad.”[2] These Muslim men were later taken to the MIG Colony police station, where they were put in custody. The video of this incident went viral the next day.

In another case, on June 30, 2024, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal members[3] created a disturbance outside a Police station in protest against an interfaith marriage between a Hindu and Muslim couple after they applied to register the marriage in Uttar Pradesh’s Bijnor. A Hindu woman and a Muslim man had decided to get married and followed the appropriate legal procedure by applying for their marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act of 1954. As soon as the news of the couple’s application to register their marriage spread,[4] an appropriately readied mob hit the streets, staging aggressive demonstrations and making inflammatory statements to stop the marriage. The mob accused a couple of engaging in ‘love jihad,’ a conspiracy theory propagated by Hindu right-wing organisations to convey that Muslim men are luring Hindu women into both marriage and conversion. The mob threatened the police with aggravating communal tensions in the city if the marriage was not stopped! The couple had followed all legal procedures, submitting the necessary documents to the authorities in a move that should have been straightforward. However, their decision to marry was met with outrage from local right-wing Hindu groups. This incident also highlights the fragility of communal relations and the deep-seated biases that persist within Indian society.

In a fictional world, back in 2020, the jewellery brand Tanishq, part of the esteemed Tata Group, created an advertisement titled “Ekatvam,” a Sanskrit term that translates to “Unity.” The ad showcased the story of an interfaith couple, specifically, a Hindu woman who had married into a Muslim family. The narrative unfolded around a baby shower ceremony organised by the Muslim in-laws to honour their Hindu daughter-in-law, highlighting themes of acceptance, harmony, and the blending of different cultural practices. The advertisement was intended to convey a message of inclusivity, celebrating the unity of cultures through gestures of love and familial support. However, the ad faced a significant backlash on social media, particularly from organised right wing trolls associated with specific segments of Hindu nationalist groups and right-wing activists, who accused the brand of promoting an agenda referred to as “love jihad,” the alleged encouragement of Muslim men to marry Hindu women to convert them.[5]

This criticism so far escalated (or was made to escalate!) on social media — hashtags like #BoycottTanishq began to trend—leading to panic in the corporate entity that had put out the ad, attempting a message of social cohesion. With calls for a boycott of the brand gaining momentum online, Tanishq was forced to withdraw the advertisement in response to the mounting pressure. The entity issued an official apology, clarifying that they had aimed to spread a message of peace and togetherness, not “to provoke or offend.” In a post truth India, messages of harmony and cohesion are considered offensive! The same ultra-nationalists who had previously admired Tata’s philanthropic contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic, even dubbing the Tata group “true nationalists” saw no problem in this violent and stark reaction to the Tanishq ‘Ekatvam’ ad, an ad which aimed to promote social harmony through the portrayal of a Hindu-Muslim family. Despite Tata’s well-crafted reputation for supporting communities in need, some viewers criticised Tanishq’s message of cultural inclusivity, viewing it through the lens of ‘Love Jihad.’ A similar controversy emerged after the series ‘The Suitable Boy’ aired on Netflix, which has the lead character, a Hindu girl called Lata, passionately kissing a Muslim boy against the backdrop of a temple. Politician Gaurav Tiwari from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) youth wing had claimed that this scene “hurt religious sentiments” of Hindus and demanded Netflix to remove the ‘objectionable’ scene and apologise for encouraging ‘love jihad.’ He also called for a boycott of the Netflix streaming platform.[6]

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has documented several cases illustrating the growing controversy and societal tension surrounding interfaith relationships in India as part of its Hate Watch initiative across India. Monitoring, acting on hate complaints and depicting trends is core to this programme. All these cases reveal a concerning trend in which couples from different faith backgrounds face increasing hostility, driven by strong currents of intolerance and division within society. This hostility is not isolated; instead, it reflects an organized and systematic effort to stigmatize and communalize interfaith unions. This article examines these patterns and explains the ideological connections to Brahmanical patriarchy behind such divisive societal practices.

‘Love Jihad’ and the organised nature of anti-Muslim hate narrative:

It is a well-established fact that interfaith and inter-caste marriages, regardless of the religion of the individuals involved, have been vehemently opposed in India. This opposition is not limited to Hindu-Muslim marriages. There are numerous instances where couples belonging to different faiths, including Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Sikhs, Jains, and also sub-castes of the same religion faced difficulties going ahead with their interfaith and inter-caste relationships. In 2009, the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council (KCBC),[7] a prominent body within Kerala’s Catholic Church, played a significant role in amplifying the narrative of ‘love jihad.’ The KCBC claimed that approximately 4,500 Christian women had been manipulated or ‘conned’ into relationships that resulted in their conversion to Islam.[8] These assertions by the Catholic Church in Kerala became a central point in discussions around the ‘love jihad’ controversy, contributing to its prominence in both state and national discourse. The BJP and various Hindutva organisations have escalated this issue by terming it a systematic agenda of the Muslims as a religious community to lure Hindu women and convert them to Islam as part of their larger goal of achieving demographic imbalance in South Asia through Ghazwa-e-Hind.[9]

Going back to its origin, the term “love jihad” first came into prominent public discussion in the states of Karnataka and Kerala. The “Hindu Janajagruti Samiti,” a Hindu nationalist organisation, first used the term “love jihad” in the year 2007 during their campaign of policing interfaith couples in public places.[10] However, it was not very popular in public discourse. After the cases emerged from Kerala in the year 2009, where two non-Muslim girls were converted after marriage to their respective Muslim partners, the term “love jihad” resurfaced. In those cases, girls who eloped with their Muslim partners initially expressed their desire to remain with their respective partners; later, they changed their statements and wished to return to their parents. This was the first time the term got an official mention of judicial proceedings while hearing the bail petitions of two Muslim youths involved. The judge ordered a police investigation to know in detail about the alleged “love jihad” movement.[11] However, the police inquiry did not find any substantial evidence proving the alleged “love jihad” movement among Muslims. These attempts to revive “love jihad” as a conspiracy theory did not gain much currency until 2014.

After the BJP came into power in 2014, they (and their offshoot organisations who work as the ‘brown shorts of the regime’) started utilising selective incidents of gender violence to divide the communities further and polarise them on communal lines for the political advantages, where victims belonged to the Hindu community and accused Muslims. In the recent past, in 2022, in Shraddha Walkar’s case- the gruesome murder of Shraddha Walkar by her live-in partner Aftab Poonawala in Chattarpur, Delhi, political leaders were seen peddling the conspiracy theory of “love jihad.” Poonawala admitted his crime in which he strangled Walker, chopping her body into 35 pieces, storing them in a refrigerator, and dumping them in the Mehrauli forest for 18 days.[12] Politicians like Giriraj Singh, BJP MP from Bihar, while referring to Walkar’s case, said, “Under a conspiracy, non-Muslims and Hindu girls are being targeted through love affairs, and if they refuse religious conversion, they face the fate that Shraddha faced. This is a heinous crime, and such incidents have forced the people of India to think.” Another BJP politician, Ram Kadam, an MLA from Maharashtra, wrote a letter to the Delhi Police Commissioner, seeking a proper inquiry into Shraddha’s case, investigating a possible ‘love jihad’ angle.

In another incident, Nitesh Rane, also a BJP MLA from Maharashtra, was also seen giving hate speeches after the tragic death of Yashashree Shinde, a Dalit girl from Uran, Maharashtra, who was a victim of gender violence committed by a Muslim youth, Dawood Shaikh.[13] Yashashree’s case also reveals how incidents involving Hindu-Muslim dynamics are manipulated for political purposes, but often in selective and inconsistent ways. In her case, the accused was a Muslim man, which initially sparked interest among Hindutva leaders and right-wing groups. In his inflammatory remarks, Rane has called for the “elimination” of Muslims who are involved in relationships with Hindu women, painting Muslims broadly as a threat to Hindu women’s safety, connecting and blaming the entire community for the crime committed by an individual.

By framing incidents of gender violence within a Hindu-Muslim narrative, political leaders like Giriraj Singh, Ram Kadam, and Nitesh Rane capitalise on communal fears (these are also regularly stoked and based on irrational misgivings), side-lining the actual issues of gendered violence and social justice. Human rights lawyer Asim Sarode has pointed out on his social media post that once the Yashashree case began receiving (and had a socially disruptive impact) attention for its Hindu-Muslim angle, Hindutva leaders exploited it to polarise communities and further fuel communal tensions. That is until the case remained a “hot topic of discussion” in a pliant and un-discerning media. Subsequently, no Hindutva leader cared for the individuals affected; the case was “dropped” with no consistent follow-up and financial help to the victim’s family. In fact, Sarode’s consistent follow-up ensured the government released help grants to the victim’s family.[14]

This pick-and-dispose attitude for propaganda purposes, followed by abandonment, reflects these leaders’ selective concern, often guided more by communal interest than genuine empathy or a commitment to justice for the victim. Yashashree’s case, especially in light of the selective outrage demonstrated by Hindutva leaders, rather than addressing the underlying issues of gender violence or caste-based discrimination, is exploited for political advantage, amplifying religious and communal divides. This approach highlights the instrumental use of gender violence cases within a polarising agenda that focuses less on justice and more on advancing communal agendas.

Hate speeches by influential right-wing leaders, politicians, and organisations have fuelled this rhetoric, painting Muslims as predators and stirring up fear among Hindu families about the safety and honour of their daughters. Such speeches often emphasise “protecting Hindu daughters,” drawing on the cultural symbolism of women as bearers of community honour. This narrative feeds into long-standing communal stereotypes and pre-existing biases, deepening societal divisions. These speeches deliberately aggravate tensions, fostering mistrust and hostility between communities. This rhetoric not only vilifies Muslim men but also contributes to a culture where Hindu women are seen as needing “protection” from supposed threats outside their community.

This trend of prevalent insecurities among parents over their daughter’s choice to marry Muslim men can also be observed in the case of Hadiya, formerly Akhila Asokan, a Hindu-born medical student from Kerala who converted to Islam and married a Muslim man named Shafin Jahan. Hadiya became a focal point of the “Love Jihad” controversy in 2017, the discourse around denying her both agency and autonomy.[15] After Akhila Asokan adopted Islam and her new name, Hadiya, her father, K M Asokan, contested her marriage in the Kerala High Court, alleging that she had been coerced into conversion. In response, the court “invalidated Hadiya’s marriage” and placed her in her parents’ custody, against her wish, a decision that reflected a broader societal suspicion toward interfaith marriages involving Muslim men and rejecting the agency for women to make decisions in her life.

Shafin Jahan took the matter to the Supreme Court of India, arguing that Hadiya had converted and married him to her wish. In a landmark ruling in March 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the Kerala High Court’s decision, asserting Hadiya’s right to freedom of religion and choice in marriage. However, the Supreme Court’s directive for an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the alleged “love jihad” aspect further highlighted the alarming trend of public pressure on judicial and investigating agencies rooted in the upper caste anxieties around interfaith relationships in India. Significantly, in October 2018, the NIA found no evidence of a coordinated conspiracy aimed at converting non-Muslim women to Islam through marriage. Therefore, ‘love jihad’ is very systematically created categories by right-wing ideologies across the religious and political spectrum, who presently enjoy proximity to those in power, in the union, and several states.

Love Jihad Laws: criminalising personal choices through state-endorsed Islamophobia.

In a widely shared video on social media, Pravin Togadia, president of the far-right extremist group Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), is seen administering an oath to hundreds of Hindus. The offender in the video uses Hate Speech when addressing a big audience and saying that they need to work on getting a Population control law, a “love jihad” law, and kicking out Bangladeshis (often a reference to Muslims) out of India. The incident was reported in the Palwal district of Haryana on 24th January 2023.[16] Members of Hindu Janakrosh Morcha held three public rallies and processions in February 2023 in Maharashtra’s Vashi, Solapur, and Vasai towns, raising slogans in demand of “Hindu Rashtra” and making calls for laws against ‘love jihad’ and also raised slogans demanding capital punishment for interfaith marriages and alleged forceful conversions by calling “Hang Love Jihadis” repeatedly amidst a busy street.[17]

This narrative framed around the allegation that Muslim men are systematically converting non-Muslim women through marriage has become a powerful political tool, and its influence was evident in the judicial and legislative responses, which are not limited to one region or state; it has a more profound impact and consequences across the country. Such tales of organizing protest marches and mobilizing people around fake narratives of ‘love jihad’ to influence the state have paved the way for a slew of new State laws that penalise interfaith marriages under the guise of preventing forced conversions despite no credible evidence to support the prevalence of “love jihad.” The BJP-ruled states brought out laws that restricted individuals from converting to marry someone from other religions. The acts passed by the states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh were the first to introduce a clause regarding marriages. Uttarakhand’s Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or marriage. Its punishment ranges from a jail term of one to five years and a fine, making it a non-bailable offense. Himachal Pradesh also passed a similar law in 2019. These laws are popularly called “love jihad” Laws.

Interestingly, legal history points to the fact of the existence of the Freedom of Religion Acts passed by different State governments in India at various points in time before BJP-ruled States passed these ‘love jihad’ laws. For example, the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act came into existence in 1967, the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act in 1968, the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act in 1968, and the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act in 1978. These acts, brought in at the time of the United Front governments, including the Jan Sangh in the 1960s, were limited to the issue of proselytization and conversion. They did not enter the terrain of the private lives of individuals. Recently passed laws directly violate fundamental freedoms and interfere with people’s choice of marrying someone from a different faith and religion.

In this context, the right to choose (and autonomy) of every other adult woman who either cohabited or married by choice, either through conversion or not, to another faith is prone to be questioned to the point that these choices are even criminalized. They are deemed invalid by the state and judiciary, which not only negates their right to marry but also places women under their parents’ custody. In December 2020, a video clip that showed a group of men, with orange scarves draped around their necks, mocking a woman in Moradabad town in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh went viral. “It’s because of people like you that this law had to be enacted,” one of the men scolds her. The hecklers were from Bajrang Dal, a hardliner Hindu group that supports the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The law they were talking about was the ‘Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance,’ which the Uttar Pradesh state has recently brought in to target ‘love jihad.’ The incident in the video took place on 5th December. The Bajrang Dal activists handed over the 22-year-old woman, her husband, and his brother to the police, who then sent her to a government shelter and arrested the men.[18]

These legal enactments, all brought in by states governed by the BJP, restrict the movement and have forced adult women to live against their own will. Such laws reflect an implicit bias. They also reflect the patriarchal mind-set of our system that believes women cannot convert nor marry off their own free will, violating their fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution. Such policy interventions underscore the tendency for state bodies to act paternalistically in cases of interfaith relationships, mainly where the individuals involved belong to a Muslim minority group and a Hindu majority group. Such proceedings set a troubling precedent that individual autonomy can be overruled if society or family alleges coercion, especially when the decision involves crossing religious boundaries.

Hadiya’s legal struggle brings to light the deep-seated challenges surrounding individual autonomy and fear of losing the honour of the family and the community due to interfaith relationships in India, mainly when such relationships involve religious conversion. However, her case symbolised the broader debate on the right to personal choice versus societal and familial pressures. This conflict has only intensified with the rise of the “love jihad” narrative.

On December 15, 2020, a 32-year-old labourer named Nadeeb faced accusations of “trapping” a married Hindu woman in a “net of love” with the intent of converting her. The Allahabad High Court stepped in, temporarily halting the arrest of a Muslim man from Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, under the state’s newly implemented anti-conversion law. In its ruling, the court asserted that both Nadeeb and the woman are adults who possess a “fundamental right to privacy” and are fully aware of the implications of their alleged relationship. The court further highlighted that “Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees all individuals the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion, subject to public order, morality, and health, along with other provisions specified in Part III of the Constitution, which encompasses fundamental rights.”[19]

Such Court rulings, including the one in Hadiya’s favour, were a landmark for personal freedom, affirming the right to religious and marital choice. However, the Supreme Court’s decision to involve the National Investigation Agency (NIA) added a layer of surveillance and complexity. By directing India’s top counter-terrorism agency to investigate Hadiya’s marriage for any “love jihad” motives, the Court acknowledged, though indirectly, the influence of the “love jihad” discourse. This move illustrated how easily personal choices, such as conversion and marriage, can be transformed into matters of national security under a climate of Islamophobia, where Muslim motives are scrutinised under the assumption of potential threat. Despite the NIA’s eventual conclusion that there was no conspiracy, the investigation itself highlighted the extent to which individual relationships can become subject to governmental scrutiny when framed within communal narratives.

Legislative and judicial responses in such cases represent the struggle between individual rights and social or political agendas. When state and legal mechanisms are influenced by narratives like “love jihad,” personal freedoms, specifically for individuals from minority communities, are compromised under the guise of protecting societal interests. This politicisation of personal decisions reflects a government-endorsed Islamophobia that subtly sanctions anti-Muslim biases in the guise of public order, using such cases to fuel stereotypes and communal distrust. These “love jihad” cases stand as a reminder of the precarious position of individual autonomy within a framework where interfaith relationships become fodder for divisive narratives, affecting the personal lives of countless individuals. They also illustrate the potential for personal decisions, such as religious conversion and marriage, to become politicised under a climate of State-endorsed Islamophobia. These cases underscore the impact of “love jihad” narratives, which, despite lacking substantiation, have influenced state policies and judicial proceedings.

Love Jihad: upholding caste endogamy to preserve caste hierarchies by opposing conversion through marriage

The narratives surrounding interfaith marriages, often referred to as “love jihad,” and the associated anti-conversion campaigns aim to restrict social mobility by opposing conversions that arise from these marriages. Stemming from Hindutva ideology and its non-missionary religious practices, the antipathy of privileged sections to depressed castes who have historically converted (aspiring to a life of dignity) is evident. Historically, religious conversion among marginalised communities has been problematized and questioned. Though an act of active real and spiritual affirmation, ‘conversions’ have been reduced to acts of allurement.’ Caste being a brute reality of Hindu faith and practice, the historical notion of conversion is anathema as the act of conversion would snatch away the power of dominant caste hierarchies to maintain a cruel and exclusivist status quo. At the root of the resonant insecurities and accusations stems, therefore, from the non-missionary nature of the Hindu religion.

In the Hindu fold, there is no option of becoming part of the faith through conversion, and the only way to be Hindu is to be born in one of the thousands of castes that are segregated and placed in vertical hierarchies. Any individual leaving this religious order by quitting their caste membership and joining some other religious order directly affects the existence of Hinduism as a religion. Therefore, the religious conversions to other missionary religions, such as Islam and Christianity in the Indian context, are termed “violent acts” and are accused of “disturbing the social fabric and age-old traditions and culture in local communities.” Conversion has also been described as a conflict between “local and foreign religions.” These arguments try to portray Hinduism as a peaceful, non-missionary religion that never disrupts the socio-cultural fabric of other religious faiths, as it is alleged that other missionary religions do to Hinduism.

Arguably, however, defending the non-missionary nature of Hinduism is like effectively enforcing caste-based hierarchies, as there is no other way to transcend these caste boundaries within Hinduism. These narratives position Hinduism as a “non-missionary” religion and portray missionary religions as violent disruptors of local culture; they, however, conveniently overlook the violence and oppression inherent in enforcing caste and the social order it sustains. The claim of Hinduism as a non-missionary religion, rather than being peaceful, serves as a tool to confine individuals to their birth-determined caste and religion, ensuring no opportunity for social mobility or escape from marginalized positions. The politically coined ‘ghar wapasi’ (return to the fold) concept coined by a militant Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) is a product of the 1990s. It is also an effort to bring back converted Hindus to their “home” religion, but again to their respective caste. Inter-caste and interfaith marriages are ways people could transgress these rigid boundaries. Therefore, this rigidity of opposing inter-caste and interfaith marriages favours those born into privileged castes, as it reinforces their social advantage while keeping lower castes in a disadvantaged role.

In this context, Hindutva’s stance against “love jihad” and religious conversion extends beyond claims of cultural preservation; it represents a deliberate strategy that limits individual freedoms, mainly targeting those seeking dignity and equality outside the traditional caste framework. By framing interfaith relationships and conversions as threats, this stance works to preserve the status quo of caste hierarchies, blocking pathways for social mobility and preventing individuals from escaping their designated social roles. This restriction is incredibly oppressive for women, who are often cast as the bearers of the family’s honour. Within this ideology, a woman’s body, choices, and movements are policed to ensure she remains within the bounds set by her family and community, reinforcing control over her autonomy. Their decisions—especially in choosing life partners or religious identities—are scrutinized and, when seen as violations, are punished severely.

In India’s rigidly hierarchical caste structure, the “upper caste,” for instance, has often taken extreme measures to prevent alliances that would challenge caste boundaries. Numerous tragic cases reveal the extent to which upper caste families are willing to go to “protect” their caste’s perceived honour, with parents or other relatives sometimes resorting to the ultimate violence of honour killings of the low caste men. In March 2024, a couple belonging to the dominant Vellalar Gounder caste in Erode, Tamil Nadu, attempted to murder their Dalit son-in-law, J Subhash- an Adi Dravidar Man. The Vellalar Gounder couple Chandran and Chitra rammed their pick-up truck into a Dalit man’s bike while he was out to drop his younger sister Harini to school, intending to kill him for marrying their daughter, and ended up killing his sister.[20] In another case, on 14th July 2024, a Dalit man, Amit Murlidhar Salunkhe, was attacked with sharp weapons by his father-in-law and brother-in-law belonging to the dominant OBC caste in the Sambhaji Nagar city of Maharashtra. He was immediately admitted to a local hospital, where he passed away on July 25.[21] His wife, Vidya Kirtishahi, told the police that her parents had cited the plot of the popular Marathi-language film Sairat while warning her against the marriage. Nagraj Manjule’s film, released in 2016, tells the story of a dominant-caste girl who falls in love with and eventually marries a lower-caste boy. They are hacked to death by members of the girl’s family in retaliation.

Though these instances frequently target low-caste men for marrying upper-caste women, there are also cases in which both partners have been killed for defying caste boundaries; in one of the cases where the whole Jat village of Ballah in Haryana is proud of the “honour killing” of a young couple. It was a dreadful killing of 21-year-old Sunitha, who was three weeks pregnant, and her 22-year-old husband, Jasbir Singh.[22] Their bodies, half-stripped, were laid out on the dirt outside Sunita’s father’s house for all to see, a sign that the family’s “honour” had been restored by their cold-blooded murder. An entire village stands united behind the act, proud and defiant, to teach the lesson to the couples thinking of entering into marital ties with upper-caste women of the same village.

In another case, in September 2024, a couple from the same upper castes married each other in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The 19-year-old woman had to pay the price for it as her family members allegedly murdered her, as they disapproved of her relationship with a man who belonged to the same community and village as theirs. It is considered taboo for a man and woman of the same village to marry. Although the couple were unrelated, they were considered brothers and sisters in the community to which they belonged. The Kanbha police booked five people, including the woman’s father, uncles, and cousins, for not only killing her but also for trying to dispose of her body by secretly burning it in their Bakrol village in Daskroi tehsil.[23]

While honour killings are often associated with rigid practices among certain upper-caste families, similar cases have also been documented among so-called lower-caste and non-Hindu tribal communities. Recently, in September 2024, a tragic incident took place in the Koppal district of Karnataka, where the in-laws of a 21-year-old woman from the Madiga community, classified as Scheduled Caste (SC), was killed by poisoning her food.[24] This cruel act, which occurred after her marriage to a man from the Scheduled Tribe (ST) community, was unequivocally an act of honour killing that must be condemned. Such heart-breaking incidents are one of many reminders of the deep-seated violence women face, often rooted in the oppressive structures of a patriarchal society. While caste-based discrimination played a role in this case, the underlying issue speaks to a broader societal problem: the control exerted over women’s autonomy and choices in a male-dominated culture.

Like inter-caste marriages, interfaith marriages also challenge societal norms and religious boundaries, often provoking similar violent responses. The tragic case of Yagnik Dudharejiya, a Hindu man from the Devbhumi Dwarka district of Gujarat, exemplifies this. Yagnik was reportedly murdered by the relatives of his Muslim wife, who disapproved of their union.[25] Incidents like this highlight the difficulties young couples face in defying traditional expectations. Inter-caste and interfaith marriages, therefore, irrespective of one’s identity, have long been symbolic of the courage required to bridge societal divides and challenge entrenched norms. These unions are often seen as bold steps toward a more inclusive society, where individuals are free to marry based on love and personal choice rather than the constraints of caste, religion, or community expectations. However, these choices can come with profound challenges and risks of honour killing. Such deaths underscore the intense social pressures and familial opposition when they choose to defy traditional expectations, especially in conservative communities where boundaries between caste and religious identities remain deeply entrenched.

These incidents shed light on a broader societal issue: the resistance to relationships that cross religious or caste lines, driven by cultural traditions, fear of community backlash, and the perceived threat to family honour revolving around women. For such families, preserving cultural purity is women’s duty. It outweighs the importance of their personal happiness or individual choice. Couples who cross these lines have to endure social ostracism, harassment, and even violence, highlighting the intense polarization that persists around matters of marriage. Such violent reactions reflect a broader resistance to relationships that cross perceived social and cultural boundaries, demonstrating that the outrage often ascribed to “love jihad” is part of a larger pattern of controlling individual choices in the name of preserving the community’s “honour.” In reality, both interfaith and inter-caste couples challenge rigid social structures. They are met with hostility, suggesting that the fundamental resistance is to individual autonomy and choice, irrespective of religious affiliation. By selectively framing only interfaith relationships involving Muslim men as a “threat,” the “Love Jihad” narrative manipulates public sentiment and leverages communal tensions, ultimately side-lining the rights and autonomy of individuals. In this context, it becomes clear that “love jihad” is not a genuine social issue but rather a political farce designed to incite fear and demonize a particular community, obscuring the deeper societal problems that perpetuate discrimination and violence in the name of honour and tradition.

Conclusion:

Both interfaith and inter-caste couples present a challenge to entrenched social structures, facing hostility and violence for asserting their autonomy. This hostility symbolizes the fundamental resistance to individual freedom, irrespective of religious affiliation. The framing of “love jihad” as a threat allows for the selective targeting of Muslims while deliberately ignoring genuine issues of social and caste-based discrimination. In reality, the “love jihad” narrative serves as a political tool rather than a social issue, designed to fuel division, incite fear, and demonize Muslim communities while concealing the systemic caste-based hierarchies that restrict social mobility and perpetuate inequality. By branding conversion and interfaith marriage as threats, the Hindutva agenda seeks not to protect cultural values but to reinforce a caste-based system that ensures the continued subordination of marginalized communities, ultimately privileging the status quo under the guise of defending Hinduism.

Women from all social locations, irrespective of caste or class and religion, endure oppression and abuse due to the pervasive influence of patriarchy. A woman’s desire to make choices, especially in interfaith marriage, often faces fierce resistance from those who view her autonomy as threatening traditional power structures. In this case, the people’s choice of marriage out of faith was deemed unacceptable by right-wing political forces, highlighting how, for many women, the right to choose a life partner remains conditional on external approval. This serves as a sad reminder of the compounded barriers faced by women at the intersection of caste, gender, and religion, underscoring the urgent need for societal change to end these cycles of violence and discrimination.

[1] The term jihad, itself, within Islamic religious discourse signifying a positive struggle forward, was politically perverted after the Taliban amplified their ugly politics by the blowing up of the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan in March 2001.

[2] https://sabrangindia.in/article/bajrang-dal-barges-birthday-celebration-thrashes-muslim-friends-hands-them-over-police

[3] VHP and Bajrang Dal, both are right wing organizations indulged in far-right politics, identify themselves with conservatism and ultra-nationalism.

[4] This itself draws attention to Para 47 of the 2021 single bench judgement in Safiya Sultana v/s State of Uttar Pradesh, where the High Court (Allahabad) had mandated that while giving notice under Section 5 of the Act of 1954 it shall be optional for the parties to the intended marriage to make a request in writing to the Marriage Officer to publish or not to publish a notice under Section 6 and follow the procedure of objections as prescribed under the Act of 1954.

[5] https://theprint.in/india/after-severe-backlash-tanishq-pulls-down-ad-accused-of-promoting-love-jihad/522593/

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/27/netflix-india-version-vikram-seth-novel-stirs-love-jihad-suspicions-rows

[7] Kerala Catholic Bishops Council is an apex body of the Bishops of the various catholic rites in Kerala.

[8] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/now-catholic-priest-warns-against-ignoring-love-jihad/articleshow/73648625.cms

[9] https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/495

[10] https://www.outlookindia.com/national/the-roots-and-evolution-of-the-myth-of-love-jihad-in-kerala-news-277712

[11] https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-love-jihad-conspiracy-theory/

[12] https://www.newsclick.in/Shraddha-Murder-Case-Turns-Communal-Right-Wingers-Term-Love-Jihad

[13] https://swarajyamag.com/society/love-jihad-case-dawood-shaikh-arrested-for-brutally-killing-hindu-girl-in-navi-mumbai-was-accused-under-pocso-act

[14] https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10161905258640185&set=a.10152241411140185

[15] Krishnan, S. (2023). Carceral domesticities and the geopolitics of Love Jihad. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 41(6), 995-1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758231212767

[16] https://sabrangindia.in/article/hundreds-can-be-seen-repeating-communal-and-anti-muslim-oath-administered-pravin-togadia

[17] https://sabrangindia.in/article/maharashtra-vasai-navi-mumbai-solapur-3-rallies-held-hindu-jan-aakrosh-morcha-demanding

[18] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55314832

[19] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/15/indias-love-jihad-laws-another-attempt-to-subjugate-muslims

[20] Couple arrested for attempting to murder their Dalit son-in-law, fatally running over his sister in Erode – The Hindu

[21] Maharashtra: Dalit man killed by in-laws, wife says parents cited plot of movie ‘Sairat’ as warning

[22] Upper Caste Village in Northern India Proud of “honour Killing” of Couple

[23] 19-year-old woman murdered in Gujarat honour killing; father among 4 arrested | Ahmedabad News – The Indian Express

[24] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/woman-killed-by-in-laws-in-hate-crime-say-cops-101725391190659.html

[25] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/man-killed-by-wife-s-kin-over-interfaith-marriage-101722882513212.html

The post 2024: Love Jihad – A Socio-Political Weapon: Caste, Endogamy, and Hindutva’s Grip on gender and social boundaries in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Who stands to gain the most from an alliance between politicians and religious leaders? https://sabrangindia.in/who-stands-to-gain-the-most-from-an-alliance-between-politicians-and-religious-leaders/ Fri, 22 Nov 2024 04:14:15 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=38916 A week before the recently held 2024 Maharashtra Assembly polls, Maulana Shaikh Khalil-ur-Rahman Sajjad Nomani, an Islamic scholar based in Maharashtra, issued two lists of his endorsed candidates. While he largely supported 269 candidates affiliated with the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), he also endorsed 16 other candidates, some of them running as independents, as his […]

The post Who stands to gain the most from an alliance between politicians and religious leaders? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> A week before the recently held 2024 Maharashtra Assembly polls, Maulana Shaikh Khalil-ur-Rahman Sajjad Nomani, an Islamic scholar based in Maharashtra, issued two lists of his endorsed candidates. While he largely supported 269 candidates affiliated with the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), he also endorsed 16 other candidates, some of them running as independents, as his favourites. Along with these lists, the Maulana, an alumnus of the Deoband and Nadwa seminaries in Uttar Pradesh, appealed to the Muslim community to support them.

The election results would reveal to what extent his call influenced the voters and helped the secular alliance. However, his direct involvement in the electoral process by releasing the lists of candidates at a press conference has already been exploited by the BJP to mobilise Hindu voters. It remains unclear how successful the BJP’s efforts were.

Referring to the lists issued by Maulana Nomani, dDeputy Chief Minister and BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis appealed to Hindu voters to consolidate against this move. He did not mince words, stating that the Muslim voter mobilisation (referred to as “vote jihad”) in favour of the secular alliance should be answered by a “religious war” (dharma yudh) from the Hindu side. Speaking to journalists, he outlined the BJP’s strategy: “Although we are seeking votes for our development work, if someone says to engage in ‘vote jihad’ to defeat the BJP, we will respond with a dharma yudh of votes.”

Beyond the BJP’s response, Maulana Nomani’s selection of candidates has also sparked an internal debate within the Muslim community. Supporters of excluded candidates, particularly those from the Muslim community, expressed deep disappointment. This led to questions and a heated debate about the criteria and methods the Maulana used to finalise his “lists”. Some critics went so far as to question the Maulana’s credibility, demanding a public explanation of the selection process.

This controversy feeds into a broader debate about the blurring of the boundary between religion and politics. Parties engaged in majoritarian politics have already eroded much of the separation by mobilising voters on religious grounds, using Hindu religious leaders to consolidate their base. Worse still, leaders of Hindu right-wing parties frequently win elections by campaigning on anti-Muslim platforms, delivering hateful speeches, and spreading anti-minority propaganda before and during elections. These communal and majoritarian trends, fuelled by the involvement of religious leaders, pose a serious threat to our secular republic and must be reversed.

However, the involvement of Muslim religious figures in electoral politics, even with good intentions, could undermine the very goal of preserving secularism. This is the flip side of the story. A Muslim religious scholar, like any other citizen, is free to engage in politics and support any candidate. There is no doubt about this. But political involvement is a public act, and people have the right to agree or disagree with the clergy’s actions. Asking such questions should not be seen as an attempt to demonize or silence Muslim religious leaders. I will return to this point shortly. 

Elections and the clergy

The elections for all 288 assembly seats in Maharashtra were conducted in a single phase on November 20, with results scheduled to be declared three days later, on November 23. In the current political landscape of Maharashtra, the primary contest is expected to be between the opposition MVA (Maha Vikas Aghadi) and the ruling BJP-led Mahayuti alliance. The MVA consists of Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (SHS-UBT), Sharad Pawar’s NCP (SP faction), and the Congress, supported by the Samajwadi Party, the Peasants and Workers Party of India (PWP), the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and a few independent MLAs. The Mahayuti alliance, on the other hand, includes the BJP, the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction), and Ajit Pawar’s NCP.

In addition to these two major alliances, Asaduddin Owaisi’s All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) is another influential player in Maharashtra politics. While AIMIM fielded 44 candidates in the 2019 assembly elections, this time it has announced only 16 candidates, marking a significant reduction in the number of contested seats. Although AIMIM secured only two seats in the previous elections, it now seeks to focus its efforts on fewer constituencies to achieve better results.

Another notable participant in Maharashtra’s political arena is the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA), led by former Member of Parliament Prakash Ambedkar, the grandson of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The VBA, which has a strong social base among Dalits, has fielded 51 candidates. In the 2019 General Elections, the AIMIM and the VBA forged an alliance, garnering a combined 14% vote share. Consequently, smaller parties like AIMIM and VBA, which represent some of the most marginalised communities in society, cannot be overlooked. However, most candidates from AIMIM and VBA were excluded from Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s endorsed lists.

The AIMIM, which contested the 2019 Maharashtra Assembly Elections and secured two seats in Malegaon and Dhule City, has been ignored by both the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) and Maulana Sajjad Nomani. However, Owaisi, unlike the allies of the so-called secular MVA, has been more vocal about raising Muslim issues, both in Parliament and beyond. Yet, his party was not included in the Maulana’s list of preferred candidates.

Maulana Nomani has not explained his reasons for excluding AIMIM and VBA candidates. Instead, he released a statement alongside his lists of preferred candidates on his official Twitter account. In the statement, Maulana Nomani—who is a member of the working executive of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the founding chairman of the Rahmani Foundation—claimed that the candidates were selected based on “extensive research, ground surveys, and in-depth analysis.” However, the statement does not provide any details regarding the methodology, sample size, or specifics of his research, survey, and analysis. The statement merely justified the selection, predominantly from the MVA, by emphasizing the significance of the Maharashtra Assembly Elections in the current political scenario. Elaborating further, Maulana Nomani stated, “Each election is a test as well as testimony to the strength of the country’s democracy and our faith in it.” His statement ended with optimism, expressing hope that the elections would result in the formation of “a secular and inclusive government.” This led to questions about whether Maulana’s support for Owaisi-led AIMIM and Ambedkar-led VBA candidates would have made his selection more “secular” and “inclusive.”

Maulana Sajjad Nomani is an eminent Islamic scholar, followed by a section of Sunni Muslims. His association with Deoband, Nadwa, and the Tablighi Jamaat is seen by politicians as political capital, to be leveraged during election campaigns. His religious background is viewed as an asset by those more interested in securing Muslim votes than genuinely working for their welfare. This is something Maulana Nomani needs to be cautious about.

Maulana Sajjad Nomani was born in Lucknow in 1955 and claims ancestral roots in Turkey. His father, Maulana Mohammad Manzoor Nomani, was a renowned Islamic scholar and an alumnus of Darul Uloom Deoband. Maulana Manzoor Nomani authored several influential books, including Islami Kya Hai (What is Islam?), a concise introduction to Islam that remains widely sold and appreciated to this day. While Maulana Sajjad Nomani benefited from his father’s legacy, he has carved his own path as a scholar, author, orator, and expert in Islamic studies.

Maulana Sajjad Nomani pursued his early education at Nadwat Ul-Ulama in Lucknow and Darul Uloom Deoband. Later, he earned a doctorate in Quranic Studies from Madina University in Saudi Arabia. Beyond his scholarly work, Maulana Sajjad Nomani is actively involved in education. He manages educational institutions and serves as the editor of Al-Furqan. In 1995, he founded the NGO Rahman Foundation, which is dedicated to supporting the poor, orphans, widows, and the oppressed. His efforts span across vast areas, with notable contributions in Maharashtra, where he runs madrasas and leads the Khanqah Nomaniya Mujaddidiyah in Neral (Raigad district), about a two-hour journey from Mumbai. Maulana Sajjad Nomani is also active on social media, regularly sharing video lectures that reach a wide audience.

He has never shied away from sharing political platforms or shifting his political loyalties. For a long time, he was associated with Waman Meshram, the national president of the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF). Established by former BSP president Manyavar Kanshi Ram, D.K. Khaparde, and Dinabhana in 1971, BAMCEF is an Ambedkarite organization. While Maulana’s speeches at BAMCEF included scathing criticism of secular parties for betraying the causes of Dalits and Muslims, his recent political positions have favoured secular parties. This shift in loyalty may explain his exclusion of AIMIM and VBA candidates. It appears that Maulana has moved away from his earlier political message of forging a Dalit-Muslim alliance to challenge Brahmanical parties.

The Maulana and His critics

While the supporters of Maulana Sajjad Nomani have praised his efforts to release lists of endorsed candidates, calling them “great initiatives” and urging Muslims to follow his “wisdom,” many others have criticized his actions. A section of the Muslim community has expressed frustration with the Maulana for excluding a significant number of candidates from Asaduddin Owaisi-led AIMIM and other political outfits representing marginalized communities. Critics argue that Owaisi, in sharp contrast to the leaders of secular parties, has been far more vocal about the concerns of minorities and other weaker sections. They claim that while secular parties have increasingly leaned toward soft Hindutva to counter the BJP, AIMIM has raised genuine issues. Secular parties, under the guise of adopting a “practical” strategy, have nearly stopped addressing Muslim issues in their manifestos and speeches, offering only symbolic gestures at best. Despite this, the Maulana has expressed support for these secular parties without clarifying whether they have assured him of any concrete measures to address the social, educational, and economic backwardness of Muslims if they come to power.

Notably, the Maulana’s list omits any mention of how the secular alliance has ignored Muslim concerns before or during their campaigns in Maharashtra. Secular parties often assume that Muslims will vote for them by default as the only alternative to communal forces. This contrasts sharply with Owaisi, who, more than most leaders from either secular or communal parties, has consistently spoken as a radical constitutionalist and effectively raised minority issues. Despite this, the Maulana did not give preference to the Owaisi-led AIMIM in his recommendations.

Against this backdrop, a significant section of Muslims has begun questioning Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s approach. Social media platforms are flooded with reactions and comments, casting doubt on the processes and criteria he used to include or exclude candidates. The backlash against the Maulana has been expressed in multiple ways. He has been accused of “selling out” the interests of the Muslim community, and some have questioned his shifting political loyalties, with a few even accusing him of working in favour of communal parties. Others have warned that such actions could damage the prestige and dignity of the Ulama (religious scholars), particularly if their recommendations fail to gain public support.

The criticisms against Maulana Sajjad Nomani also stem from his failure to address the shortcomings of secular parties in defending Muslim interests. Some Muslims have gone so far as to accuse the Maulana of issuing his list of preferred candidates in exchange for monetary benefits. Others allege that he acted as a spokesperson for secular parties under the guise of a religious scholar. Another critique is that Muslim religious leaders often provide “free” services to secular parties out of fear of the BJP. Additionally, some critics have questioned the Maulana’s influence, suggesting that his appeal would go unheard. Allegations of personal gain were also raised, with claims that the Maulana released the list hoping to be rewarded with a Rajya Sabha seat. Beyond releasing the list of candidates, the Maulana has also been criticized for “blessing” politicians ahead of the elections. In some instances, candidates and politicians were reportedly allowed to visit the Maulana’s office and be photographed with him, with these images later shared on social media to influence voters.

Muslim intellectuals, activists, and the secular intelligentsia have also raised concerns about the Maulana’s involvement in electoral politics. Professor Akhtarul Wasey, who taught Islamic studies at Jamia Millia Islamia, opined that the involvement of religious figures from any community is not good for a secular democracy. “The way we have criticized the political use of religious figures by non-Muslims, we should also criticize such acts committed by any Muslim.”

Tanweer Alam, a resident of Mumbai and president of the Aligarh Muslim University Alumni Association (Maharashtra chapter), is highly disappointed by Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s political activities, particularly during the assembly elections. “We need to strongly oppose the involvement of Muslim religious figures in political activities. Our opposition is not because we want to silence any voice or disenfranchise those with whom we disagree. Any religious scholar from the Muslim community who becomes active during elections should be closely observed. My disagreement with the respected Maulana is on two points. First, who has authorized him to speak on behalf of the entire Muslim community? Second, how does the Maulana claim to have political understanding when he makes highly irresponsible statements that can be exploited by communal forces? For example, a viral video is circulating in which he is allegedly heard saying he would boycott those who voted for the BJP. I am not sure if the video is authentic, but if it is, then he has harmed the cause of both Muslims and the country by giving a clear opportunity to communal forces.”

Ahmad Jawed, a senior journalist and former editor of the Inquilab Urdu daily (Patna edition), described Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s actions as “counterproductive.” He elaborated on his position with the following words: “With due respect to Maulana Sajjad Nomani, it should be noted that people issuing so-called fatwa, [legal ruling by Islamic scholars] farman, [order] or appeals have not had any significant impact on the electoral politics of India. A careful analysis of India’s electoral behaviour shows that Muslim voters are not influenced by fatwa, farman, or any such appeal. Each time, Muslim voters have prioritized the interests of the nation, the principles of secularism, and issues of governance, law, and justice”.

Dr. John Dayal, a veteran journalist, writer, human rights activist, ex-member of the National Integration Council (Government of India), and former national president of the All India Catholic Union, is widely regarded as one of the strongest secular voices in civil society. When asked to comment on the matter, he said, “The political party is the direct beneficiary of the support of religious leadership, who in turn enjoy this patronage for their places of worship and for themselves, individually or collectively.”

Some clarifications

While the instances of majoritarian parties politically exploiting religious figures are innumerable—and one of the main planks of their political mobilisation—there are also instances where Muslim religious figures have been drawn into the political arena. Long before Maulana Sajjad Nomani, the ruling elites used Shahi Imams, constructing their image as leaders of Indian Muslims to consolidate Hindu voters. For example, during the 2004 General Elections, Syed Ahmad Bukhari, the Imam of Delhi’s historic Jama Masjid, appealed to Muslims to vote for the BJP in the Gujarat elections, overlooking the 2002 Gujarat riots, which resulted in massive loss of life, primarily among Muslims, under BJP rule. His appeal backfired, and the BJP was voted out of power. Similarly, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Himayat Committee, formed to gain Muslim support with the backing of several Muslim religious scholars, also failed to help the BJP secure an electoral victory. Currently, Hindutva forces have floated the Muslim Rashtriya Manch (MRM), whose Muslim members are trained to justify Hindutva agendas using the language of Islam.

However, it is not implied here that Maulana Sajjad Nomani released his list of candidates at the behest of any political party. It’s possible that he issued such a list on his own to draw media attention and place himself at the centre of Maharashtra politics. But the bigger question is how much influence he actually has over the Muslim community. While his influence among a section of Muslims is not dismissed, it is doubtful that he holds sway over the entire Muslim community. It is also uncertain if younger generations of Muslims are inclined to follow a top-down approach in decision-making. Instead, they prefer to weigh multiple factors before choosing their political affiliations.

Let me share a personal example to illustrate this point. On December 15, 2019, a large number of activists gathered at the Delhi Police Headquarters to protest the police crackdown on anti-CAA protesters at Jamia Millia Islamia. Suddenly, a prominent Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind leader appeared at the protest site and tried to discourage the protesters, most of whom were Muslims, from continuing. Muslim youths, however, rejected this advice outright.

Both Muslim religious scholars and the Hindu right often make the mistake of considering the Muslim community as a homogenous group, painting it primarily as a religious bloc because it suits their agendas. However, the sociological reality is that the Muslim community is sharply divided along lines of caste, class, gender, language, and region. While the Holy Quran is universally revered and Prophet Mohammad holds a central place in the Islamic faith, differences emerge in interpretations of Islamic teachings by the Ulama. These differences give rise to various religious sects and schools of jurisprudence within the Muslim community. As a result, no single religious leader can claim the authority to influence the entire Muslim population.

This raises the question of whether it is desirable for any religious leader to speak for the whole Muslim community. A larger concern is how beneficial the involvement of a religious figure—without clear ideological clarification and political strategy—is for the community. Will such appeals by religious figures serve a constructive purpose, or will they be exploited by communal forces to reinforce the myth that the Muslim community is controlled by the clergy? Hindu right-wing and anti-Muslim commentators are likely to overlook the vibrant internal debates and diversity within the Muslim community, focusing instead on such acts to perpetuate stereotypes. This is exactly what the BJP is doing in Maharashtra by citing the Maulana’s list as an example of “vote jihad” against Hindus. However, Hindutva forces conveniently ignore the fact that the Maulana’s actions have drawn significant criticism from within the Muslim community itself.

It is important to note that Islam does not grant clergy an indispensable or centralised authority. However, it is also true that certain members of the clergy play an active role in guiding the community in social, religious, and political matters. When they enter the political domain, however, it tends to erode the boundaries between religion and politics in a democratic polity. While majoritarian symbols and practices are often universalized in the name of national culture and way of life, minority religious symbols are demonized as “alien.” But this cannot justify the instrumental use of religious figures from minority communities for electoral mobilization, as such practices have the potential to undermine the secular-democratic republic.

Let me clarify a point before I conclude. My disagreement with the participation of religious leaders in electoral politics is not an attempt to silence any voice. Nowhere have I argued that a religious scholar should be silenced, nor is my criticism of a religious leader aimed at suppressing minority voices. In fact, my concern over the instrumental use of religious figures stems from a desire to strengthen the genuine voices of the minority community. Just as Maulana Nomani has every right to hold a political opinion, support or oppose any political outfit, and endorse or reject any candidate, we too have the right to seek a public explanation from the Maulana about the methods and processes involved in finalizing his list of candidates. His statements and endorsements are not private affairs; they have public significance, and he should be held accountable for his political actions. As someone involved in the political arena, he should not be immune from criticism.

Let me reiterate that a religious leader has every right to issue a list of endorsed candidates and campaign for their victory, directly or indirectly. However, our disagreement lies in whether a religious scholar’s direct involvement in electoral politics has ever truly advanced the cause of marginalised groups. Likewise, if a religious scholar is free to publicly share a list of endorsed candidates with claims that a proper method was followed in the selection process, is it not reasonable to ask him to explain the criteria for that selection?

Most would agree that the secular foundation of Indian democracy discourages religious mobilisation in electoral politics. While religion has always played some role in elections, efforts should focus on minimising its influence, not validating it. Majoritarian parties have consistently exploited religious sentiments, presenting communalism as nationalism. When such tactics are imitated by secular forces or minority groups, they often prove counterproductive.

In fact, my essay does not aim to target any particular individual, nor the community he or she claims to represent. Rather, it raises important questions and seeks a public debate. For instance, was issuing a list of endorsed candidates at the last moment before the elections truly the best way to serve the minority community? If such a practice is considered “legitimate,” how can the Hindu right—which brazenly uses religion for electoral mobilization and stokes communal tensions—be criticized alone? While Maulana Nomani may be optimistic about transferring his supporters’ votes to his preferred candidates, should he also consider the potential counter-mobilization by Hindutva forces? Ultimately, who benefits the most from the alliance between politicians and religious figures? These pertinent questions demand careful deliberation and cannot be ignored.

(The author holds a PhD in Modern History from Jawaharlal Nehru University. His doctoral research focused on the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com; Views expressed are personal)

The post Who stands to gain the most from an alliance between politicians and religious leaders? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs https://sabrangindia.in/divided-strife-torn-manipur-intensified-violence-abdication-by-state-union-governments-demands-of-accountability-from-bjp-mlas/ Thu, 21 Nov 2024 12:17:36 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=38904 Sitting MLAs from the ruling party have given calls for Chief Minister Biren Singh's removal and resignation of Home Minister Amit Shah, even whilto ongoing tribal protests and a divided state, Manipur's unrest continues as ethnic clashes deepen, with political leaders and civil society groups demanding urgent action for peace and justice.

The post Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Manipur, caught in the throes of an enduring ethnic conflict, is witnessing a deepening political crisis as violence between the Meitei majority and the Kuki-Zo tribal community continues unabated. The complete abdication by the state and union governments has enabled and allowed the unchecked violence. Over 18 months of unrest have strained the state’s fragile peace, prompting widespread calls for change. Amid mounting tensions, tribal legislators, including several from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have united to demand the removal of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh and the establishment of a separate administration for their community. With the situation spiralling further, protests are planned in Delhi, highlighting the unresolved ethnic divisions and the failure of both state and central governments to restore order. Meanwhile, civil society groups continue to push for military action and a political solution to the crisis that has claimed over 240 lives. The government’s inability to effectively address the situation has sparked widespread criticism, leaving the future of Manipur uncertain as both communities remain entrenched in their positions.

Educational institutions to remain closed until November 23: As a precautionary measure, the Manipur government has ordered the closure of schools, colleges, and universities in the Imphal Valley until November 23. An official notification issued by Daryal Juli Anal, Joint Secretary of the Higher and Technical Education Department, cited concerns over the safety of students, teachers, and staff amid the ongoing curfew.

The decision was influenced by the widespread violence in several districts, particularly Imphal East and Imphal West, following the recovery of the missing bodies on November 15 and 16. The government decided to prioritise safety, suspending all educational activities in government and government-aided institutions, including state universities, in the affected districts.

The letter by elected MLAs may be read here

Download PDF

 

Timeline of escalating violence in Manipur following Jiribam attack

The recent cycle of violence that engulfed Manipur from November 7, 2024, began with a harrowing incident in Zairawn village, Jiribam district. A Hmar woman, a schoolteacher and mother of three, was allegedly raped, shot in the leg, killed, and set ablaze by unidentified attackers. The Hmar community, a subgroup of the Kuki-Zo ethnic group, was devastated by this act, and Kuki civil society groups quickly attributed the crime to Meitei militants.

The initial attack and looting: In the aftermath of the incident, the assailants reportedly torched 19 houses, looted cash, stole mobile phones, LPG cylinders, and six two-wheelers, and even killed village dogs. Some residents alleged negligence on the part of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) stationed in Zairawn, accusing them of failing to intervene despite being capable of protecting the village. The violence escalated when suspected Kuki militants retaliated by targeting Meitei individuals in the district.

Retaliatory killings and unrest in Bishnupur: On November 9, the violence intensified as a Meitei woman working in a paddy field in Bishnupur district was allegedly shot dead by suspected Kuki militants. Two days later, on November 11, the CRPF killed 10 suspected Kuki militants in a confrontation in Jiribam. According to police reports, the militants were armed with automatic weapons and a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) and had attacked the Borobekra police station and a CRPF camp in Jakuradhor. These assailants were believed to have travelled from Kuki-dominated districts such as Churachandpur and Pherzawl.

Displacement and missing persons: During the same encounter, three women and three children, including an eight-month-old baby, went missing. These individuals were among 13 displaced Meiteis seeking refuge in a relief camp located near the Borobekra police station and a CRPF post. Their disappearance further fuelled ethnic tensions in the region.

Jiribam, a district with a multi-ethnic population comprising Meitei, Kuki-Zo, Naga, and other communities, had remained relatively peaceful until June 2024. However, tensions erupted earlier this year when the body of a Kuki teenager was discovered in a river, allegedly killed by Meitei armed groups. Shortly after, the body of a Meitei man was found, reportedly in retaliation by Kuki militants.

Discovery of bodies and public outrage: On November 15, three bodies—those of a woman and two children—were discovered floating in the Barak River in Assam’s Cachar district. These were confirmed to belong to the missing family. The discovery triggered widespread protests in Imphal, with enraged mobs ransacking the homes of three legislators, including R.K. Imo, a BJP MLA and son-in-law of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. Protesters also targeted the residences of Y. Khemchand, the Minister of Municipal Administration, and L. Susindro Singh, the Minister of Consumer Affairs, prompting security forces to use tear gas to disperse the crowds.

The unrest escalated further when protesters marched toward Manipur CM Biren Singh’s ancestral home in Luwangshangbam, only to be stopped by security forces.

Continued violence and accusations: On November 17, the bodies of another woman and child from the missing family were recovered in Lakhipur, bringing the total to six victims—all from the same family. The Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF), a prominent Kuki-Zo organisation, accused Meitei assailants of setting fire to five churches, a school, a petrol pump, and 14 tribal homes in Jiribam.

Meanwhile, in Imphal, a mob targeted the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) office in Haraorok, Imphal East, and later attacked the BJP and Congress offices in Jiribam town. Police reportedly opened fire to disperse the mob, resulting in one fatality.

Erosion of public trust: The violent attacks on political offices and leaders underscored deep public disillusionment with the state’s governance and leadership. The widespread violence has not only deepened the ethnic divide but also exposed the fragile state of law and order, leaving a trail of devastation and mistrust in its wake. The authorities face mounting challenges as they attempt to restore peace while addressing the grievances of the affected communities.

Manipur administration’s measures to address spiralling violence

In response to escalating violence in Manipur, the state administration has implemented stringent measures, including the suspension of mobile internet and data services across seven districts in the Imphal Valley, the imposition of curfews, and the re-enforcement of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in six police station areas, including the violence-hit Jiribam, Manipur. To strengthen security, the central government deployed 20 additional companies of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs)—comprising 15 from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and five from the Border Security Force (BSF)—bringing an additional 7,000 personnel into the state.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has also taken up investigations into three key cases linked to the recent violence: the murder of a woman in Jiribam, the attack on a CRPF post, and the arson and killings in Borobekra. These steps aim to address the unrest, but significant challenges remain.

Civil society groups express scepticism: Despite these measures, civil society groups have raised concerns about the lack of a unified and effective approach to the crisis. Khuraijam Athouba, spokesperson for the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI), a Meitei civil rights organisation, urged state representatives and MLAs to hold comprehensive discussions and take decisive action to resolve the ongoing conflict.

Divergent demands from the warring communities underscore the complexities of the crisis. While Meitei groups have called for the removal of AFSPA, Kuki groups have demanded the withdrawal of CRPF personnel from Kuki-dominated areas, reflecting the deepening rift over security arrangements.

Calls for leadership accountability: Prominent voices have called for accountability from the state government. Rights activist Irom Sharmila urged Chief Minister N. Biren Singh to take moral responsibility for the unrest and step down.

Political fallout- NPP withdraws support: The crisis has also led to political repercussions. The National People’s Party (NPP), the BJP’s second-largest ally in the state, formally withdrew its support for the government, accusing it of failing to restore law and order. In a letter to BJP President J.P. Nadda, NPP leader Conrad Sangma criticised the administration’s inability to resolve the crisis. However, the withdrawal does not pose an immediate threat to Chief Minister Biren Singh’s government, as the ruling NDA coalition holds a strong majority with 46 MLAs in the 60-member Manipur Legislative Assembly.

Curfews, internet bans and relaxation amid ongoing law and order concerns

Internet suspension extended: The Government of Manipur extended the suspension of mobile internet services in seven districts for an additional three days, citing the prevailing law and order situation. According to a state Home Department order issued on November 20, this decision aims to maintain communal harmony and prevent the spread of misinformation through social media platforms.

Initially imposed on November 16 for two days, the suspension was subsequently extended on November 18 and again on November 20. The affected districts include Imphal West, Imphal East, Bishnupur, Thoubal, Kakching, Kangpokpi, and Churachandpur. Commissioner (Home) N Ashok Kumar stated in the order that the extension would be effective from 5:15 PM on November 20 to 5:15 p.m. on November 23, with exemptions granted only in specific cases, such as government operations. Separately, internet services in Jiribam and Pherzawl districts were also suspended from 11:45 AM on November 19 for two days. However, exceptions were made for leased lines and fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) connections used by government offices or individuals with state-approved exemptions.

The suspension follows heightened tensions after the discovery of six bodies—three women and three children—who had been missing since an encounter on November 11, in which security forces killed ten armed militants. The recovery of the bodies sparked protests, prompting curfews and increased security measures.

Curfew relaxation announced for essential activities: In light of the ongoing curfew imposed in several districts, authorities announced a partial relaxation to allow residents to purchase essentials. The curfew, in effect across Imphal West, Imphal East, Bishnupur, Kakching, and Thoubal districts, was relaxed from 5:00 AM to 12:00 Noon on November 21. On the previous day, November 20, the curfew had been relaxed from 5:00 AM to 10:00 AM.

An order issued by K. Jadumani Singh, Additional District Magistrate of Imphal West, stated that the restriction of movement was temporarily lifted to facilitate the purchase of necessities, including food and medicines. The order also specified that no public gatherings, protests, or rallies would be permitted without prior approval.

Essential services such as healthcare, electricity, water supply, telecom, banking, and media were exempted from the curfew restrictions. Additionally, individuals traveling to and from the airport with valid permits and contractors/workers with airport entry permits were allowed to move freely beyond the relaxation hours.

District magistrates from Imphal East, Bishnupur, Kakching, and Thoubal issued similar directives, ensuring uniformity in the implementation of curfew relaxation across the affected areas.

Union government’s calculated response: The union government has faced consistent criticism for its callous approach to the Manipur crisis. Despite growing calls to either replace Chief Minister Biren Singh or impose President’s Rule, the Modi administration has refrained from taking decisive action. Analysts believe this reluctance stems from political considerations.

As a Meitei leader with considerable influence in the Imphal Valley, Biren Singh is pivotal to the BJP’s electoral strategy. Of the 60 assembly seats, 40 are concentrated in the Meitei-dominated Imphal Valley, making Singh’s leadership crucial for maintaining the BJP’s political base. His removal could destabilise the party’s standing in the region and further polarise the state’s fragile social fabric.

The imposition of President’s Rule is also seen as a politically risky move. In Manipur’s complex socio-political environment, such a step could be interpreted as overreach by New Delhi, potentially alienating local stakeholders. Moreover, it would signal an admission of governance failure, a narrative the Opposition would readily leverage on a national stage. Internationally, instability in Manipur, which borders sensitive regions like Myanmar and China, could have strategic ramifications. Any hasty decision by the Centre risks emboldening insurgent groups or inviting external interference.

A state in crisis: As the conflict in Manipur deepens, the state and central governments face mounting challenges in balancing security, governance, and public sentiment. The unrest has laid bare the complexities of managing ethnic tensions and the consequences of political inertia. While immediate measures like troop deployment and AFSPA enforcement have been implemented, long-term peace and stability will require inclusive dialogue and meaningful reconciliation between the deeply divided communities.

Kuki-Zo MLAs condemn “one-sided” resolutions by Manipur government

On 19 November, a group of 10 Kuki-Zo MLAs in Manipur issued a sharp critique of resolutions adopted during a meeting chaired by Chief Minister N. Biren Singh on 18 November. The meeting, attended by 26 National Democratic Alliance (NDA) MLAs, sought to address the recent violence in the state, including the November 11 Jiribam incident, where three women and three children from a Meitei family were abducted and killed. The Kuki-Zo MLAs accused the state government of exploiting the incident to suppress the tribal community and push a one-sided agenda.

Kuki-Zo MLAs: “Government exploiting tribal community”

The 10 MLAs, comprising seven from the BJP, one Independent, and two from the Kuki People’s Alliance, released a joint statement alleging that the state government has consistently acted against the interests of the tribal community.

“Time and again, the one-sided state government has taken undue advantage of the Jiribam incident in suppressing and curtailing the rights of the disadvantaged tribal community,” their statement read.

They criticised the government’s resolution to act decisively if certain demands were not implemented promptly, interpreting it as a veiled threat to the Central NDA government. The resolution had called for reviewing the exemption of AFSPA in six police station areas of the valley. The Kuki-Zo MLAs, however, countered this demand, asserting that AFSPA should be reimposed in all 13 police station areas of the Meitei-majority valley, which currently enjoy exemptions.

Demand for comprehensive mass operations: The BJP MLAs also criticised the state government’s demand for “mass operations” against Kuki militants, labelling it as biased and unfair.

“Mass operations must be conducted all over the state to recover all illegal arms from all militia groups,” the MLAs declared, calling for an impartial crackdown on armed elements across both hill and valley regions.

While the government sought to hand over three specific cases, including the Jiribam killings, to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Kuki-Zo legislators demanded a broader scope. They called for all cases of civilian killings in both the valley and the hills to be investigated by the NIA.

Call for balanced accountability: The MLAs criticised the selective labelling of Kuki militants as responsible for the killings, arguing that a fair process should be applied. They urged the government to precede any declarations with the designate on of Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun as Unlawful Organisations under relevant laws. They further alleged that youth volunteers defending their villages against militant attacks were being unfairly targeted.

“Village volunteers are not an organisation, but youth defending their villages from murderous attacks by Arambai Tenggol, the so-called G5 (a conglomerate of five underground Meitei outfits) aided by the state police and, in the case of Jiribam, by the CRPF,” the statement read.

Appeal for peaceful dialogue and condemnation of mob attacks: The Kuki-Zo MLAs also highlighted the need for peaceful dialogue as the path forward, urging the government to prioritise negotiations over escalations. Additionally, they condemned the mob attacks on the homes of Meitei legislators, which occurred following public outrage over the November 11 incident.

The statement underscored the need for balanced governance, expressing concern over the deepening divide and calling on authorities to ensure justice for victims of violence, regardless of their community.

“It is imperative that the state moves towards reconciliation and equitable justice, avoiding actions that could further marginalise the tribal community,” the MLAs asserted.

The Kuki-Zo legislators’ response highlights the continuing ethnic and political tensions in Manipur, as communities and their representatives remain divided over issues of accountability, security, and governance. Their critique underscores the urgent need for inclusive and impartial measures to restore trust and peace in the state.

Congress calls for resignations of Home Minister Amit Shah and CM Biren Singh over Manipur violence

At a press conference held on 19 November 2024, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in New Delhi demanded the resignation of Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. The party accused them of failing to control the ongoing violence in Manipur and called for immediate intervention by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The press conference was led by Keisham Meghachandra, Congress’s Manipur president, along with Jairam Ramesh, the party’s general secretary in charge of communications, and Girish Chodankar, Congress’s Manipur in-charge.

Addressing the media, Keisham Meghachandra referenced Prime Minister Modi’s 2017 remark that leaders who cannot maintain peace in the state have “no right to govern Manipur.” Meghachandra questioned whether this principle applied to the current BJP-led “double-engine” government in Manipur, given the ongoing ethnic violence and governance failure.

Congress’s five-point charter of demands: During the press meet, Congress outlined a detailed five-point charter of demands aimed at addressing the crisis:

  1. Prime Minister Modi must visit Manipur: Congress insisted that Modi visit Manipur before the winter parliamentary session, scheduled to begin on 25 November. The party urged Modi to engage with residents of relief camps, consult local leaders, and assess the ground situation.
  2. Engagement with delegates from all parties: The Congress demanded that the Prime Minister meet delegations comprising representatives from all political parties, including the BJP and Congress, as homes of legislators from both sides have come under attack amidst the violence.
  3. Appointment of a dedicated governor: Highlighting the absence of a permanent governor, Congress called for the appointment of a full-time governor for Manipur. The post has been held in additional charge by Assam Governor Laksman Acharya since July 2024, after the departure of former governor Anusuiya Uikey.
  4. Accountability from HM Amit Shah and CM N. Biren Singh: The party criticised the alleged “jugalbandi” between HM Amit Shah and CM Biren Singh, accusing them of prioritising political survival over public welfare. The Congress further alleged favouritism and questioned the BJP government’s failure to address drug-related cases in the state.
  5. Immediate action on Supreme Court concerns: The Congress demanded swift action on the Supreme Court’s observations about the state’s constitutional collapse. The apex court had previously flagged the breakdown of law and order in Manipur, which Congress claimed remains unaddressed.

BJP’s inaction under fire: Congress’s Manipur in-charge, Girish Chodankar, criticised the BJP for focusing on protecting Chief Minister Biren Singh instead of restoring stability in the state. “For the past 18 months, the Prime Minister has done nothing but protect the Chief Minister of Manipur,” Chodankar remarked as per India Today, accusing the BJP of neglecting the state’s welfare.

Chodankar reiterated the Congress’s commitment to restoring peace, asserting that “We have tried every possible way to bring stability, but this government has failed. The Prime Minister must respond immediately.”

Rising violence and administrative inaction: The ethnic conflict in Manipur, which began in May 2023, has intensified recently, with 20 deaths reported in November alone, according to some estimates. The violence is rooted in long-standing tensions between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities, which have led to physical segregation enforced by buffer zones patrolled by security forces.

Despite Home Minister Amit Shah’s earlier promise of compensation for victims’ families, the Congress criticised the Union Home Ministry for failing to disburse sufficient funds to cover the 226 lives lost, as per official figures.

Congress urges swift action: The Congress party concluded its press conference by demanding urgent measures to address the crisis and restore normalcy in Manipur. The party emphasised that failure to act decisively risks further destabilising the state, worsening the humanitarian crisis, and eroding public trust in governance.

Manipur CM issues notices to MLAs over absence at key meeting amid political turmoil

On November 18, 2024, the Manipur Chief Minister’s Secretariat issued notices to 11 MLAs, including ministers, for failing to attend a crucial meeting convened by Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. The meeting was called to address the worsening law-and-order situation in the state, which has been grappling with persistent ethnic violence.

Among those who did attend the meeting was Manipur’s Rajya Sabha member, Leishemba Sanajaoba, who has been aligned with the ruling BJP. However, seven Kuki-Zo MLAs from the BJP, who have been residing outside the Imphal Valley since the ethnic clashes began on 3 May 2023, were notably absent. This reflects the continuing ethnic divide and the reluctance of Kuki-Zo representatives to participate in valley-centric governance activities.

NPP legislators under scrutiny after party withdraws support: The list of MLAs served notices includes Sheikh Noorul Hassan of the National People’s Party (NPP), representing the Kshetrigao constituency. His absence follows the NPP’s formal withdrawal of support for the BJP-led government on 17 November 2024.

Meanwhile, the NPP has also issued show-cause notices to three of its seven MLAs who defied the party’s decision and attended the meeting. These MLAs are:

  • Mayanglambam Rameswhar Singh (Kakching constituency)
  • Thongam Shanti Singh (Moirang)
  • Irengbam Nalini Devi (Oinam)

An NPP leader based in the Imphal Valley claimed that a signature purportedly belonging to the party’s Tamenglong MLA, Janghemlung Panmei, was forged to suggest his attendance at the meeting. The leader added that the NPP’s State Committee had informed its national president and Meghalaya Chief Minister, Conrad K. Sangma, about the breach, prompting the issuance of show-cause notices.

Most absentees belong to the BJP: Aside from Sheikh Noorul Hassan and Sapam Nishikanta Singh, an independent MLA representing Keishamthong, the remaining MLAs served notices are members of the BJP. Among them are:

  • Khumukcham Joykisan (Thangmeiband)
  • Md Achab Uddin (Jiribam), both of whom had previously defected from the Janata Dal (United).
  • Two other NPP MLAs – N. Kayisii (Tadubi constituency) and Khuraijam Loken Singh (Wangoi) – were notably absent from the meeting but did not receive notices, unlike Mr. Hassan.

Political signals in low attendance: The meeting, attended by only 26 NDA MLAs apart from the Chief Minister, has sparked criticism and raised questions about the BJP’s standing in Manipur. The Manipur Assembly has 60 seats, and the BJP-led NDA coalition held 46 MLAs after the NPP’s withdrawal. However, attendance at the meeting revealed cracks within the ruling coalition.

Prominent Congress leader Jairam Ramesh commented on the development, posting on social media platform X:

“The Manipur Assembly has 60 MLAs. Last night, the CM of Manipur called a meeting in Imphal of all MLAs belonging to the NDA. Other than him, only 26 showed up. Of these 26, 4 belong to the NPP whose National President has already written to the BJP National President withdrawing support to the present CM.”

Ramesh suggested the low turnout was a clear indication of the BJP’s dwindling support in the state.

A fractured coalition amidst a state in crisis: The political situation in Manipur remains volatile, with the BJP-led government facing increasing challenges from within its coalition. The ethnic violence, coupled with growing dissatisfaction among allies and legislators, has left the government struggling to maintain cohesion. The absence of MLAs from critical meetings highlights the deep divisions within the ruling coalition, further exacerbating the challenges of governance in a state already wracked by communal tensions.

Former Manipur Governor questions PM Modi’s absence amid ongoing violence

Anusuiya Uikey, former Governor of Manipur, has expressed her surprise and disappointment over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s failure to visit the violence-stricken state despite multiple appeals from civil society and her own repeated requests.

Speaking to ThePrint in an interview on 20 November 2024, Uikey emphasised the importance of restoring trust in the state, which has been plagued by ethnic violence between the majority Meitei community and the Kuki-Zo tribal population since May 2023.

Appeals to the Prime Minister ignored: Reflecting on her tenure, Uikey revealed that during her time as Governor, from February 2023 to July 2024, she regularly relayed the demands of the people to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). These included fervent calls for the Prime Minister to visit Manipur to address the escalating crisis.

“People of the state wanted the PM to visit, and they kept making requests, which I sent to the PMO. But I don’t know why he has not visited,” Uikey said, expressing her bewilderment at the lack of response. Her comments highlight a growing sentiment of alienation among Manipur’s population, who feel their concerns have been overlooked by the central leadership.

Renewed violence a setback to peace efforts: Uikey also shared her distress over the recent resurgence of violence in November 2024, following a brief lull in hostilities. She described the fresh outbreak as deeply disheartening, particularly given the fragile stability that had been achieved in the preceding months.

“Traditionally, Manipur has been a state of rich culture and art. It is a beautiful state, but the recent violence has disrupted the peace that was established. I am deeply shocked by the brutality of events, like the killing and burning of a Hmar woman in Jiribam district on 7 November, which is a stark reminder of the ongoing turmoil,” she said.

A call for trust-building and mutual peace: Uikey believes that the restoration of mutual trust between the two communities, facilitated by the central government, is the only path to lasting peace.

“The central government needs to take concrete steps to build confidence and mutual trust among the communities. Without this, enduring peace will remain elusive,” she asserted while speaking to The Print.Her tenure as governor during the conflict’s peak provided her with firsthand insight into the complexity of the crisis. Despite her efforts to mediate between communities and defuse tensions, the violence persisted, underscoring the deep-seated mistrust and ethnic divide.

An ‘international hand’ behind the conflict? Adding another layer to the discourse, Uikey suggested the possibility of an international influence exacerbating the conflict.
“There is an international hand behind the conflict, which is why the violence cannot be stopped despite the Centre’s efforts,” she alleged. While she refrained from elaborating on this claim, her comments suggest the presence of external actors who might be exploiting local tensions for geopolitical gains, particularly given Manipur’s strategic location near the borders with Myanmar and China.

A plea for peace amidst chaos: Amid growing calls for Chief Minister N. Biren Singh’s resignation over his handling of the crisis, Uikey defended his leadership. She implied that external factors, rather than Singh’s governance, were responsible for the prolonged unrest in the state.

“How it has unfolded, I don’t know, but I appeal to all people in Manipur to build confidence and mutual trust for enduring peace,” she said, reiterating the need for unity and reconciliation.

In her closing remarks, Uikey issued an earnest appeal to the people of Manipur to prioritise confidence-building and mutual understanding. She expressed hope that these efforts, combined with decisive action by the Centre, could pave the way for stability in the region.

The former governor’s candid reflections highlight the depth of the crisis in Manipur and the urgent need for both local and central leadership to take meaningful steps toward resolving the conflict and addressing the grievances of the affected communities.

Licypriya Kangujam claims censorship of Facebook account amidst activism

Licypriya Kangujam, a 13-year-old climate activist from Manipur, has alleged that her official Facebook account has been restricted in India following her outspoken comments on the recent abduction and killing of six Meitei women and children in Jiribam.

Taking to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday, Kangujam directly addressed Prime Minister Narendra Modi, accusing him of being fearful of her activism.

“Mr @narendramodi, scared of me? That’s why you work on his behest?” she questioned, insinuating that her account was restricted under the government’s directive as an attempt to suppress her voice.

 

Criticism of Meta and claims of injustice: Kangujam did not mince words in her criticism of Meta, Facebook’s parent company, for what she described as an unjust action. She shared a notification from Facebook explaining that her profile had been restricted within India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which permits the government to block access to digital content deemed harmful to public order or national security.

“I didn’t violate any policy or community standards of Facebook,” she wrote in her post. “Kindly unrestrict it ASAP. Never ever think to attempt to silence my voice,” she added, emphasising her commitment to continuing her activism despite attempts to suppress her.

The teenager’s frustration was evident as she accused the authorities and Meta of targeting her for speaking out about the tragic Jiribam killings.

Activism and alleged silencing: Kangujam has been vocal about the ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur, which has sharply divided the state along communal lines. Her comments on the Jiribam incident—in which six individuals from the Meitei community were abducted and killed—have brought renewed attention to the issue. Her social media activism has often placed her at the forefront of raising awareness about human rights and environmental issues in the region. However, her outspokenness has also made her a target for criticism and, now, alleged censorship.

Government’s use of Section 69A of the IT Act: The restriction of Kangujam’s Facebook account under Section 69A of the IT Act has sparked questions about the application of this provision. While the government can use this law to block digital content that it considers a threat to national security, public order, or sovereignty, critics argue that it is sometimes employed to stifle dissent and suppress voices critical of the administration. Kangujam’s case has reignited debates about the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding freedom of expression in a democracy.

A voice for change: Despite the challenges, Kangujam remains resolute in her activism. Her stance reflects the resilience of a young generation unafraid to confront authority and raise awareness about critical social and environmental issues. The incident underscores the growing role of digital platforms in enabling activism while also highlighting the risks of censorship and the contentious intersection of government policies with online freedoms. As Kangujam’s allegations gain traction, they add another layer to the already complex and volatile situation in Manipur.

No end in sight: Manipur’s spiralling crisis deepens

‘Coffin Rally’ announced by Kuki organisations: Manipur’s volatile situation shows no signs of abating, with Kuki organisations planning a ‘coffin rally’ in Churachandpur on Tuesday, November 21, to commemorate 10 Kuki-Zo youths allegedly killed in a gunfight with security forces in Jiribam district on November 11.

The rally, organised by the Zomi Students’ Federation (ZSF), Kuki Students’ Organisation (KSO), and Hmar Students’ Association (HSA), calls on schools and colleges to send students from Class 10 onwards, clad in black shirts, to participate in the procession. A notice issued by the groups on Monday stated that 10 symbolic coffins would be carried during the rally to honour the deceased. The actual bodies remain in the mortuary of a local hospital.

The bodies, initially sent to Assam’s Silchar for postmortems, arrived in Churachandpur—a Kuki-majority district—on Saturday afternoon. However, the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF), a prominent Kuki-Zo organisation, announced on Sunday that the funerals would be delayed until the families receive postmortem reports.

Allegations against security forces: Manipur Police have reported that the deceased were suspected militants killed in an encounter with security forces. The alleged insurgents, dressed in camouflage gear and wielding sophisticated weapons, reportedly attacked the Borobekra Police Station and a nearby CRPF camp in Jakuradhor, Jiribam district, on November 11. The attack included the abduction of six civilians, comprising three women and three children, according to police accounts.

The incident has drawn criticism over the handling of the situation by security forces. The CRPF, tasked with restoring peace in the region, has faced allegations of bias and inaction from both sides of the conflict. Meitei organisations claim that the previously deployed Assam Rifles were too lenient with Kuki militants, while Kuki groups have expressed distrust in the CRPF’s ability to safeguard their communities.

Growing discontent with central leadership: Adding to the frustration is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s absence from Manipur, despite 16 months of continuous ethnic violence. Civil society and opposition groups have repeatedly urged the Prime Minister to visit the state, but he has remained silent on the crisis. Similarly, Union Home Minister Amit Shah has faced criticism for failing to take decisive action, especially as over 6,500 firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition have been looted, with disarmament efforts remaining insufficient.

Polarised demands and escalating divisions: The ethnic conflict has polarised the demands of the Meitei and Kuki communities. Meitei organisations like the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) have called for immediate military action against Kuki militants, along with the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which they argue has exacerbated the conflict. In contrast, Kuki groups continue to push for a separate administration, asserting that coexistence with the Meitei majority is no longer feasible.

Critics have pointed to a broader political conspiracy behind the violence. Some Meitei groups link the escalation to remarks made by Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma in the United States. Lalduhoma advocated for a “Christian nation” uniting Kuki-Zo populations across India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh. Meitei leaders argue that such declarations have emboldened cross-border Kuki groups to seize land, allegedly to further the goal of a larger Kuki-dominated region.

Security forces under scrutiny: The role of security forces remains contentious, with both communities accusing them of partiality. Meitei groups distrust the Assam Rifles, while Kuki organisations criticise the CRPF’s ability to protect their interests. This breakdown in faith towards security agencies has left many civilians vulnerable, exacerbating the crisis in a state where law and order appears non-existent.

A humanitarian crisis without resolution: As the violence continues, the human toll mounts. The state remains deeply fractured, with buffer zones patrolled by security forces separating Kuki and Meitei areas. Amidst the chaos, the fundamental need for restoration of trust between communities and decisive action from the central government has never been more urgent. The ‘coffin rally’ symbolises not just the grief of the Kuki community but also the enduring wounds of a conflict that shows no signs of resolution. Without meaningful intervention, the cycle of violence in Manipur risks deepening an already tragic humanitarian crisis.

Manipur Tribal MLAs plan joint protest in Delhi, demand CM’s removal and separate administration

Unified protest by tribal legislators: In a significant development, ten tribal legislators from Manipur, including seven from the ruling BJP and three Independents, have announced plans for a joint protest in Delhi during the first week of December. Their primary demands include the removal of CM N. Biren Singh and the establishment of a separate administration for tribal communities. This will mark the first time these MLAs, who have previously raised these demands individually, are uniting on a common platform.

The decision to hold the protest at Jantar Mantar was finalised during a meeting in Churachandpur involving three of the ten MLAs, representatives of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), and members from 25 Kuki groups that have signed the Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreement.

One of the legislators, speaking on condition of anonymity with The Wire, said, “We have previously written or spoken about the need for the Chief Minister’s removal and other issues, but the recent events have compelled us to come together and present a unified voice.”

Route to Delhi- circumventing Imphal: Security concerns have forced most of the MLAs to avoid Imphal, the Meitei-majority state capital. Instead, they will travel to Aizawl before flying to Delhi. This reluctance stems from perceived threats in Imphal, despite the state government’s assurances of their safety. These MLAs, who represent tribal constituencies, have not attended any assembly sessions or recent government meetings, including a key one held by CM Biren Singh earlier this week.

Renewed ethnic clashes worsen crisis: Manipur has been embroiled in ethnic violence for nearly 18 months, with over 240 people killed and tens of thousands displaced. The state is deeply divided along ethnic lines, with Meiteis predominantly in the plains of the Imphal Valley and Kuki-Zo communities concentrated in the hills. Despite deploying additional troops and reimposing the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in conflict-hit areas, the Centre has struggled to contain the escalating tensions.

Suspension of operation agreement- a contentious issue: Representatives of the SoO groups—comprising 25 Kuki militant organisations—also participated in the Churachandpur meeting. The SoO agreement, a tripartite pact signed in 2008 between the Centre, the Manipur government, and Kuki militant groups, has been annually renewed to maintain peace. However, the agreement expired earlier this year, leaving its future uncertain.

In February, the Manipur Assembly unanimously passed a resolution urging the Centre to abrogate the agreement, accusing militant groups of violating its terms. The CM has since demanded its termination, while tribal groups argue for its continuation as a safeguard for their communities. Although the SoO representatives will not participate in the Delhi protest, their presence at preparatory meetings underscores their vested interest in the ongoing conflict and its resolution.

Protest agenda- amplifying tribal voices: The tribal MLAs plan to present a detailed account of the October 15 meeting between 15 state legislators from Meitei, Kuki-Zo-Hmar, and Naga communities and central government representatives. This meeting, convened by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), was an attempt to broker peace.

The MLAs have been advised to clarify their stance on critical issues, including their demands for a separate administration, the ongoing ethnic strife, and the central government’s role in facilitating dialogue. Additionally, they are expected to share updates with their constituencies if the MHA initiates another round of talks.

A political and humanitarian impasse: Manipur’s society remains fractured, with communities retreating into ethnic strongholds. Meiteis dominate the Imphal Valley, while the Kukis control the surrounding hills. This geographic and ethnic segregation has only worsened amid escalating violence and reprisal attacks.

The planned protest highlights not only the discontent within the tribal community but also the failure of administrative and political mechanisms to address the root causes of the conflict. The unified front of the ten MLAs signals a turning point in their strategy to press for political and administrative changes, potentially increasing pressure on the central government to intervene decisively in Manipur’s prolonged crisis.

Without effective dialogue and resolution, the state risks further descent into instability, with ethnic hostilities threatening to undermine Manipur’s social fabric.

 

Related:

Fresh violence grips Manipur: Clashes in Jiribam and widespread protests after rape and brutal killings

“Leaked Intelligence report” on alleged Kuki militants entering Manipur from Myanmar sparks panic, later retracted by authorities

Manipur plunges into deeper turmoil amid fresh violence and drone attacks since early September

Manipur on Edge: Violent Clashes Erupt on the day following Kuki-Zo Protests Demanding Separate Administration, action against state CM based on leaked tapes

The post Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Adani controversy: Experts and retired bank officials demand accountability for corporate and policy corruption in India’s power sector https://sabrangindia.in/adani-controversy-experts-and-retired-bank-officials-demand-accountability-for-corporate-and-policy-corruption-in-indias-power-sector/ Thu, 21 Nov 2024 10:00:31 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=38898 A group of experts from the power sector, retired bureaucrats and bank officials called the People's Commission on Public Sector and Public Services has “demanded an independent judicial investigation into these allegations to uncover the role of implicated entities and public officials, assess the financial loss to consumers, and ensure accountability. Those found guilty must face prosecution, blacklisting and financial penalties, including compensation to affected consumers.

The post Adani controversy: Experts and retired bank officials demand accountability for corporate and policy corruption in India’s power sector appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The recent indictment by the US District Court (Eastern District of New York) of Indian entities, including Adani Green and the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI), exposes serious corruption involving large-scale corporate collusion and anti-consumer policies. Investigations by the US SEC and FBI reveal how private companies, with support from SECI and the Ministry of Power, pushed one-sided Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), enriching themselves at the cost of electricity consumers and State Power utilities says a statement issued by experts and concerned citizens.

This judgement and arrest warrant by a US District Court follows years of questionable directives from the Ministry of Power, including mandatory procurement of expensive solar power and forced coal imports, benefitting a few business conglomerates while burdening consumers. These actions have strained DISCOM’s finances and defrauded the public.

A group of experts from the power sector, retired bureaucrats and bank officials called the People’s Commission on Public Sector and Public Services has “demanded an independent judicial investigation into these allegations to uncover the role of implicated entities and public officials, assess the financial loss to consumers, and ensure accountability. Those found guilty must face prosecution, blacklisting and financial penalties, including compensation to affected consumers. Besides, the government must present a full report to Parliament within six months to restore public trust and uphold consumer rights.”

The US  District Court (Eastern District Court of New York)’s recent indictment of several Indian companies, including Adani Green, part of the the Adani conglomerate and the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI), a CPSE, says the PCPSPS statement raises disturbing concerns not only about large-scale corporate corruption that evidently prevails in India and the USA but also about how fraudulent policies adopted by the Union Ministry of Power at the instance of favoured business conglomerates have defrauded electricity consumers across the country.

In this connection, he PCPSPS has also referred to their statements issued on  June 2, 2022, June 30, 2022 and  August 16, 2024 in which the group of experts had repeatedly pointed out how the Ministry of Power irregularly invoked its authority under Section 11 of the Electricity Act of 2003 to impose an obligation on State power utilities to buy electricity from solar power plants to meet at least 10% of their total electricity requirement, irrespective of its unit cost and affordability. Similarly, the Centre created a man-made coal shortage situation across the country and the Ministry of Power equally irregularly ordered the State power utilities to buy coal from overseas sources to cover the shortage. Both those measures indirectly benefitted a few domestic private business groups known to be close to the ruling political executive at the cost of electricity consumers across the country. Such consumer-unfriendly measures so blatantly adopted by the Ministry led one to the inevitable inference that the policies adopted by the Ministry of Power during the last several years were at the instance of a few business conglomerates close to the executive, certainly not for safeguarding the interests of millions of electricity consumers, many below the poverty line.

The PCPSPS has also expressed the hope that institutions like SEBI function independently so as to reinforce the integrity of the stockmarkets and elicit public trust.

The US court’s judgement, based on detailed investigations by US Security Exchange Commission and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, clearly points to how the Adani Group officials acting in tandem with a US company persuaded SECI and the State-owned power utilities in several States including Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and J&K to sign one-sided Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) that would enable those private companies to earn billions of dollars of profits over the next several decades, entirely at the cost of the electricity consumers in India. In the process, ably supported by the Ministry of Power’s anti-consumer policies and diktats, the private companies not only defrauded unwary consumers, crippled DISCOMs’ finances but also committed fraud on the public at large.

The PCPSPS has also demanded that,  under independent judicial oversight, a comprehensive investigation of this be taken up by CBI/ ED/ CBDT and other investigating agencies to gather further evidence from the US SEC/ FBI, factual evidence on the circumstances that led to the Union Ministry of Power adopting such misguided policies and issuing such illegal directives to States, the role of the concerned Indian business conglomerates including the extent to which they unduly benefitted, the one-sided nature of the PPAs, the role of public funcionaries at the Centre and in the States and the extent of loss suffered by electricity consumers in the country.

If the allegations emerging out of the indictment are found to be true, the Commission states that, not only the concerned business conglomerates and their promoters be blacklisted and prohibited from underataking activities in the electricity sector in the future but they should be forced to pay a deterrent penalty in addition to compansating electricity consumers for the additional costs borne by them on account of these acts of malfeasance. The culprits should be prosecuted for their criminal liability under the relevant laws.

Most of all a comprehensive report should be placed before Parliament within six months.


Related:

Modi govt distancing from Adanis? MoEFCC ‘defers’ 1500 MW project in Western Ghats

Supreme Court gives two journalists interim protection from Gujarat police arrest over article against Adani Group (Hindenburg issue)

UP cancels Adani’s tenders even as RSS’ Organiser inspires a social media onslaught alleging a conspiracy against ‘Adani brand of nationalism’

 

The post Adani controversy: Experts and retired bank officials demand accountability for corporate and policy corruption in India’s power sector appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Dalit Prof. stands firm against caste discrimination and superstition, defying university warning https://sabrangindia.in/dalit-prof-stands-firm-against-caste-discrimination-and-superstition-defying-university-warning/ Thu, 21 Nov 2024 09:54:16 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=38891 Earlier, Allahabad University issued a formal warning to Prof. Vikram Harijan over his alleged comments on Hindu deities, urging him to avoid sensitive discussions that could harm the institution’s reputation. Despite the controversy and social media backlash, the Dalit professor remains steadfast, pledging to continue challenging caste-based discrimination and superstition.

The post Dalit Prof. stands firm against caste discrimination and superstition, defying university warning appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> In a controversial development at Allahabad University, Prof. Vikram Harijan, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Medieval and Modern History, has been issued a formal notice on November 14, 2024 by the institution following remarks he allegedly made on Hindu deities. The university’s action comes in response to a social media uproar that accused the Dalit academic of offending religious sentiments. Despite the notice, Prof. Harijan has remained steadfast in his views, vowing to continue addressing issues of caste-based discrimination and superstition across all religions.

Background

The controversy surrounding Prof. Harijan began when he posted a critical message on social media, where he voiced concerns over certain Hindu deities, arguing that some religious figures perpetuate caste-based discrimination and superstition. His remarks quickly ignited a firestorm of online criticism, with numerous groups accusing him of insulting Hindu sentiments. The backlash led to widespread condemnation, and the issue escalated further when members of the university’s academic community weighed in.

Though Prof. Harijan issued a public apology for his statements, the response from the public remained largely hostile, prompting the university administration to take formal action. On October 3, during a meeting of the Executive Council of Allahabad University, chaired by Vice-Chancellor Prof. Sangita Srivastava, the council discussed measures to address the situation. In their deliberations, they concluded that any action by university personnel that could tarnish the institution’s image would not be tolerated. As part of this, the council introduced stricter guidelines for all university staff, particularly faculty members. These guidelines included the stipulation that all faculty members must seek prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor before posting content related to the university on social media.

Despite the official apology and efforts to resolve the issue, the matter took a more serious turn on November 14. Registrar Prof. Ashish Khare issued a formal warning to Prof. Harijan. The notice, which was based on the findings and recommendations of the Executive Council, advised the professor to refrain from making any further provocative remarks on sensitive issues like religion and culture. The notice stated that such actions, particularly those made on public or social media platforms, could potentially harm the reputation of Allahabad University. The warning also emphasized that continued behavior of this nature would result in severe disciplinary actions, in line with the institution’s procedural norms.

Prof. Harijan’s unapologetic stance

According to Mooknayak, Prof. Harijan remained unapologetic about his stance on caste-based discrimination and superstition. He emphasized that his critical remarks were directed not at individuals but at the broader social and religious structures that perpetuate inequality and marginalization.

“If religion and caste promote superstition and discrimination, I will speak out against them, and I will continue to do so. Receiving a notice has not deterred me,” Prof. Harijan stated firmly. He clarified that his views were not aimed solely at Hinduism but extended to all religions that, in his opinion, sustain caste hierarchies and exclusionary practices. “I speak against all religions that encourage discrimination, whether it is Hinduism, Islam, or Sikhism. My focus is on marginalized communities who remain excluded across all religious frameworks,” he explained, as reported Mooknayak.

However, Prof. Harijan’s criticism of religious structures is not new. Throughout his academic career, he has been vocal about the intersections of caste, religion, and social justice. His academic work and public remarks challenge the traditional norms that many in India consider sacred. The professor’s unwavering stance on caste discrimination and his refusal to be silenced by university authorities have made him a polarizing figure.

In the aftermath of the notice, Prof. Harijan’s supporters have rallied behind him, lauding his courage to speak out against the social evils of casteism and superstition. Many students and faculty members at Allahabad University have voiced their admiration for Harijan’s commitment to social justice, noting that his contributions to the academic environment have been invaluable in raising awareness about marginalized communities and their struggles.

Allahabad University’s formal notice, and Prof. Harijan’s response, have reignited a larger debate about the freedom of expression, particularly for academics, and the role of universities in shaping public discourse. The incident also raises important questions about the limits of academic freedom, especially when it comes to discussions that challenge deeply held cultural and religious beliefs.

As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how the university will balance the need to protect its reputation with the rights of its faculty members to express their academic and personal views. However, one thing is clear: Prof. Harijan’s resolve to address caste discrimination, superstition, and social inequities shows no signs of waning, and his actions will undoubtedly continue to provoke thought and controversy in the academic community and beyond.

Related:

From Slur to Segregation: the language of abusive stigma, sketches concentric circles of rank exclusion for India’s Dalits

BJP-ruled states account for highest Dalit violence cases, UP on top, MP records highest reported crimes against STs

Untouchability and exclusion, absence of voice: Dalit situation 2023

 

The post Dalit Prof. stands firm against caste discrimination and superstition, defying university warning appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>