Police said Mohammed Arif, 25, and Syed Imran, 31, were allegedly attacked while they were out for a walk. Deputy police superintendent Madolappa said five suspects were arrested in connection with the assault. “The accused were reportedly under the influence of alcohol,” Madolappa said. Names of the accused have not been released by the authorities.

Unfortunately, the news reports are based only on police sources. HT reports that the police said the incident took communal colour as the Muslim community alleged it was a targeted attack. They cited the complaint filed in the case and said that six to seven assailants made death threats and attacked Arif and Imran with stones, causing head injuries.

Further, the newspaper also reported that the police stated that tensions escalated when protesters gathered outside the station. Some protesters allegedly attacked police personnel, including assistant sub-inspector Mukhtar Patel, and threw stones. “Another case has been registered against 49 Muslim community members for attempting to lay siege to the police station, assaulting Patel, other police staff, and throwing stones,” Madolappa said.

Though the situation was reportedly brought under control thereafter, the original assault on teachers who happened to be Muslim and the motive of the attackers remains a mystery, unreported.

Related:

Why Communal Tension in Tamil Nadu’s Thiruparankundram is Another Warning Signal

Communal Tensions Erupt in Bihar’s Jamui: Alleged stone-pelting during religious procession leads to violence

Attempts to create communal tension reported during Ram Navami celebration in parts of Bengal and UP

The post Bidar, Karnataka: Two school teachers assaulted in Karnataka’s Bidar, triggering communal tensions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This proliferation of violence transcends isolated instances of criminality; rather, it constitutes an orchestrated subversion of secular constitutionalism and a grave abrogation of fundamental human rights.

This legal analytical piece examines these systemic attacks through a rigorous constitutional and statutory framework. The organised marginalisation and physical coercion of these migrant traders strike directly at the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. Specifically, these acts constitute blatant violations of the right to equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws under Article 14. They not only result in severe violations of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21, the report further evaluates criminal liabilities under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the systemic failure of law enforcement to uphold statutory duties under State Police Acts.

The targeted hostility and denial of commercial access based strictly on regional and religious identity directly infringe upon the constitutional protections against discrimination enshrined in Article 15(2) (b). The forced displacement, threats of violence, and destruction of inventory fundamentally contravene the freedoms guaranteed to all citizens, explicitly violating the right to move freely throughout the territory of India under Article 19(1)(d), as well as the absolute right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g). Ultimately, the physical assaults, coercion, and the resulting climate of terror strip these individuals of their paramount right to the protection of life and personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 21, executing deprivations entirely without any procedure established by law.

Furthermore, this report meticulously assesses the criminal liabilities of the vigilante perpetrators under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), mapping their actions to stringent penal offenses including wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, criminal intimidation, and the deliberate promotion of enmity between groups.

Crucially, this analysis critiques the concerning state failure and institutional apathy that have permitted this targeted violence to persist with relative impunity. By juxtaposing the ground reality against the explicit statutory mandates of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007, and the Punjab Police Act, 2007—which legally obligate law enforcement to impartially protect life, uphold human rights, and proactively maintain communal harmony.

To substantiate the scale and systemic nature of these constitutional and statutory violations, the subsequent sections provide a comprehensive, state-wise documentation of the specific incidents of assault, coercion, and economic displacement perpetrated against Kashmiri vendors.

I. Punjab

Kapurthala: January 18, 2025

On January 18, 2025, a seasonal Kashmiri shawl seller named Mohammad Shafi Khawaja, originating from Kupwara, was physically attacked and looted by three motorcycle-borne masked miscreants while en route to sell shawls in Shahpur Andreta village within the Sultanpur area of Kapurthala district.

“Three masked assailants came on a motorcycle and looted him of Rs 12,000 in cash and also took away his shawls worth Rs 35,000, the police said”, reported The Print.

Strongly condemning the incident, the Jammu and Kashmir Students Association (JKSA) issued a public statement on X (formerly Twitter), stating that “We have taken up the matter of the assault on a Kashmiri shawl seller in Kapurthala, Punjab, with the Punjab Government. The National Convenor of JKSA, @NasirKhuehami, has spoken to Punjab Chief Secretary KAP Sinha, who said that instructions have been issued to the DGP of Punjab to ensure swift action. He directed DGP Punjab, Gaurav Yadav, to identify the criminals and take strict action against those responsible for such a criminal act. He further stated that the culprits will face the consequences they deserve. The safety and security of Kashmiri students and shawl sellers remain our utmost priority.”

We have taken up the matter of the assault on a Kashmiri shawl seller in Kapurthala, Punjab, with the Punjab Government. The National Convenor of JKSA, @NasirKhuehami, has spoken to Punjab Chief Secretary KAP Sinha, who said that instructions have been issued to the DGP of Punjab… https://t.co/eXAM7LGYBf

— J&K Students Association (@JKSTUDENTSASSO) January 19, 2025

Another attack in Kapurthala against Kashmiri shawl seller from Kupwara

By February 11, 2025, in a continuation of violence against migrant traders, Fareed Ahmad Bajad, a Kashmiri shawl seller from Kupwara, was physically assaulted and robbed of his merchandise and cash by unidentified assailants in Kapurthala, Punjab. This incident marks the third such attack on Kashmiri vendors in the state within a 45-day period.

According to the Observer Post, Nasir Khuehami, the national convenor of the J&K Students Association, publicly condemned the recurring assaults as a targeted trend of intimidation threatening the community’s livelihood, local law enforcement provided a different assessment. Kapurthala Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Gaurav Toora confirmed the registration of an FIR at the City Police Station but dismissed allegations of communal intent or hate crimes.

Attributing the assaults to petty criminals and drug addicts targeting high-value merchandise, SSP Toora noted that four individuals had been arrested in connection with the previous cases and advised the vendors to travel in groups for their safety, as reported

II. Uttarakhand

Two Kashmiri vendors allegedly assaulted by Bajrang Dal members in Mussoorie

On April 29, 2025, two Kashmiri shawl vendors were assaulted by local youths (allegedly by Bajrang Dal members) on Mall Road in Mussoorie as claimed “retribution” for a terror attack. A video purportedly showed the vendors being slapped and harassed despite presenting their Aadhaar cards. Consequently, members of the community said “16 have left the town for safety.” Trader Shabir Ahmed Dar reported leaving goods worth Rs 12 lakh.

JKSA intervention, allegations of Police complicity, and subsequent arrests in Mussoorie

Highlighting the severity of the incident, Nasir Khuehami, National Convenor, initially posted on X that two Kashmiri shawl sellers were “brutally assaulted by members of the Bajrang Dal” in Mussoorie and that around 16 other traders from Kupwara district were “threatened, harassed, and forcibly evicted from their rented accommodations.”

Pointing to a severe lapse in civic policing, he noted that instead of receiving state protection, the vendors “were reportedly asked by the Mussoorie Police themselves to vacate the area and leave the state immediately.” Illustrating the economic devastation faced by the seasonal workers, Khuehami shared a statement from an affected trader that “All our goods, worth at least ₹30 lakh, are still lying there. We had no choice but to flee back to Kashmir, leaving everything behind.”

We received deeply disturbing and chilling reports from Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, where two Kashmiri shawl sellers were brutally assaulted by members of the Bajrang Dal. Also, Around 16 other Kashmiri traders, mostly from the Kupwara district, have been threatened, harassed, and… pic.twitter.com/rneqVF8jOR

— Nasir Khuehami (ناصر کہویہامی) (@NasirKhuehami) April 29, 2025

Following appeals to state and national officials, Khuehami later posted an update on X that, “Upon raising the matter, DGP Uttarakhand, Deepam Seth Sahab informed me that the Uttarakhand Police had taken cognizance of the incident involving the assault on Kashmiri shawl vendors by three youths on Mall Road.” He confirmed the arrests of Suraj Singh, Pradeep Singh, and Abhishek Uniyal, noting that “legal proceedings are being initiated against them under the Police Act.” The update concluded by stating that the culprits “apologized for their actions and assured that they would not repeat such behavior,” while confirming the mass exodus that “Around 16 Kashmiri shawl vendors from Mussoorie have now returned to the Kashmir Valley.”

Update from Mussoorie Uttrakhand:

Upon raising the matter, DGP Uttarakhand, Deepam Seth Sahab informed me that the Uttarakhand Police had taken cognizance of the incident involving the assault on Kashmiri shawl vendors by three youths on Mall Road. The incident happened two days… https://t.co/UsfWbKoKOR pic.twitter.com/LpmDEOMz44

— Nasir Khuehami (ناصر کہویہامی) (@NasirKhuehami) April 29, 2025

According to the Times of India, Police arrested three men under section 81 of the Uttarakhand Police Act, who were later fined and released after issuing written apologies. Dehradun SSP Ajay Singh stated, “We identified the assaulters and arrested them… I called them and assured them that they were free to come to Mussoorie and carry out their business.” Contrasting the exodus, local Kashmiri shopkeeper Muhammed Aslam Malik stated, “I am running my shop here since 2019 and have not faced any harassment here,” while Mussoorie Traders Association president Rajat Aggarwal added, “The society of Mussoorie is not aggressive or vindictive” as reported

Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar

On December 22, 2025, a Kashmiri vendor named Bilal Ahmad Ganie, who had been operating his trade in the region for nine years, was intercepted in Kashipur by a mob of Bajrang Dal members led by local leader Ankur Singh.

According to report, the mob brutally assaulted the vendor, physically twisted his limbs, and coercively forced him to chant “Bharat Mata ki Jai.”

A #Kashmiri man was attacked and threatened in the #UdhamSinghNagar district of #Uttarakhand.

Bilal Ahmad, a shawl seller who has lived and worked in Kashipur for nearly a decade, was reportedly assaulted by a group linked to the #BajrangDal, allegedly led by a local man named… pic.twitter.com/7wTPzIovau

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) December 26, 2025

The physical violence was accompanied by xenophobic slurs explicitly questioning his nationality.

Following the circulation of the assault video on December 26, the Home Ministry announced a zero-tolerance directive, which subsequently led to the official arrest of the Bajrang Dal leader on December 27.

17-year-old Kashmiri shawl seller brutally attacked with rods in Vikasnagar, Dehradun

On January 28, 2026, the systemic violence culminated in a near-fatal mob attack in the Vikasnagar area of Dehradun district. A 17-year-old Kashmiri shawl vendor named Tabish Ahmed, along with his younger brother, was intercepted by a local shopkeeper and subsequently attacked by right-wing extremists armed with iron rods. The perpetrators subjected the youths to severe regional profiling, baselessly accusing them of complicity in the Pulwama attacks, before inflicting grievous bodily harm.

The assault left the 17-year-old with a fractured arm and severe head injuries that necessitated intensive medical treatment at Doon Hospital.

Image Courtesy: Greater Kashmir

J&K CM Omar Abdulla urged Uttarakhand CM to take strict action against the perpetrators

Following the assault on a young Kashmiri shawl seller in Uttarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah took up the matter directly with Uttarakhand CM Pushkar Singh Dhami.

According to a X post from the J&K Chief Minister’s Office, stating that “Chief Minister spoke with the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, @pushkardhami, regarding the incident of assault on a young Kashmiri shawl seller in Uttarakhand and urged him to take strict action against the perpetrators. @pushkardhami assured that strict action, including registration of an FIR, would be taken in the matter and safety of J&K residents will be ensured.”

Chief Minister spoke with the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, @pushkardhami, regarding the incident of assault on a young Kashmiri shawl seller in Uttarakhand and urged him to take strict action against the perpetrators.@pushkardhami assured that strict action, including…

— Office of Chief Minister, J&K (@CM_JnK) January 29, 2026

However, Waheed Ur Rehman Para, Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Pulwama representing the J&K Peoples Democratic Party (JKPDP) condemned the targeted attacks against Kashmiri student and traders. He posted on X that, “Amid rising hate crimes against Kashmiri students and traders, @jkpdp moved an adjournment motion today in the J&K Assembly, seeking an end to targeted attacks and discrimination.”

Amid rising hate crimes against Kashmiri students and traders, @jkpdp moved an adjournment motion today in the J&K Assembly, seeking an end to targeted attacks and discrimination. pic.twitter.com/r7zOKuItgW

— Waheed Ur Rehman Para (@parawahid) February 3, 2026

III. Himachal Pradesh

Dehra, Kangra

In November 2025, in the Dehra area of Kangra, a local resident named Naresh Sharma assumed vigilante authority by intercepting two Kashmiri hawkers who had been peacefully residing in Naiharan Pukhra for five to six years. Sharma illegally demanded to see their police verification, arbitrarily searched their commercial bags, and baselessly accused them of suspicious movement, carrying weapons, and child abduction. Despite the hawkers providing their Aadhaar identification, Sharma rejected their legal documents, ordered them to leave the village immediately, and threatened to invoke state authority against them.

Further on December 27, 2025, when a Kashmiri shawl seller was brutally assaulted by local vigilantes in the same Dehra region. The mob inflicted bone fractures and multiple physical injuries upon the vendor, completely vandalised his trade goods, and deliberately smashed his mobile phone to destroy evidentiary material, culminating in threats commanding him to leave the state entirely.

Shimla

On December 13, 2025, the hostility against the vendors was heavily institutionalised during a public gathering in Shimla organised by the Dev Bhoomi Sangharsh Samiti and VHP-Bajrang Dal concerning a local mosque dispute. During the assembly, a speaker openly propagated hate speech and called for an economic boycott of non-Hindus. The speaker specifically targeted Kashmiri hawkers with conspiracy theories, alleging they conduct surveillance on households when women are alone, referred to non-Hindus as modern-day demons, and circulated fabricated stories of hawkers stealing and consuming cattle to incite communal animosity and violence. This violence is illustrative of how this hill state, once peaceful, has been sought to be converted into a communal battlefield.

FIR registered following assault on Kashmiri Shawl seller in Ghumarwin, Bilaspur

An FIR has been registered by the Bilaspur police after a Kashmiri shawl seller was allegedly assaulted and his merchandise destroyed in the Ghumarwin area of the district. The complaint was filed by Abdul Ahad Khan, a resident of Kupwara, who reported being attacked on December 27, 2025 near Kuthera village by three masked individuals. According to Khan, the assailants assaulted him without provocation and destroyed shawls worth Rs. 20,000 before he managed to flee.

Himachal Pradesh has the same problem as Uttarakhand. Hate.
And both proclaim themselves as ‘Devbhoomi’. https://t.co/af0lBhWypI

— Man Aman Singh Chhina (@manaman_chhina) December 29, 2025

Bilaspur Superintendent of Police Sandeep Dhawal confirmed that an FIR has been filed under Sections 126(2), 115(2), and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at the Ghumarwin police station, and efforts are underway to trace the suspects involved, as the Hindustan Times reported

IV. Haryana

Kashmiri shawl seller forced to chant “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” and “Vande Mataram” in Fatehabad

On December 28, 2025, Kashmiri shawl sellers and traders in the Fatehabad area were subjected to severe public intimidation and physical assault based on their religious and regional identities. A widely circulated video documented a local resident physically assaulting a Kashmiri vendor by violently grabbing his collar and subjecting him to degrading treatment.

The perpetrator aggressively forced the youth to chant “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” and “Vande Mataram” in a threatening tone, using public humiliation and the imminent threat of further violence as punishment for the vendor’s initial refusal to participate in the forced majoritarian sloganeering.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by The New Indian Express (@newindianexpress)

Police lodge suo motu FIR for ‘hate speech’ in Kaithal for heckling with Kashmiri vendor

On December 29, 2025, in a separate incident in the Kalayat area of Kaithal district, a viral video showed a local man confronting a Kashmiri vendor who was sitting on a concrete bench. The man demanded the vendor chant “Vande Mataram,” a request the vendor declined while citing his Islamic faith. In response, the assailant referenced violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, forced the vendor to pack up and leave, and threatened to burn him alive while explicitly warning that Muslims should not enter the village.

Taking suo moto cognizance of the video, the Kaithal police registered a First Information Report (FIR) on December 27 under Sections 196(1), 299, and 353(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against unidentified persons.

The incidents drew immediate public condemnation, including from Iltija Mufti, who shared the footage on X (formerly Twitter) and tagged Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini and the Director General of Police to demand accountability.

A Kashmiri shawl vendor is yet again harassed, abused & heckled in Haryana. You abuse & misbehave with Kashmiris & then conveniently dub them as ‘anti nationals’ all in the same breath. Are we sub human? Request @NayabSainiBJP @cmohry @DGPHaryana to take cognisance of this… pic.twitter.com/t3aOqCtHww

— Iltija Mufti (@IltijaMufti_) December 27, 2025

V. Uttar Pradesh

Lucknow

On January 17, 2026, organised vigilante groups extended their campaign of intimidation against Kashmiri street vendors in Lucknow. Deepak Shukla, identified as a VHP-Bajrang Dal leader originating from Uttam Nagar in Delhi, along with his local associates, systematically intercepted and harassed seasonal Kashmiri traders.

Shukla and his group subjected the vendors to religious profiling, coercively forced them to chant “Vande Mataram,” and issued direct ultimatums threatening violence if the vendors did not immediately pack their goods and permanently vacate the geographical area.

Kashmiri artists face housing discrimination ahead of Kanpur Exhibition

On October 24, after a gruelling two-day search for accommodation in Kanpur, a group of young Kashmiri artists operating under the banner “Glance Kashmir” were abruptly evicted from a newly rented flat upon revealing their identity. The group had originally arrived in the city on October 22 to participate in an upcoming art exhibition and sought a modest space where they could cook their own meals.

During their initial search, they encountered blatant prejudice, with one local explicitly stating that rental properties would not even be shown to Muslims and Ahirs. On their third day, the artists finally secured a flat for Rs. 15,000 a month and paid a Rs. 5,000 advance, as reported the Observer Post.

However, when they returned that evening with groceries after setting up their exhibition stall, the landlady inquired about their background and immediately ordered them to leave. Despite the group’s desperate pleas that they were exhausted, hungry, and had nowhere else to stay for the night, she refunded their money and forced them out.

VI. Arunachal Pradesh

Naharlagun, Itanagar

On December 17, 2025, in Naharlagun, Itanagar, the targeting of Kashmiri vendors manifested through regional exclusivity and vigilantism concerning municipal trade licenses. Taro Sonam Liyak, the president of the Arunachal Pradesh Indigenous Youth Organisation (APIYO), personally confronted Kashmiri vendors and unlawfully assumed administrative authority by accusing them of operating illegally.

Liyak propagated xenophobic conspiracies, alleging the vendors were illegally settling family members to demographically capture the region.

The vendors maintained they had complied with legal procedures and applied for licenses, which were administratively delayed due to local elections, yet they still faced extra-legal vigilantism overriding municipal law enforcement.

• Subversion of Constitutional Guarantees: the annihilation of fundamental rights

The targeted marginalisation and physical coercion of these migrant traders strike directly at the core of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. This phenomenon goes far beyond isolated criminality, mutating into a systemic subversion of secular constitutionalism where the State’s monopoly on law and order is unlawfully usurped by majoritarian mobs.

Article 14 (Right to Equality and Equal Protection)

Article 14 establishes a dual mandate that the State shall not deny “equality before the law” nor the “equal protection of the laws.” The systematic failure of the state machinery to impartially protect Kashmiri vendors constitutes a severe breach of this foundational guarantee. When law enforcement categorises targeted, identity-based hate crimes as mere “petty theft” (as seen in Kapurthala), or advises victims to flee rather than arresting their attackers (as in Mussoorie), it demonstrates arbitrary state inaction.

The Constitution demands a positive obligation from the State to protect its vulnerable minorities. By allowing vigilantes to operate with relative impunity based solely on the victims’ regional and religious identity, the state apparatus implicitly endorses an unconstitutional, arbitrary classification, effectively creating a sub-class of citizens denied the equal protection of the criminal justice system.

Article 15(2)(b) (Horizontal Prohibition of Discrimination)

While many fundamental rights are enforceable only against the State, Article 15(2)(b) has a horizontal application—it explicitly bars citizens from subjecting other citizens to any disability, liability, or restriction concerning the use of roads and places of public resort on grounds only of religion, race, caste, or place of birth. The systematic interception of vendors on public highways in Punjab, the forced denial of commercial access to bustling public spaces like Mussoorie’s Mall Road, and the blatant, identity-driven housing discrimination faced in Kanpur are textbook violations.

The Constitution envisions public spaces as egalitarian zones; when vigilante mobs construct invisible, exclusionary borders within these spaces, and the State fails to dismantle them, the absolute protection against identity-based public exclusion is shattered.

Article 19 (1) (d) & 19 (1) (g) (Freedom of Movement and Profession)

The “bedrock of India’s economic integration” is cemented by the twin pillars of movement and livelihood. Under Article 19(1)(d), which mandates that all citizens shall have the right “to move freely throughout the territory of India,” the Constitution envisions a borderless nation where geography does not limit a citizen’s presence.

Complementing this is Article 19(1)(g), which grants the right “to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.” Together, these rights ensure that an Indian citizen’s identity is not tied to their state of origin, but to their contribution to the national economy.

However, this integration is increasingly under siege. While Article 19(6) clarifies that “nothing in sub-clause (g)… shall affect the operation of any existing law… insofar as such law imposes… reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public,” it is crucial to note that this power is reserved exclusively for the State.

When vigilante groups in Lucknow and Arunachal Pradesh issue “extra-legal territorial ultimatums,” they are not acting under the colour of law; they are engaging in a hostile takeover of state authority. The forced mass exodus of traders from Uttarakhand and the targeted destruction of commercial inventory in Himachal Pradesh are not “reasonable restrictions”—they are violent disruptions of the social contract. These actions bypass the judicial scrutiny required by Article 19(6), replacing the Rule of Law with the Rule of the Mob, and effectively dismantling the economic unity the Constitution seeks to preserve.

Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty)

The paramount right of Article 21 ensures that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly expanded this to include the right to live with human dignity and the right to livelihood. The brutal physical assaults, the near-fatal iron rod attack on a minor in Dehradun, and the ensuing, pervasive climate of terror entirely strip these individuals of their physical security.

Forcing a citizen to choose between their economic survival and their bodily integrity is the ultimate deprivation of personal liberty, executed entirely outside any lawful procedure.

Penal culpability: application of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

The actions of the vigilante perpetrators are not spontaneous skirmishes; they map directly onto stringent penal offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. These acts demand rigorous, uncompromising prosecution beyond the mere issuance of written warnings or preventive detention.

Offences of physical violence and restraint

The highway interceptions and physical beatings invoke Section 126(1) (Wrongful restraint). Vigilantes exhibit clear mens rea (criminal intent) by voluntarily obstructing vendors from proceeding in geographic directions they have a lawful, constitutional right to access. Furthermore, the grievous physical injuries inflicted—including shattered bone fractures in Himachal Pradesh and severe head trauma sustained by the 17-year-old in Vikasnagar—strictly attract Section 117(2) (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt). This section mandates severe punitive measures for endangering life and cannot be legally diluted into minor assault charges by investigating officers.

Offences of hate speech, enmity, and religious outrage

The forced majoritarian sloganeering, coercively extracted under the imminent threat of violence, coupled with xenophobic slurs referencing terrorism, transcend mere heckling. These calculated acts attracts Section 302 (Uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings).

Most critically, the organised assemblies in Shimla calling for widespread economic boycotts, paired with the propagation of fabricated conspiracy theories about Kashmiri vendors, directly violate Section 196 (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony). This section explicitly criminalises the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, or place of birth, and penalises any acts prejudicial to the maintenance of communal harmony.

Offences of intimidation and public humiliation

The public parading, violent grabbing of collars, and explicit threats of being burned alive recorded in Haryana represent acute violations of Section 351 (Criminal intimidation) and Section 352 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace). Extorting verbal compliance through mob terror is an assault on personal autonomy. Additionally, the widespread, defamatory conspiracies spread by local leaders regarding the vendors’ motives (e.g., alleging they are demographic invaders or spies) attract immediate liabilities under Section 356(3) and (4) (Defamation).

Institutional apathy: dereliction of statutory Police duties

The most critical and concerning legal failure underpinning this crisis is the institutional apathy and outright abdication of statutory mandates by state police forces. Law enforcement agencies are not merely reactive bodies; they are legally bound by their respective state acts to prevent such vigilantism proactively.

The Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007

Under Section 39 (1), the mandate of the police is unambiguous. They are legally bound to “uphold and enforce the law impartially, and to protect life, liberty, property, human rights, and dignity” (clause a), and must proactively “prevent and control… breaches of communal harmony” (clause c). When Mussoorie police reportedly instructed victimised vendors to vacate the jurisdiction rather than providing a protective state shield against Bajrang Dal mobs, they committed a gross dereliction of their duty to “create and maintain a feeling of security in the community and… prevent conflicts and promote amity” (clause h).

Furthermore, identifying perpetrators of cognizable hate crimes only to release them with mere written apologies fundamentally violates the mandate to accurately register complaints, conduct lawful investigations, and apprehend offenders (clause g). This approach effectively decriminalises mob violence.

The Punjab Police Act, 2007

Similarly, Section 40 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007 strictly mandates the police to uphold human rights impartially, maintain internal security, and proactively collect intelligence regarding threats to social harmony (clause i). By dismissing the repeated Kapurthala hate crimes against a specific demographic as the isolated, uncoordinated acts of “petty criminals” or drug addicts, the police entirely failed their investigative and intelligence-gathering duties, ignoring a glaring pattern of regional profiling.

Moreover, Section 41 legally enforces the “Social responsibilities of the police,” demanding that officers “guide and assist people especially those, needing help and protection” (clause b) and “be impartial and respectful for human rights, with special attention to weaker sections” (clause d). Advising vulnerable, targeted migrant vendors that they must “travel in groups” to avoid being attacked is a profound abdication of sovereign responsibility. It shifts the statutory burden of public safety entirely from the State onto the marginalised victims themselves, constituting a severe and actionable dereliction of statutory duty.

Why judicial intervention and law enforcement is imperative?

The crisis confronting Kashmiri seasonal vendors is a stark indicator of a broader institutional malaise that threatens the foundational integrity of the Indian Republic. The documented incidents reveal that the issue is no longer confined to isolated episodes of mob violence; rather, it has mutated into the dangerous privatisation of law enforcement. When local vigilantes are permitted to unilaterally dictate the terms of commerce, residency, and physical safety—while the state apparatus either acquiesces, re-categorises hate crimes as petty offenses, or advises victims to flee their lawful jurisdictions—the rule of law is effectively outsourced to majoritarian mobs.

Restoring constitutional order requires moving beyond reactive condemnations. It necessitates immediate, suo motu intervention by constitutional courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) to address the glaring gaps in police accountability. To halt the normalisation of identity-based economic displacement, law enforcement officers must face strict departmental and legal consequences for the dereliction of their statutory duties.

Concurrently, the applicable provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita must be unequivocally enforced against perpetrators, entirely stripping away the impunity currently afforded to vigilante networks. Only through uncompromising institutional accountability can the promise of secular constitutionalism and equal protection be salvaged.

While FIRs have been lodged in many of these communally charged assaults the real measure of the deterrence enforced by this act will be visible only if the respective state police are pro-active and visible about the follow-up and prosecutions of these criminal complaints. Typically, while the FIR is the first response after the social media outrage, police rarely follow up with robust prosecutions.

Related:

Right to Food: How the ban on sale of non-veg food is an issue where imposed majoritarian faith clashes with the Indian Constitution

Himachal Haryana, racial harassment and attacks on Kashmiri shawl sellers rage on

Mob lynching: Three separate incidents surface, even minors and partially disabled Muslims not safe

The post The Erosion of Equal Protection: Constitutional attrition and State apathy in targeted attacks on Kashmiri vendors across the states appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Next day, today, Friday 27, fourteen of hundreds of protesting students from the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) were sent to Tihar Jail after the late night brutal lathi charge by the Delhi police, attacking a student protest and long march aimed to march towards the Ministry of Education yesterday. Protesters have been demanding the resignation of Vice Chancellor (VC) JNU Ms Pandit who had made derogative remarks against Dalits and Blacks recently and also the restoration of the UGC Guidelines of 2026.

On Thursday (February 26), Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), along with other student organisations, organised a “long march” from the university to the Ministry of Education in Delhi. Students alleged that soon after their march began, Delhi Police lathi-charged them near the main gate of the campus. They said several students were detained and taken to the Kapashera and Sagarpur police stations. Videos and photographs that surfaced on social media showed that many students, including women, were injured in the police action.

The students’ march began around 3 pm from Sabarmati Dhaba inside the campus. Students joined the rally in large numbers, including members of JNUSU, All India Students’ Association (AISA), Students’ Federation of India (SFI), Democratic Students’ Federation (DSF), National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), All India Students’ Federation (AISF) and other student bodies.

You can cut all the flowers but you cannot keep spring from coming

14 JNU students sent to TIHAR JAIL
the state’s cowardice is on full display. They think iron bars break spirit, they are WRONG
​fight against BJP & Shantishri’s casteist regime will only INTENSIFY#JNU #jnusu pic.twitter.com/qJTC3DamOD

— Anjali (@anjali__27) February 27, 2026

जेएनयू में हज़ारों छात्र जब यूजीसी रेगुलेशन के पक्ष में और जातिवादी वाईस चांसलर की बर्खास्तगी की माँग के साथ शिक्षा मंत्रालय की तरफ़ बढ़े।
तब पूरी सरकार में कंपकंपी मच गई। दिल्ली पुलिस ने छात्रों के हाथ से बाबा साहब भीम राव अंबेडकर की तस्वीर छीन ली, हाथों में अपने… pic.twitter.com/2JyjjTrb8m

— Dhananjay (@SathiDhananjay) February 26, 2026

This protest began amid heavy deployment of security forces, including Delhi Police, across the campus. The main gate was completely barricaded to prevent the students from moving forward.

Before the march started, JNUSU president Aditi Mishra had told The Wire: “Our call today was directed at the Ministry of Education. We are demanding that the UGC Equity Regulations be implemented on the lines of the Rohith Act. We are also demanding the resignation of our Vice-Chancellor, Shantisree Dhulipudi Pandit, over her remark that ‘Blacks and Dalits are permanently drugged with victimhood’. We believe such a statement is unacceptable. We are also asking for the restoration of funds [to JNU and other universities], because continuous financial cuts are weakening public universities and affecting students directly.”

She had then added, “What we are seeing instead is a heavy police security presence. The university has been turned into what feels like a cantonment, with barricades placed every few metres, the Rapid Action Force deployed and water cannons and tear gas kept ready. FIRs are being filed against students simply for protesting.”

Despite the heavy police and security force presence and the main gate of the JNU being sealed off, the students remained firm on continuing their march. Around 4 pm, students moved the barricades placed outside the main gate and attempted to proceed with their march. Soon after this, police began detaining students participating in the march. During the process, scuffles broke out between them and the police.

The allegations of brutality included male persons, accused of masquerading as men in uniform assaulting women with pins and other weapons in gendered violence. Hundreds of police, paramilitary and other personnel were brought in to simply “handle a student’s protest.”

It was the obstruction of free movement by the Delhi Police who blocked and locked the JNU gates that began the altercation and thereafter police repression.

Danish, joint secretary, JNUSU, said, “We called for a peaceful march from JNUSU to the Ministry of Education. However, Delhi Police blocked JNU gates, putting locks on them. Around 500 to 700 policemen were deployed with heavy barricading, lathis, tear gas and water cannons. When students broke the locks and marched, the police launched a brutal lathi charge.

“Many students were hurt. Women students were dragged and their clothes torn. They [police] detained at least fifty of us and took us to Kapashera Police Station. Even now, many students, including me, are injured but have not received any first aid. There were also people in civil dress beating students brutally alongside the police. Students are still protesting at the main gate, and the police continue to beat them.”

Dhananjay, former JNUSU President speaks of this police brutality here

On Sunday, 22 February, a “Samta Rally” was organised on the JNU campus to protest against alleged anti-Dalit remarks made by Vice-Chancellor Shantishree Pandit. At the march, students demanded implementation of the new University Grants Commision (UGC) equity guidelines, and asked for the Vice-Chancellor to resign and issue a public apology for her statements.

However, after that march, tensions escalated and clashes broke out between two student groups. Left student organisations and JNUSU members accused members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) offshoot, student body Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), of pelting stones during the confrontation.

On Monday (February 23), the university administration registered a case against JNUSU office bearers over the “Samata Rally” and the alleged violence during the previous night’s protest Thereafter, JNUSU announced another march, and that was the one to be held on 26 February.

The Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) also condemned the police action, describing it as brutal use of force against students at the JNU gate.

In a statement issued on today February 26, JNUTA said several students, including women, were injured and many detained, including two JNUSU office bearers. It raised concerns over reports that women detainees were taken to undisclosed locations and alleged that they faced further mistreatment in custody.

JNUTA said the police action appeared to be aimed at preventing students from exercising their democratic right to march to the Ministry of Education, and demanded the immediate release of all detained students, action against the officials involved and the withdrawal of police personnel from the campus gates.

The text of the JNUTA statement issued by Surajit Mazumdar (President) and Meenakshi Sundriyal (Secretary) reads:

“The JNUTA strongly condemns the brutal use of force by the Delhi Police against JNU students and the detention of several of them, including two JNUSU Office bearers. Reports indicate that several students, including women, have been severely injured in the police action at the JNU gate in which even the laws prohibiting male policemen from acting against women were brazenly flouted. The JNUTA is also extremely concerned at the wellbeing of those detained. There are several women among them and they have been taken to unconfirmed locations that are far away from the campus. Reports are also coming of them being subjected to further police beatings while in custody.

The police action today, and they also came armed with weapons, had the sole objective of preventing come what may the students from exercising their democratic right to march to the Ministry of Education. Prohibition of such marches, and then prosecuting those who march, and use of excessive force against them, have become part of the standard routine for the Delhi Police. In the process, it has become an instrument of not law enforcement but of authoritarianism and the curbing of constitutionally guaranteed democratic rights.

The JNUTA knows that the bankrupt JNU Administration led by the VC cannot be expected to discharge its duty as guardian of the students’ interests. After all, it is its own actions that have led to the current situation. The continuing refusal to act against her and even today’s police action, however, raises serious questions about whether her infamous casteist remarks and other actions in fact have the endorsement of the Ministry of Education. Is it that the Ministry did not want to answer the uncomfortable questions it would have had to face from JNU students?

The JNUTA demands immediate release of all the detained students and strict action against the police officials reponsible for transgressing the laws they are themselves bound by while enforcing them. The Police which is still at the campus gates must also leave immediately. We appeal to JNU teachers to remain vigilant and speak up against this violence and onslaught on democracy.”

Just a few days ago former JNUSU President, Dhananjay filed a complaint against the VC with the NCST. This may be read here.

Related:

JNU: Former JNUSU President complains against Vice Chancellor’s casteist & racist remarks

The Double Stage on Campus: Caste, crisis & UGC equity regulations (2026) controversy

UGC Guidelines 2026: AISA Protest at Delhi University followed by sexual abuse allegations amid police presence

The post JNU Students Lathi-charged, Injured, first detained during protest over V-C remarks, UGC Equity guidelines, now Jailed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Introduction: The Campus as Double Stage

The University Grants Commission, on January 13, 2026, notified the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, a broad set of rules intended to counter caste discrimination in Indian universities. Within two weeks, the Supreme Court stayed the regulations, observing that they showed “complete vagueness” and might have “dangerous impacts” to “divide society.” In the meantime, and in the weeks that followed, Indian universities, particularly Delhi University, witnessed protests and counter-protests, violence, allegations of assault, cross-FIRs and, subsequently, a month-long ban on all demonstrations. SabrangIndia’s detailed story on the nationwide protests may be read here and here.

This debate goes beyond a simple policy debate. It is a point at which the underlying contradictions of caste in contemporary India have come face-to-face with the national arena. In my previous work, I introduced the concept of “schizophrenic modernity”, a condition in which a public official theatre of constitutional equality coexists with a dynamic social obscenity, wherein the hierarchy of caste is reinscribed through intimate sociability, bodily practices and moments of violence. The UGC controversy makes this schizophrenia explicit.

To gain a full understanding of the stakes, it is imperative to consult two scholars whose work helps to illuminate the underlying structure of this dispute. Anand Teltumbde’s work on the “camouflaged” presence of caste provides a framework for understanding how caste functions within modern institutions as a hidden system of social capital and exclusion, rather than as a visible ritualized hierarchy. Gopal Guru’s work on the scene/obscene dialectic of knowledge production, along with his imperative to theorize from the location of the obscene, supplies the methodological key to centering the Dalit experience in this argument. Together, they enrich and expand my Foucauldian-Gramscian framework, locating it within the particular intellectual traditions of Dalit Studies.

The article uses the framework to provide a thorough argument about the controversy. Part I will evaluate the rules as a scene of extending the constitutional scene into the obscene. Part II will locates the upper-caste reaction as a manifestation of “camouflaged” caste, as well as Gopal Guru’s reading of hegemonic denial. Part III will discuss the role of the Supreme Court as a moment of definitional politics. Part IV will analyse campus violence as a manifestation of obscene eruption, according to Teltumbde’s framework. Part V will evaluate the schizophrenic stance of the state. Part VI will explore Dalit counter-mobilizations as a moment of forcing the obscene back into the scene, according to Guru’s imperative to theorise from the location of the obscene. The conclusion will consider what this controversy tells us about the underlying architecture of caste power.

I. The Regulations: Extending the Scene into the Obscene

The UGC Equity Regulations 2026 have their roots in a specific set of events: a petition to the Supreme Court jointly filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both of whom took their own lives in the aftermath of alleged caste-based harassment on their respective college campuses. Vemula, a Dalit PhD scholar at the University of Hyderabad, died in 2016; Tadvi, a tribal medical student in Mumbai, died in 2019. Their deaths have been seen as symptomatic of the failure of institutional mechanisms to protect marginalised students.

Statistics shown by the UGC to a parliamentary committee show a 118.4% increase in reported cases of caste-based harassment over five years, from 173 in 2019-20 to 378 in 2023-24. Journalist Anil Chamadia said that this increase “is not merely about numbers; it is directly linked to growing awareness among marginalised students and the protection given to dominant caste ideologies.” When first-generation Dalit students enter universities in greater numbers, the dominant castes may resent their presence, leading to increased harassment.

The regulations created a complex administrative machinery for equity. They mandated that every higher education institution set up an Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC) to monitor policies for the disadvantaged. Equity Committees, mandated to include representatives from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), women and persons with disabilities, were tasked with complaints. Institutions were mandated to set up “equity squads” for constant surveillance, establish 24/7 hotlines and ensure time-bound redressal of grievances, committees were to meet within 24 hours of a complaint and submit a report within 15 days. Failure to comply would invite severe punishment, including withdrawal of UGC funding, exclusion from schemes, or suspension of degree programs.

Notably, the regulations introduced protection for the first time for OBCs, besides SC/ST students, faculty and staff. The concept of “caste-based discrimination” in Clause 3(c) was articulated as discrimination “only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backwards Classes (OBC).”

Based on the current framework, the regulations can be understood as an effort to operationalize the constitutional ban on caste discrimination as a pervasive social order. While the Constitution bans caste discrimination at the level of abstract jurisprudence, the regulations aimed to create capillary structures—committees, squads, helplines—that would penetrate the intimate spaces of caste discrimination: the classroom, the hostel, the mentor-mentee relationship and social networks. They aimed to make visible the everyday humiliations, exclusions and violence against Dalit students, which the “obscene” had hitherto made invisible.

As a UGC functionary explained, “The regulations aimed to institutionalize anti-discrimination policies rather than have a piecemeal approach and thus provide ‘marginalised students with an official platform to raise their concerns, which was often lacking before.’” This is the role of the scene: to make grievances speakable, visible, and actionable. The obscene, on the other hand, is that which is unspeakable, the casteist remark that is reduced to “just a joke,” the exclusion that is reduced to “personal preference,” the hostility that is reduced to “academic rigor.”

II. The Upper-Caste Backlash: Camouflaged Caste and the Hegemony of Denial

The regulations didn’t just face criticism; they walked into a firestorm. Upper-caste students, faculty and a chorus of social media voices came out swinging almost immediately. Protests erupted at Delhi University, Lucknow University and right outside the UGC office. But if you listen closely to what the protesters are actually saying, something interesting emerges. Their words reveal how privilege dresses itself up as fairness when its back is against the wall. To really understand what’s happening here, we need two thinkers: Anand Teltumbde and his idea of “camouflaged” caste, and Gopal Guru with his insights about who gets to theorise and whose experience counts as real.

Teltumbde: When Caste Puts on a New Suit

In The Persistence of Caste (2010), Teltumbde makes a deceptively simple argument that cuts through a lot of confusion. Caste hasn’t disappeared in modern India; it’s just changed its clothes. It no longer marches around in religious robes, declaring Brahmins superior and Dalits polluted. Instead, it’s dressed itself in the respectable attire of modernity. It speaks the language of merit, efficiency and professionalism, all while quietly reproducing hierarchy through who knows whom, who gets recommended for jobs, who feels comfortable in academic spaces.

This is exactly what we’re seeing in the UGC controversy. The upper-caste protesters aren’t defending traditional caste ideology. You won’t hear them argue that Brahmins are naturally smarter or that untouchability was ordained by the gods. That would be too obvious, too easy to counter. Instead, they’ve wrapped themselves in the language of universalism, due process, and merit. They’re not defending privilege, they’re defending fairness. Or so they claim. This is caste in camouflage, operating through the very discourses that supposedly left it behind.

Teltumbde argues this camouflage isn’t accidental. It’s caste’s survival strategy, its “genius,” he calls it, though he means it darkly. Caste is plastic. It can take any form religious, secular, modern, global while never losing its core purpose: maintaining graded inequality. If you go looking for caste in its traditional avatar, you’ll declare it dead. You’ll miss its vibrant new incarnations entirely.

The protesters who warn of “complete chaos” and insist that “victim can be anyone on campus” aren’t defending old caste. They’re defending its new form as common sense, as the natural order of things, as what any reasonable person would think. They are, in Teltumbde’s framework, caste’s latest incarnation.

Guru: Why the Obscene Matters

Gopal Guru gives us the other lens we need. In The Cracked Mirror (2012), written with Sundar Sarukkai, Guru makes a provocative argument about how knowledge itself is structured by caste. Upper-caste “theorists,” he argues, have historically occupied what he calls the “scene”, the privileged space of abstraction, theory and universal claims. Dalit-Bahujan thinkers, meanwhile, have been confined to the “obscene”, the messy, particular, experiential realm that supposedly isn’t fit for theory. Guru calls for “epistemic humility”, a willingness to theorize from the site of the obscene, to take seriously the knowledge that comes from lived experience of caste.

The UGC controversy plays out this dynamic in real time. The upper-caste protesters occupy the scene. They speak the language of due process, safeguards against false accusations, and the danger of dividing society. Their discourse presents itself as neutral, rational, concerned with everyone’s good. And the Dalit experience that made these regulations necessary in the first place, the 115 suicides, the daily humiliations, the systematic exclusion gets pushed into the obscene. It becomes merely anecdotal, particular and insufficiently theoretical.

When protesters claim that “victim can be anyone,” they’re not just describing reality. They’re prescribing how reality should be seen. They’re demanding that the scene remain blind to the actual direction of caste violence. The universal category of “anyone” erases the particular vulnerability of Dalit students. The scene refuses to see what the obscene knows.

The Hegemony of Denial in Action

Listen to Alokit Tripathi, a DU PhD student who told PTI the rules would create “complete chaos.” His concern? The burden of proof would shift to the accused, with “no safeguards for those wrongly accused.” And then this: “The definition of victim is already predetermined. Victim can be anyone on campus.”

This is Teltumbde’s camouflaged caste, speaking in perfect accent. The historically privileged group positions itself as potential victim. The structural violence documented in the 2007 Thorat Committee report on AIIMS, where Dalit students faced “avoidance, non-cooperation and discouragement” from faculty and peers simply vanishes. The actual power relations on campus, where faculty and administration remain overwhelmingly upper-caste, where informal networks quietly reproduce privilege all of it erased from the frame.

And its Guru’s hegemonic denial too. The universal “anyone” neutralizes the particular. The scene refuses to see.

The Myth That Won’t Die

Then there’s the false complaint narrative. It came up everywhere. Petitioners told the Supreme Court that without a provision penalizing malicious complaints, grievance mechanisms would become weapons. One counsel painted a vivid hypothetical: imagine a fresher who resists ragging from a Scheduled Caste senior. The senior files a false caste discrimination complaint. The fresher, without anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act, could be imprisoned, his career ending on his “first day, first month and first year.”

As a Feminism in India analysis pointed out, this script is borrowed straight from Men’s Rights Activists. When women get legal protection, men declare the laws will be misused for petty revenge. When Dalits get protection, savarnas shout exactly the same thing. These narratives do something specific: they drag remedial measures from the societal and historical to the personal. They diminish systemic violence by obsessing over hypothetical misuse.

Now, to be clear: no legal mechanism is immune to misuse. But the exclusive focus on this possibility, without a whisper of concern for the actual violence Dalit students face daily, reveals what the narrative is really doing. It positions the upper-caste subject as the true victim, the one most at risk from a system supposedly designed to protect the vulnerable. This is Gramsci’s “common sense” at work. The dominant group’s experience gets naturalized as universal. The subordinate group’s experience becomes questionable, particular and obscene.

The Battle over Naming

The fiercest fight was over words. Clause 3(c) defined caste-based discrimination specifically as discrimination against SC/ST/OBC communities. Petitioners called this “completely exclusive.” It created, they argued, a “hierarchy of protection.” They pointed to Clause 3(e), a broader provision prohibiting discrimination on grounds of “religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability, or any of them.” Why have both? Why was 3(c) necessary if 3(e) already existed?

The answer cuts to the heart of the matter. Clause 3(e) gives you formal equality, discrimination is wrong, period, and whosoever does it to whomever. Clause 3(c) recognizes substantive equality, the understanding that caste violence in India has direction. It flows historically and structurally from dominant castes to oppressed castes. As the Supreme Court observed in the Sukanya Shantha case, the Constitution itself is “the greatest testament against historical injustices done against the marginalised castes.” Substantive equality requires that “the law must endeavour to correct historical injustices.”

To refuse this naming, to insist on a “neutral” definition that ignores historical directionality is to push the actual structure of caste violence into the obscene. It is to demand that the scene remain blind to what it doesn’t want to see. The petitioners’ call for an “inclusionary” definition is, from this perspective, a demand for comfort. A demand that the scene not be forced to confront the asymmetrical reality it obscures.

III. The Supreme Court: Definitional Politics on the Scene

The Supreme Court’s interim stay of the regulations on January 29, 2026, did more than halt a policy. It laid bare what’s really at stake in this battle over the scene and the obscene. The Court’s questions, its concerns, even its well-intentioned interventions, all of them reveal how difficult it is for institutions to see what they’ve trained themselves not to see.

What Troubled the Court

The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, was genuinely worried. They weren’t wrong to be, regulations with “very sweeping consequences” deserve scrutiny. After 75 years of trying to build a caste-less society, the Chief Justice observed, policy that appeared “regressive” and might “divide society” gave him pause. You can hear the sincere concern in his words: after all this time, after everything we’ve tried, are we moving backwards?

Justice Bagchi focused on Clause 3 (c). Wasn’t it redundant alongside Clause 3(e)? Shouldn’t we measure these definitions against the constitutional vision of Article 15, the promise that the state shall not discriminate against any citizen? There was also worry about ragging, which one counsel described as the most common form of discrimination on campus. Why didn’t the regulations address that?

Then came the question that revealed everything. The Chief Justice asked whether the regulations covered caste-based discrimination “by reserved categories that are better situated than other reserved groups.” When counsel confirmed there was no such protection, the Chief pressed further: “Has anybody examined this aspect?”

Why the Scene Can’t See

From where we’re sitting, with Teltumbde and Guru as our guides, this question is illuminating. Not because it’s wrong to ask, in the abstract, it’s perfectly reasonable. But because of what it reveals about how the scene sees the world?

The question assumes symmetry. It imagines a level playing field where power flows in multiple directions, where a student from a “better situated” reserved category might discriminate against someone from a “lesser situated” one. And yes, theoretically, this could happen. Caste is complicated. Graded inequality means there are hierarchies among oppressed castes too, some OBCs are better positioned than some SCs, some SCs than some STs.

But here’s the thing about forests and trees. To focus on this internal hierarchy while ignoring the fundamental asymmetry between oppressed castes as a whole and the dominant castes that have historically controlled every institution—that’s not nuance. That’s blindness. The question “what about discrimination by reserved categories” sounds sophisticated. It sounds like careful, balanced thinking. But its function is to distract, to make the scene appear complex while actually preserving its refusal to see the main structure of violence.

The Court’s concern about “dividing society” works similarly. It assumes a unity that the regulations would disrupt. But as the Feminism in India analysis put it, “Their remark that the regulations might ‘divide society’ are a stark reminder of how those in privilege view the world around them. The fractures already exist, they have been put in place to sustain those at the top of the food chain.” The regulations didn’t create division. They simply named it. And naming division, for those who benefit from not seeing it, always feels like violence.

Jaising’s Attempt

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising tried to bridge this gap. Appearing for the petitioners in the original Vemula-Tadvi case, the case that had made these regulations necessary in the first place, she argued that the Court couldn’t consider this matter in isolation. There were directions in the Abeda Salim Tadvi proceedings that had to be honoured. The regulations, she insisted, existed “to create an inclusive society.” She tried to show how Clause 3(c) and Clause 3(e) worked together, not against each other. But opposing counsel kept interrupting. The connections she tried to draw kept getting lost.

Jaising reminded the Bench that the 2012 Regulations had been repealed. If the Court stayed the new ones, there would be nothing. A vacuum. The Court heard her and used its powers under Article 142 to direct that the 2012 Regulations continue in force until further orders. A practical solution, perhaps. But also a telling one: better the old framework, however inadequate, than the new one that actually named names.

The Warning

The Chief Justice ended with a warning to the petitioners: don’t turn this “into a political issue.” The instruction itself is revealing. It positions the Court as a neutral arbiter standing above politics, while the petitioners’ mobilization, their insistence that caste violence is real and must be addressed is framed as potentially illegitimate, as dragging law into the muck of politics.

But here’s what this framing misses: the Court’s own observations were deeply political. The question about reverse discrimination. The concern for the general category. The worry about dividing society. These aren’t neutral positions. They’re the scene’s attempt to manage the boundary between what can be seen and what must remain invisible, what can be spoken and what must stay unspeakable. They’re the scene’s way of preserving existing power relations while sincerely believing it’s just being reasonable.

The scene doesn’t see itself as political. That’s its power. It experiences its own perspective as simply how any reasonable person would see things. The obscene, by contrast, is always marked, always particular, always suspect. The Court’s warning not to make it political is, from this perspective, the most political gesture of all. It’s the scene telling the obscene: stay in your place. Let us decide what counts as real.

IV. The Campus: Violence and Its Representation

The confrontation at Delhi University on February 13, 2026 and its aftermath, brought something into sharp focus that the legal arguments had kept at a distance. The campus became a stage where the obscene, the violence that usually stays in the shadows, whispered about in hostels, experienced in everyday humiliations erupted into plain sight. And then, just as quickly, the scene moved to push it back into invisibility.

What Happened at Arts Faculty

The day started as a demonstration in support of the UGC regulations, organized by the All India Forum for Equity and backed by AISA, the left-wing students’ association. But by the time it ended, the Arts Faculty had become a battleground. Members of the ABVP, the RSS-affiliated student organization, were there too. The two sides faced off, and things turned ugly.

A YouTuber who identifies as a Brahmin journalist came forward with a harrowing account. She claimed she was assaulted and subjected to rape threats by what she described as “a mob of nearly 500 people.” According to her, the crowd turned on her after asking about her caste. She recounted: “The girls around me whispered rape threats in my ears just because I am a Brahmin; ‘aaj tu chal, tera nanga parade niklega,’ is what they said.”

But that’s not the only version of events. AISA activists and another journalist on the scene offered a different picture. They said the woman had made casteist remarks, had shoved another woman to the ground, had provoked the crowd. The Delhi Police, as they often do in such situations, registered cross-FIRs at the Maurice Nagar police station. Both sides got to file complaints. Both sides got to be victims. Sections related to molestation, assault and criminal intimidation were invoked. The official record would show that something happened, but not what, or why, or who bore responsibility.

When the Obscene Surfaces

This is exactly the kind of moment Teltumbde writes about in The Persistence of Caste. In his analysis of the Khairlanji massacre, he argues that violence against Dalits in contemporary India isn’t some leftover from a premodern past. It’s a modern phenomenon, the obscene erupting into visibility when the established order faces a genuine challenge.

Think about what happened at the Arts Faculty. The rape threats, whether whispered or shouted. The casteist remarks, whoever initiated them. The physical confrontation. None of this looks like the old spectacles of sovereign power, where kings or landlords publicly punished those who transgressed. This is different. This is clandestine, community-sanctioned violence, emerging in the chaos of a protest, later revealed through competing media narratives and activist accounts. It’s an attempt to violently reassert a crumbling local hegemony to remind certain people of their place.

Teltumbde puts it plainly: “The violence against Dalits is not a relic of the past but a contemporary phenomenon, rooted in the challenge that Dalit assertion poses to the social order. When Dalits refuse to accept their subordinate position—when they own land, seek education, assert their rights—the dominant castes respond with violence to restore the ‘common sense’ of hierarchy.”

This is what the UGC regulations represented: a challenge to the campus’s caste order. And the violence at Arts Faculty regardless of which account you believe, regardless of who struck first was the obscene striking back. It was an attempt to restore common sense, to remind everyone that some things don’t change.

The Ban

Four days later, on February 17, Delhi University imposed a month-long ban on all public meetings, processions and demonstrations. The official reason cited “information received indicating that unrestricted public gatherings… may lead to obstruction of traffic, threats to human life, and disturbance of public peace.” The order prohibited assemblies of five or more people, the shouting of slogans and the carrying of hazardous materials.

The vice-chancellor made a public appeal. He urged teachers and students to “maintain trust in the judicial process.” He emphasised that “social harmony is the greatest thing.”

On the surface, this is reasonable. After violence, a cooling-off period. After confrontation, a return to order. The university administration performs its proper role: neutral arbiter, guardian of peace, defender of harmony.

But as Mithuraj Dhusiya, an associate professor at Hansraj College, pointed out, the ban may be using “traffic concerns as a pretext to curb mobilisations over issues such as appointments… and the recent suspensions of teachers.” In other words, the official scene of administrative order becomes a mechanism for silencing the obscene eruption into visibility. Don’t protest. Don’t gather. Don’t shout. Trust the process. Have faith in the institutions.

The Double Stage

What the campus revealed in these weeks was its nature as a double stage. On the visible scene, everything is proper. The university issues statements. The police file cross-complaints. The vice-chancellor appeals for harmony. The ban is justified by traffic concerns and public safety. The official discourse is one of neutrality, balance, procedural correctness.

But beneath this scene, operating in the shadows, is the obscene of caste violence and its contestation. The whispered rape threats. The casteist remarks shouted in the heat of confrontation. The student organizations mobilizing along caste lines. The informal networks through which ABVP coordinates its response. The everyday humiliations that never make it into police reports. All of this operates off-stage, invisible to the official record, yet determining everything that happens on it.

The university, like the state more broadly, manages the boundary between scene and obscene. It decides what becomes visible and what remains hidden. It frames some things as political and therefore suspect, other things as administrative and therefore neutral. It preserves existing power relations while sincerely believing it’s just keeping the peace.

The obscene erupted at Arts Faculty on February 13. For a moment, it was visible. Then the scene moved quickly to push it back into invisibility. The ban. The appeal for harmony. The trust in the judicial process. All the familiar mechanisms for managing the boundary, for ensuring that what must not be seen stays unseen.

V. The State: Schizophrenia Institutionalized

The ruling BJP’s response to the controversy reveals something deeper than political calculation, though calculation is certainly part of it. What we see is the Indian state caught in a contradiction it cannot resolve, speaking out of both sides of its mouth because it is itself split down the middle. Anand Teltumbde has spent years analysing this condition, and his framework helps us understand what’s really going on.

The State’s Caste Character

In Republic of Caste: Thinking Equality in the Time of Neoliberal Hindutva (2018), Teltumbde makes an argument that should be obvious but somehow still needs saying. The Indian state is not some neutral arbiter floating above society, untouched by caste. It is itself constituted by caste relations. Its institutions, its personnel, its everyday practices all are shaped by the caste order. This is why the state can simultaneously enact progressive laws and fail to implement them. This is why it can speak the language of equality while quietly reproducing hierarchy.

The UGC controversy is a perfect illustration. Through the University Grants Commission, the state produced genuinely progressive regulations aimed at protecting Dalit, Tribal, and OBC students from the violence they face on campus. This was the state acting in its constitutional identity, the identity that promises substantive equality, that acknowledges historical injustice, that tries to make things right.

But then the Supreme Court stayed those regulations and the political leadership welcomed the stay. The same state that created the protections now celebrated their suspension. Two voices, coming from the same body. This is not hypocrisy in the simple sense. This is a deeper split—between what the state formally commits to and what it actually is.

The Forward-Backward Dilemma

The Indian Express captured this dilemma well in its reporting. The BJP, over the last decade, has worked hard to expand its base beyond the upper castes that traditionally supported it. Since the 1990s, upper-caste communities in northern, western and central India have preferred the BJP, while OBCs, SCs, and STs tended toward Congress or regional parties. But under Narendra Modi, the party has made serious inroads into these communities, through higher representation in candidate lists and ministerial positions, through appointing Dalits and Tribals to top constitutional posts like President and Vice-President, through linking Hindutva issues to caste optics.

As Seshadri Chari, former editor of the RSS-linked magazine The Organiser, put it: “The BJP’s Ram Temple, Article 370 and other issues were basically an expression of cultural nationalism… However, the Opposition continued to come out with strategies to counter it. The Congress has recently decided to counter the BJP’s Hindutva cultural nationalism by playing on the caste fault line. The BJP has answered this by putting its core agendas within a caste framework.”

This is the context in which the UGC regulations landed. They put the government in a genuine quandary. An ABVP insider noted that even some pro-Hindutva influencers—like author Anand Ranganathan—have been critical of the BJP on this count. “The Congress’s criticism does not matter that much,” the insider said, “but such voices are taken seriously by common middle-class supporters of the BJP and the Sangh.”

The dilemma is real. If the government supports the regulations, it risks alienating the upper-caste base that still forms the core of its support. If it opposes them, it undermines its carefully cultivated image as a party that cares about OBC and Dalit interests. There is no clean solution, only management of the contradiction.

Two Voices, One State

Watch how the state speaks in this controversy. Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan offered what was described as a “blanket assurance”, the regulations would not be misused, and no one would face harassment. This is the constitutional voice, affirming protection, promising fairness, addressing the scene.

But simultaneously, the government welcomed the Supreme Court stay that suspended the regulations. The ABVP national organizing secretary, Ashish Chauhan, explained that the organization had welcomed the stay because “some words were unclear,” adding that “the groups to be protected need protection” while “other groups should not fear any misuse.”

This is the political voice, addressing the obscene. It acknowledges the anxieties simmering among the upper-caste base. It reassures them that their fears are heard. It frames the stay not as a defeat for equality but as a clarification, a fine-tuning, a protection against misuse.

Two voices, speaking from the same state, to different audiences, about the same regulations. They cannot be reconciled because the state itself cannot be reconciled, split between its constitutional identity and its actual embeddedness in caste society. This is what Teltumbde means when he says the state is not above caste but constituted by it. It cannot simply decide to be neutral. It speaks out of both sides of its mouth because it has two mouths.

The Ambedkar Parallel

Outlook India drew a parallel that’s worth sitting with. When B.R. Ambedkar proposed the Hindu Code Bill in parliament, he faced “aggressive resistance” that reflected, in the magazine’s words, “an attempt to preserve a conservative social order rather than uphold constitutional values.” When Jawaharlal Nehru eventually withdrew the bill, the mouthpiece of the Arya Mahila Hitkarini Mahaparishad celebrated it as the “victory of divine forces over demonic forces.”

Then as now, reforms aimed at addressing structural inequality were framed as attacks on tradition. Then as now, they were called divisive, threatening to social harmony. Then as now, the state retreated in the face of upper-caste mobilization.

The parallel is instructive because it shows how little has changed. The specific issues are different—the Hindu Code Bill addressed women’s rights within family law, the UGC regulations address caste discrimination in higher education. But the underlying dynamic is the same. The constitutional promise of equality collides with the social reality of hierarchy. And when that collision happens, the state, constituted as it is by that hierarchy finds ways to manage the collision without resolving it.

Nehru withdrew the bill. The Supreme Court stayed the regulations. Different times, different institutions, same outcome. The state speaks its two voices, and the obscene continues its work, mostly unseen.

VI. Dalit Counter-Mobilisation: Forcing the Obscene into Visibility

Against all of this, the Court’s blindness, the state’s split voice, the violence on campus, the ban on protest, Dalit students, activists and their allies keep organising. They keep forcing the obscene into visibility. This is not just activism. It is, in Guru’s terms, theorizing from below. In Teltumbde’s, it is counter-hegemonic assertion.

Guru: Knowledge from the Obscene

In The Cracked Mirror, Guru makes a claim that cuts deep. Dalit experience is not raw material waiting to be processed by upper-caste theorists into proper knowledge. It is itself a site of knowledge production. The people who have been pushed into the obscene see things that the people on the scene cannot. Not because they’re smarter, but because of where they stand.

“The experience of humiliation is not just an object of analysis but a source of critical insight,” Guru writes. “Those who have been pushed into the obscene have a perspective on the scene that those who occupy it cannot access. Theorizing from the obscene is not a supplement to mainstream theory but a challenge to its very foundations.”

Think about what this means. The mothers’ petition. The Dalit student protests. The work of scholars like Anil Chamadia. These are not just people demanding things. They are producing knowledge. They are refusing to let Dalit experience be dismissed as anecdotal, as merely personal, as insufficiently theoretical. They are insisting that the scene confront what it has worked so hard to exclude.

The Mothers who wouldn’t disappear

The UGC regulations exist because of this struggle. They exist because Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi, mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, filed a joint petition in the Supreme Court. They didn’t have to do that. They could have grieved privately, quietly, the way the scene prefers. Instead, they dragged the reality of campus discrimination into the national eyes cape.

Their lawyers submitted a number: 115 students took their own lives between 2004 and 2024. Many of them Dalit. The UGC itself filed an affidavit in October 2023 admitting that caste discrimination against Dalit students was not some “unfounded presumption” but an actual, documented reality.

The mothers’ petition made visible what the obscene had rendered invisible. The suicides. The daily humiliations. The institutional failures that everyone knew about but no one named. The regulations were the state’s response, inadequate, contested, and now stayed, but a response nonetheless. Forced visibility produces results, even if those results are then rolled back.

Refusing to Disappear Again

The Supreme Court stayed the regulations. DU banned protests. The scene did what it always does: tried to push the obscene back into invisibility. But organizations like AISA keep mobilizing. Students keep protesting. They refuse to let the obscene return to comfortable darkness.

Feminism in India put it plainly: “The decision to halt the regulations is just another attempt at denying basic dignity to Dalits and keeping the caste system in place.” The counter-protests are an answer to this. They say: we saw what you tried to hide. We’re not going to un-see it just because you’re uncomfortable.

Teltumbde: Why Mobilisation Matters

Teltumbde, writing about the protests after the Khairlanji massacre, captures what’s at stake in this kind of mobilization. He says the protests weren’t really about getting justice for one family, though that mattered too. They were about something bigger: forcing the state and society to confront the reality of caste violence that the official scene works so hard to deny. They were an attempt to shatter the hegemony of denial, to make the obscene visible.

The same is true here. The mobilizations around the UGC regulations are not just about supporting a particular policy. They’re about the fundamental question of whether caste will be permitted to continue its hidden work, or whether it will be forced into visibility and thereby into contestation.

What the Numbers Mean

Anil Chamadia pointed to something striking: reported discrimination cases went up by 118.4%. The scene might look at this and see a problem, too many complaints, too much disruption. But Chamadia sees it differently. The increase, he says, is “directly linked to growing awareness among marginalised students.”

When Dalit students enter universities in larger numbers. When they refuse to accept humiliation silently. When they organise and protest and demand accountability. The obscene gets forced into visibility. The numbers go up. And then the backlash comes, the violence, the protests bans, and the Supreme Court stays. This is the dynamic Teltumbde describes. Dalit assertion provokes upper-caste violence, which provokes further Dalit mobilization. The boundary between scene and obscene becomes a site of continuous struggle.

The Intellectual Work

None of this happens in a vacuum. The “growing awareness” Chamadia talks about is produced, in part, by the intellectual work of scholars like Guru and Teltumbde themselves. They have given language to experiences that were previously suffered in silence. They have provided theoretical frameworks, like the scene/obscene dialectic that help people understand their situation and act upon it.

This is what Guru means by theorising from the obscene. Not just describing oppression. Producing the conceptual tools for overcoming it. Dalit students now have a vocabulary for naming what they experience. They have legal categories, “caste discrimination,” “hostile environment,” “institutional failure” that were forged through decades of struggle. They have frameworks that help them see that their individual humiliation is not just personal bad luck but structural violence.

The UGC controversy is, in part, a testament to the success of this intellectual project. The backlash is real, the violence is real, the stay is real. But so is the visibility. So is the mobilisation. So is the refusal to disappear.

The obscene keeps erupting. The scene keeps trying to push it back. That struggle—unequal, ongoing, with no guaranteed outcome—is where we are.

VII. Theoretical Synthesis: The Controversy as Exemplar of Caste’s Schizophrenic Modernity

The UGC controversy illustrates every dimension of our theoretical framework, now enriched by the insights of Teltumbde and Guru:

The controversy reveals that caste’s modernity is not defined by its disappearance but by its strategic disaggregation. Power flows by maintaining the split between a disavowing public scene and a vibrant private obscene. The UGC regulations attempted to extend the scene’s reach into the obscene, to make the state’s power felt in the intimate spaces where caste actually lives. The backlash was the obscene defending itself, refusing to be illuminated.

The Supreme Court’s intervention, staying the regulations, questioning their definitional logic suspended the outcome. But the dialectic continues. Every protest, every counter-protest, every legal argument, every editorial, is a skirmish on the boundary between scene and obscene. And as our framework teaches us, that boundary is where power does its most important work.

Conclusion: The Dialectic’s Latest Act

The UGC controversy is not an isolated policy dispute. It never was. It is the latest act in the long drama of caste’s schizophrenic modernity—the permanent, unresolved tension between a constitutional scene that promises equality and a social obscene that quietly, persistently reproduces hierarchy.

The regulations did not emerge from nowhere. They came from a specific genealogy of struggle. The mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who could have grieved in private and instead filed a joint petition in the Supreme Court. The 115 student suicides between 2004 and 2024, many of them Dalit, each one a story the scene preferred not to see. The 118 percent increase in reported discrimination, which the scene reads as disruption but which really measures growing awareness, growing refusal to suffer in silence. The regulations were an attempt to create mechanisms that would penetrate the obscene, that would make visible what the scene had rendered invisible. They were an attempt—flawed, contested, but genuine—to fulfil the constitutional promise of substantive equality.

The backlash revealed the power of the obscene. It was not organized in any formal sense, not announced in advance, not easy to document. That is precisely its strength. Upper-caste students mobilized through informal networks, through what Teltumbde calls “social capital”, the connections that operate off-stage, invisible to the official record. They framed themselves as victims, as the truly vulnerable ones. And they succeeded. They convinced the Supreme Court that regulations designed to protect Dalit students actually threatened “social harmony.” The narrative of false complaints, of reverse discrimination, of the general category as the real victim—this is the hegemony of denial operating at full capacity. This is what Teltumbde means by “camouflaged” caste, what Guru analyses as the scene’s epistemic violence. It does not need to defend hierarchy openly. It only needs to make hierarchy invisible, to make the structures that produce vulnerability disappear, to make the vulnerable look like the powerful.

The state, caught between its constitutional obligations and its political base, did what it always does in such moments. It spoke with two voices. One voice assured the constitutional audience that protections would remain, that no one would be harassed. The other voice, quieter but more decisive, welcomed the judicial stay that rescued the government from its dilemma. Two voices, same state. The schizophrenia is not a bug; it is the feature.

The campus revealed itself as a double stage. On the visible scene, the university administration performed neutrality, issuing statements, filing cross-FIRs, appealing for harmony, banning protests in the name of traffic. Beneath this scene, the obscene did its work: the confrontation at Arts Faculty, the whispered rape threats, the casteist remarks, the informal mobilization along caste lines. And when the obscene erupted into visibility on February 13, the scene moved quickly to push it back. The protest ban was not about traffic. It was about management. It was about re-establishing the boundary.

And throughout, Dalit students, activists, and intellectuals continued the work of forcing the obscene into visibility. They organized, protested, theorised and refused to let the moment pass. This is what Guru calls “theorizing from the obscene”, not supplementing mainstream theory but challenging its foundations. This is what Teltumbde analyses as counter-hegemonic assertion and not just demanding inclusion but shattering the terms of exclusion. It is the work of breaking the double stage.

The Supreme Court will hear the matter again in March 2026. Whatever it decides, the controversy has already revealed something fundamental about the architecture of caste power in contemporary India. It has shown that the boundary between “scene” and “obscene” is not natural. It is political. It is constantly contested, constantly renegotiated. It has shown that the struggle for caste equality is, at its heart, a struggle over visibility. Over what can be seen, what can be spoken, what can be named. Over who gets to define reality.

As long as the schism persists, as long as the official scene disavows what the social obscene reproduces, caste will endure in its schizophrenic modern form. It will adapt, mutate, camouflage itself. It will learn new languages, wear new clothes, inhabit new institutions. But its very adaptability is also its vulnerability. Each time it is forced into visibility, each time the obscene is dragged into the scene, the possibility of transformation opens. Each eruption is also an opportunity.

The project of annihilation, as Ambedkar envisioned it, requires nothing less than the demolition of the double stage. Not just reforming the scene. Not just documenting the obscene. But destroying the architecture that keeps them separate. The UGC controversy is one battle in that long war. Not the first, not the last. But a battle nonetheless.

Teltumbde writes that “caste’s genius lies in its plasticity.” He is right. But plasticity cuts both ways. What can adapt can also be broken. What can mutate can also be killed. Each moment of forced visibility is a wound. The question is whether enough wounds can be inflicted, enough times, in enough places, to bring the whole structure down?

Guru teaches us that this struggle must be waged not only on the streets and in the courts but in the realm of theory itself. Theorising from the obscene, centering Dalit experience, refusing the scene’s abstractions, insisting on the specificity of caste violence is not a supplement to political work. It is political work. It is the work of producing the conceptual tools that make visible what the scene works so hard to hide. This article has attempted to contribute to that project, using the tools of Foucault and Gramsci while remaining grounded in the intellectual traditions of Dalit Studies. The scene/obscene dialectic, enriched by Teltumbde’s analysis of camouflage and Guru’s insistence on theorizing from below, offers a framework for understanding not only this controversy but the broader condition of caste in contemporary India.

The double stage still stands. Its foundations hold, for now. But they are cracking. Every protest, every petition, every act of theorising from below is another crack. The question is not whether the structure will fall—all structures fall, eventually. The question is whether we will be the ones to bring it down, and what we will build in its place.

(The author teaches history at Shivaji College, University of Delhi. He can be reached at skandpriya@shivaji.du.ac.in)

References

Chamadia, Anil. Interview with University World News, 2026.

Feminism in India. “What The 2026 UGC Regulations Revealed About Caste, Merit and Savarna Victimhood.” February 9, 2026.

Guru, Gopal, and Sundar Sarukkai. The Cracked Mirror: An Indian Debate on Experience and Theory. Oxford University Press, 2012.

The Hindu. “As SC stays UGC equity rules, protection to marginalised castes came from a Constitutional promise to end ‘historical oppression’.” January 30, 2026.

Hindustan Times. “Protests, counter-FIRs, now a ban at DU: Campus on the boil over UGC rules against caste discrimination | Explained.” February 16, 2026.

India Today. “Travesty of UGC Campus Rules 2026: They turn a protective shield into a deadly sword.” January 29, 2026.

The Indian Express. “As UGC row simmers, why BJP dilemma over ‘forward vs backward’ has deepened.” February 18, 2026.

Outlook India. “The Socio-Cultural Debate Over the UGC’s Equity Regulations.” February 16, 2026.

Supreme Court Observer. “Supreme Court stays 2026 UGC equity regulations.” January 29, 2026.

Teltumbde, Anand. The Persistence of Caste: The Khairlanji Murders and India’s Hidden Apartheid. Zed Books, 2010.

Teltumbde, Anand. Dalits: Past, Present and Future. Routledge, 2016.

Teltumbde, Anand. Republic of Caste: Thinking Equality in the Time of Neoliberal Hindutva. Navayana, 2018.

Thorat Committee Report on AIIMS Discrimination, 2007.

University World News. “New rules aim to tackle campus-based caste discrimination.” January 20, 2026.

University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. The Gazette of India.

Zee News. “Delhi University enforces 30-day curbs on protests after UGC unrest.” February 17, 2026.

Related:

The Double Stage: Caste’s Schizophrenic Modernity between Spectacle and Shadow

The Elephant in the Mud: Crisis of Identity Politics and BSP

UGC Guidelines 2026: AISA Protest at Delhi University followed by sexual abuse allegations amid police presence

The post The Double Stage on Campus: Caste, crisis & UGC equity regulations (2026) controversy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dhananjay, one of the complainants is a former president of the JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU) and the first Dalit student to be elected to the post in nearly two decades in 2024 has filed a detailed complaint with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) on the issue. The second complaint was filed by Suraj Kumar Baudh, founder of Mission Ambedkar, a forum working on spreading B R Ambedkar’s teachings.

This casteist statement by the Vice Chancellor of JNU—even otherwise a controversial person—has led to widespread protests by all students of this iconic university but especially Dalit Bahujan students. Slogans like “Ambedkarwaali Azaadi” have echoed all over the campus.

JNU की VC ने दलितों और Blacks के “victimhood” जैसे नीचे स्तर की बात की, साथ ही साथ UGC रेगुलेशन के ख़िलाफ़ माहौल बनाया।

“अंबेडकर वाली आज़ादी” के नारों के साथ अब पूरा कैंपस VC के इस्तीफ़े की माँग कर रहा है।

ऐसे VC के रहते कैसे कोई बहुजन छात्र विश्विद्यालय में सुरक्षित महसूस… pic.twitter.com/m1iCEwrRjw

— Priyanka Bharti (@priyanka2bharti) February 23, 2026

Thousands marching in JNU chanting Ambedkar’s name against a VC who dismisses lived caste oppression as “Drug addiction”
This is not leadership — this is Manu-smriti in VC robes.
Remove her!
#Sack_Castiest_JNU_VC
pic.twitter.com/TTR7tcHoG4

— Ravi Ratan (@scribe_it) February 23, 2026

The current union of students, JNUSU has also protested the remarks.

In the detailed complaint, while seeking Pandit’s removal as the V-C in his complaint submitted to the NCSC chairperson on Tuesday, Dhananjay – a PhD scholar at JNU – accused the V-C of making statements that “prima facie promote feelings of hatred and ill-will against the people belonging to the Dalit and other marginalised communities,” and sought action under Section 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Dhananjay has argued that the comments – coming from the head of a Central university – had created a “serious detrimental impact” on Dalit students and had “clearly given rise to feelings of hatred and ill-will against students belonging from Dalit and other marginalised communities”.

“The conduct of Santishree D Pandit, being a person holding a responsible academic office, is criminal and reprehensible,” the complaint said, adding that educational institutions “ought to be sanctuaries of inclusivity, enlightenment, and constitutional morality”. Instead, it alleged, her statements had “sown division and inflicted emotional distress upon students and members of the Dalit and marginalised community”.

The detailed complaint may be read here. Dhananjay, in his complaint has also pointed out to the deleterious impact of such statements by the V-C PAndit. The complaint states that, “there have been incidents of harassment on students belonging from the Dalit and marginalised communities. Furthermore, the general atmosphere against the students and people belonging from the Dalit and marginalised communities has become hostile.”

Dhananjay the former President of JNUSU in 2023-24 and a PHD scholar in Arts & Aesthetics has also argued in his complaint that, “the Courts of our country have repeatedly emphasised, that Public Authorities should exercise caution in their speeches and public statement. Needless to mention, Ms. Santishree D. Pandit, has failed to adhere to such directives of the Hon’ble Court. Moreover, as the Vice Chancellor of an university, it was the duty of Ms. Santishree D.Pandit, to ensure a safe and peaceful environment for the students of her university. However, by making the said statement, she has clearly failed to discharge the said duties. It bears mention, that as a result of her statement, students are apprehending threat to their safety and security and are living under an atmosphere of mental agony.”

Besides, the complaint states that the said statement also amounts to hate speech, as they humiliate, incite prejudice and social hostility against a historically marginalised community. The statement promotes feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will on the basis of caste. Such speech insults the historical struggles faced by the said marginalised community, undermines social harmony and perpetuates systemic discrimination, which the Constitution of India and special legislations such as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act seek to eradicate.

Reliance was placed in Dhananjay’s complaint upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter titled as Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (Crl.) No.466 of 2025]. Relevant portion of the said order is being given here under:-

“While we are not entertaining the present writ petition, we make it clear that any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand. Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, 5 and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness, which is a must for a multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality. Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly.”

In conclusion the young student leader states that “the conduct of Ms.Santishree D. Pandit, being a person holding a responsible academic office, is criminal and reprehensible. Educational institutions ought to be sanctuaries of inclusivity, enlightenment, and constitutional morality. Instead, her statements have sown division and inflicted emotional distress upon students and members of the Dalit and marginalised communities. It also bears mention, that till date Vice Chancelor has not issued any statement of apology. This simply bolsters the fact, that the statement given by the Vice Chancellor was a well thought statement, which has been given to create discrimination and to promote feeling of hatred and ill will against the people belonging from Dalit and other marginalised community.”

The complaint invokes sections 196 and 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, that are sections related to words and actions that promote feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will on the basis of caste.”

It is under Article 338 of the Constitution that prescribes that it shall be the duty of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes under this Constitution, or under any other law for the time being in force, or under any order of the Government, and to evaluate the working of such safeguards that the complaint has been filed.

Investigation and further action against the Vice Chancellor in accordance with the law and Constitution has been sought. The complaint also urges that “appropriate authorities to register a case under the relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, including Section 3(1)(u) and recommend stern disciplinary and legal action, including the immediate removal of the said Vice Chancellor from her position, so as to uphold justice and deter such conduct in future.

The second complaint filed by Baudh also raised similar concerns, accusing Pandit of making “demeaning and dismissive” remarks. That complaint said Pandit’s statements suggested that efforts to address caste inequities were merely claims of “victimhood” rather than “legitimate claims for equality, dignity, and constitutional safeguards”.

Baudh has requested NCSC to “take cognizance of the matter and examine whether the remarks promote prejudice, incite hostility or constitute contempt or disrespect towards scheduled caste communities” and “issue a notice seeking detailed explanation from the V-C”.

Earlier, responding to the controversy earlier, Pandit had told PTI that her remarks had been taken out of context. “I am a Bahujan myself, I come from an OBC background,” she had said, adding that she was referring to what she described as “woke” interpretations of history and the creation of “imaginary worlds” around permanent victimhood.

On UGC’s equity regulations, which were stayed by the Supreme Court last month, Pandit had said during the podcast interview that they had been introduced without adequate consultation. “It was done secretly. Many of us who are part of the system didn’t even know what was in it,” she said, calling the regulations unnecessary and constitutionally flawed.

She had also defended the JNU administration’s decision to rusticate five student leaders for allegedly vandalising surveillance equipment at the Ambedkar Library. “They destroyed this property, literally broke it down, sat on top of it, took pictures and they themselves put it on social media as though they have done something great,” she said, adding that the students had been charged under what she described as a “very strong Act,” apparently referring to the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The administration, she had said, had shown restraint by debarring the students for two semesters and imposing a fine of Rs 20,000. “It is taxpayers’ money. I am answerable as a Vice-Chancellor to the government, to Parliament, and to the people of India,” she had added.

On Monday, JNUSU leaders were booked on charges, including rioting and criminal conspiracy, after the university filed a complaint with the police in connection to the student protests on Sunday night against Pandit.

Related:

An open letter to the JNU VC: Your association with RSS defies humanism, anti-colonial struggle for Indian democracy!

Will focus on ‘Indo-centric narratives’, implementing NEP: New JNU VC 

UGC Guidelines 2026: AISA Protest at Delhi University followed by sexual abuse allegations amid police presence

The post JNU: Former JNUSU President complains against Vice Chancellor’s casteist & racist remarks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Uttarakhand has been, since 2022, the seat of such acts of vigilantism unchecked. Deepak did not allow his city to be overcome by the act of hate-filled bullies. He spoke up, intervened even at the risk of FIRs being filed against him and the membership of his gym (charmingly named The Hulk Zym) plummeting to 15 from 150. Eager peace loving netizens and citizens chipped in with support (including some Supreme Court lawyers), purchasing memberships so Kumar could offer free access to others. They all enrolled for the annual membership of Rs 10,000 cocking a snook at the hate-filled motivators in Kotdwar.

Now he is set to do more. Over the last weekend, the Kotdwar-based gym owner Deepak Kumar, or “Mohammad Deepak”, as he has come to be known, and his friend Vijay Rawat have announced that they will –very soon–jointly undertake an ‘Insaniyat Jodo Yatra‘ (Unite Humanity March) to spread the message of love and brotherhood against what they describe as rising hatred in the country.  “Instead of talking about important issues like development, education and unemployment, people are increasingly indulging in communal matters, which are destroying harmony and brotherhood in the country. During our yatra, we will travel across the country, meet people, and urge them to stay united and fight hatred,” Kumar told the media including The Times of India.

Deepak clarified that the yatra would have no political affiliation. “However, we will welcome anyone who wants to join us, irrespective of religion, caste, creed or political allegiance. It will be about coming together for the betterment of the country,” he added. Both Deepak and Rawat have also said that they had begun preparations and were inviting public suggestions. “We uploaded a video on social media on Friday and have received encouraging responses so far. We will soon finalise the route and funding details, and will most likely begin the yatra after the ongoing board exams and Ramadan,” Rawat said.

The duo also said they were aware of the risks involved. Rawat said they had earlier received threats from various organisations after supporting the shopkeeper but remained undeterred. “We were never afraid because we knew we had done nothing wrong. This initiative is for humanity and to promote brotherhood among all,” he said. Both he and his friend are facing charges under BNS sections 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 352 (intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace), and 191(1) (unlawful assembly), after Bajrang Dal member Kamal Pal filed a complaint alleging they assaulted members of the group during what he described as a public outreach event.

SabrangIndia, had on February 26, had reported how everyday defiance was –periodically at least–reshaping public discourse, hitherto driven by hate, in India. This may be read here.

Related:

Against the Script of Hate: How ordinary citizens are reclaiming public space

Mohammad Deepak: Upholding fraternity amidst a sea of hate

How defending a 70-year-old Muslim shopkeeper triggered FIRs, highway blockades, and a law-and-order crisis in Uttarakhand

The post Making Waves: After inspiring swathes of peacemakers all over India, ‘Mohammed’ Deepak and his friend will launch a nationwide ‘Insaniyat Jodo Yatra’ to fight hatred appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The paper has been published by the by the non-profit National Bureau of Economic Research based in Massachusetts. The authors of the paper – Sam Asher, Kritarth Jha, Anjali Adukia, Paul Novosad and Brandon Tan – have observed that while the data analysed in the study dates back to 2011-13, the “neighbourhood patterns described in the paper are likely to be persistent and have emerged over decades of migration and policy.”

According to the observations and findings in this paper, 26% of India’s Muslims live in neighbourhoods that are more than 80% Muslim, while 17% of SCs live in neighbourhoods that are more than 80% SC. Scheduled Caste segregation in cities is just as high as it is in rural areas, and it is even higher for Muslims, the data shows.

The paper also found that government services – like secondary schools, clinics and hospitals, electricity, water, and sewerage – were all “systematically worse” in marginalised neighbourhoods as compared to other localities in the same cities. The paper said that such differences in service access were “statistically significant and substantial”.

Besides, the study has found that children from such segregated neighbourhoods are likely to fare worse than those from non-marginalised localities. “A child growing up in a 100% Muslim neighbourhood can expect to obtain two fewer years of education than a child growing up in a 0% Muslim neighbourhood. Kids living in SC neighbourhoods face a penalty only slightly smaller. The neighbourhood effect explains about half of the urban educational disadvantage of SC and Muslim children,” the paper said.

Related:

Gujarat’s Disturbed Areas Act: Largest Muslim Ghetto Glaring Contrast to Hindu Settlement

The ‘Harijans’ of Bangladesh: Victims of constitutional neglect and social isolation

Gujarat Polls: Juhapura, The Largest Muslim Ghetto In Gujarat, Is A Picture Of Deliberate Neglect

The post SCs, Muslims both live in highly segregated neighbourhoods with poorer public services: International Study appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Throughout the year, CJP successfully challenged problematic impugned broadcasts of several leading news channels—including Zee News, India TV, Aaj Tak, ABP News, NDTV, and Times Now Navbharat—for airing content that relied on presumptive narratives, unverified claims, and polarising themes. These interventions led to landmark decisions where the regulator (NBDSA) ordered the removal of offensive content, issued formal warnings, and released advisories to broadcasters regarding the sensitive framing of religious and communal issues.

A notable shift in 2025 was CJP’s focus on the “war-like” rhetoric and inflammatory tickers used during coverage of sensitive geopolitical events, such as the reported India-Pakistan tensions, and domestic flashpoints. By documenting these violations in real-time, CJP not only secured apologies and content deletions but also pushed for a more robust accountability framework.

The following CJP’s 2025 NBDSA Interventions Tracker provides a detailed, channel-wise breakdown of the complaints filed by CJP and the subsequent decisions rendered by the NBDSA to uphold broadcasting standards.

CJP’s 2025 NBDSA Interventions Tracker

CJP’s 2025 NBDSA interventions: a year of ensuring accountability in media reporting

1.  Landmark decisions delivered in 2025

The year began with a series of significant decisions from the NBDSA on complaints CJP had filed regarding broadcasts that sought to communalise sensitive domestic and international issues.

• Zee News: the “Budaun Encounter” case

On January 27, 2025, the NBDSA delivered a pivotal order regarding a broadcast aired on March 20, 2024. The show, titled “Debate on Budaun encounter LIVE: Encounter पर क्यों उठा रहे सवाल?” focused on a tragic criminal incident involving two brothers.

• Fact of the complaint: CJP argued that the anchor, Pradeep Bhandari, repeatedly used the term “Talibani-style murder” and framed the entire debate around the religious identity of the accused. The show suggested a broader conspiracy rooted in religion rather than treating the incident as an individual criminal act.
• The NBDSA decision: The Authority ruled that the broadcast violated the Guidelines to Prevent Communal Colour in Reporting Crime. The NBDSA noted that linking a crime to a specific religion or using extremist terminology like “Talibani” without evidence was inflammatory.
• Action taken: A formal warning was issued to Zee News on January 27, 2025. The channel was ordered to remove the video from all platforms within 7 days and ensure the order was disseminated to all member broadcasters as a corrective measure.

• Times Now Navbharat: communalising the Israel-Hamas conflict

Also on January 27, 2025, the NBDSA ruled on two segments from October 16, 2023 on theme “Modi के खिलाफ… क्यों खडे ‘हमास’ के साथ?” and “Rashtravad: हिंदुस्तान में ‘Hamas Think tank’ कौन बना रहा है?”

• Fact of the complaint: CJP stated that how the anchors, Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav, portrayed Indian Muslims and opposition leaders supporting the Palestinian cause as “Hamas sympathisers.” The broadcast used leading questions to suggest that religious ties in India were fueling support for global terrorism.
• The NBDSA decision: The regulator found that the broadcaster had exceeded its limits by targeting a particular community. The NBDSA observed that the debates conflated political support for Palestine with support for a banned entity (Hamas), thereby creating prejudice.
• Action taken: The NBDSA issued a formal warning for violating neutrality and ordered the immediate removal of the content within 7 days.

Times Now Navbharat: addressing communal tones in cultural debates

• Facts of the complaint: On September 9, 2024, CJP filed a complaint against the show “Desh Ka Mood Meter: सनातन संस्कृति…कट्टरपंथियों के लिए सॉफ्ट टारगेट?” which aired on September 2, 2024. The program was flagged for its inflammatory framing of issues related to Sanatan culture and its portrayal of certain groups as “extremists” targeting religious sentiments. CJP argued that the broadcast lacked objectivity and used a sensitive cultural subject to build a polarising narrative.
• NBDSA Action: Regarding this intervention, the NBDSA delivered its decision on December 3, 2025, directing the broadcaster to remove the content from its website, YouTube channel, and all other digital links within 7 days.

Times Now Navbharat: caution against presumptive Madrasa narratives

• Moreover, CJP intervened on August 26, 2024, concerning two segments aired on August 19, 2024: “Sankalp Rashtra Nirman Ka: कराची का लिटरेचर..भारत के मदरसों में क्या कर रहा?” and “Rashtravad: भारत का मदरसा…पाकिस्तान का सिलेबस?”. The complaints cantered on the unverified nature of the claims that literature from Karachi was being taught in Indian Madrasas, which CJP argued contributed to the stigmatisation of religious educational institutions.

• NBDSA decision/action: In its decision dated June 9, 2025, the NBDSA decided to close the complaint but concluded with a strong advisory observation. The Authority emphasised that anchors must be significantly more cautious when framing programs involving religious or communal issues, particularly when claims are unverified. Furthermore, the NBDSA warned that broadcasters should strictly avoid presumptive narratives that have the potential to foster feelings of hatred or ill-will toward any community.

C.)  India TV: the Bahraich violence reporting

On September 25, 2025, a decision was reached regarding the show “Coffee Par Kurukshetra: यूपी में पत्थरबाजों की फौज कहां से आई? UP Bahraich Violence | CM Yogi” (aired October 15, 2024), which covered communal violence in Bahraich, UP.

• Fact of the complaint: CJP pointed out in its complaint that the channel used the inflammatory headline “Army of stone-pelters” and conducted a one-sided debate that demonised a specific community as “outsiders” and “aggressors” without providing space for a neutral or dissenting view.
• The NBDSA decision: The Authority found that the channel failed to maintain objectivity. It ruled that the broadcast was likely to incite communal hatred and was not a balanced representation of the facts on the ground.
• Action taken: The NBDSA ordered the removal of the broadcast from the channel’s website and YouTube within 7 days.

1.  CJP’s 2025 NBDSA interventions

• Network 18 (News18 MP Chhattisgarh)

Complaint Date: May 14, 2025

Theme of the show: “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal | India Pak War,” dated May 7, 2025.

• Facts of the complaint: On May 14, 2025, CJP moved a formal complaint against News18 MP Chhattisgarh regarding its May 7, 2025, broadcast titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal.” The complaint alleges that the channel grossly misreported the death of Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal, a respected religious scholar and teacher from Poonch, Jammu and Kashmir, by labeling him a “most-wanted terrorist” and “top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander” killed in a purported airstrike.

• However, official statements from the Poonch Police and independent fact-checkers confirmed that Iqbal was a civilian who died due to cross-border shelling and had no links to militancy. This broadcast constitutes a severe breach of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics, specifically the principles of accuracy, impartiality, objectivity, and the right to privacy.

• CJP demanded an immediate on-air corrigendum, a formal unconditional apology to the deceased’s family, and the permanent removal of the defamatory content from all digital platforms to redress the significant moral and journalistic failure. 

• Action Taken: Response was received from the channel, video removed and apology rendered by the channel.

• ABP News

Complaint Date: 15.05.2025

Title/Theme of the show: “India Pakistan War Update: श्रीनगर और लुधियाना में ब्लैक आउट” Dated May 8, 2025

• Facts of complaint: On May 15, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against ABP News for broadcasting misleading visuals during its May 8, 2025, segment titled “India Pakistan War Update.” The channel allegedly aired four-year-old footage of Israel’s Iron Dome system from 2021, falsely presenting it as real-time evidence of Indian air defences intercepting a drone attack in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

• This misrepresentation, identified by independent fact-checkers like Alt News, constitutes a severe violation of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics regarding accuracy, impartiality, and neutrality. By prioritising sensationalism over due diligence during a period of heightened national anxiety, the broadcast risked inciting public panic and glorifying military violence through fabricated success.

• Furthermore, the report disregarded specific Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) advisories against real-time reporting of defines operations and the spread of disinformation. CJP argues that such reckless journalism compromises national security and erodes public trust in mainstream media. Consequently, the organisation demands an immediate on-air corrigendum, a formal public apology from the channel, and the permanent removal of all contentious content from digital platforms to prevent further circulation of this disinformation.

• Aaj Tak

Complaint Date: May 14, 2025

Title/Theme of the show: “पाकिस्तान पर भारत पर भारत का चौतरफा हमला, Lahore-Karachi में भारी नुक़सान [India’s All-Around Attack on Pakistan, Heavy Losses in Lahore-Karachi]” dated May 9, 2025

• Facts: On May 14, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against Aaj Tak for broadcasting misrepresented and sensationalised content regarding “Operation Sindoor.” On May 9, senior anchors Anjana Om Kashyap and Shweta Singh presented footage claiming to show a Pakistani drone attack being repelled in Jaisalmer and an “all-around attack” on Lahore and Karachi. These segments utilised the sensational headline: “पाकिस्तान पर भारत का चौतरफा हमला, Lahore-Karachi में भारी नुक़सान.”

• Technical verification revealed a systemic failure in journalistic due diligence. Specifically, on May 7, the channel aired visuals of seven missiles allegedly being launched in Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Reverse image searches confirmed this footage was actually from a Sputnik Armenia report dated October 13, 2023, depicting Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. The Israeli Air Force’s official records further corroborated the origin of the clips.

• NDTV

Complaint Date: 15.05.2025

Theme/Title of the Show: “India-Pakistan Tension: पाकिस्तान के खिलाफ भारत का जवाबी हमला शुरू” dated May 8, 2025

• Facts of the complaint: On May 15, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint against NDTV regarding its May 8 broadcast titled “India-Pakistan Tension: India Attacks Pakistan Breaking.” The complaint alleges that NDTV aired visuals falsely depicting a Pakistani air attack being foiled by Indian air defines systems in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. However, independent fact-checkers, including Alt News, established that the footage was actually a four-year-old video from 2021 showing Israel’s Iron Dome system.

• CJP asserted, in its complaint, that this constitutes a gross violation of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards, specifically breaching principles of impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. By presenting recycled foreign footage as real-time military action without due diligence, the channel disseminated dangerous disinformation during a sensitive national security crisis.

• Further it was argued that “this irresponsible brand of journalism” not only misled the public but also violated Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) advisories against real-time reporting of defines operations and the spread of misinformation. Consequently, CJP demands that NDTV issue a prominent on-air corrigendum, a formal public apology, and immediately remove all related digital content from its platforms. The organisation emphasised that such lapses can provoke mass panic and compromise national security, necessitating urgent corrective action to restore journalistic integrity.

• Times Now Navbharat

Complaint Date: May 15, 2025

Theme/Title of show: “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING: भारत-पाकिस्तान युद्ध पर अमेरिका का बयान- ‘हम भारत को नहीं रोक सकते’ [U.S. statement on the India-Pakistan war: ‘We cannot stop India]” dated May 9, 2025.

• Facts: On May 15, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against Times Now Navbharat regarding a May 9 broadcast titled “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING: भारत-पाकिस्तान युद्ध पर अमेरिका का बयान- ‘हम भारत को नहीं रोक सकते’.” The channel aired visuals allegedly showing a Pakistani air attack being foiled by Indian air defines systems in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan; however, fact-checking established that the video was actually four-year-old footage sourced from a 2021 YouTube upload by NSFchannel, likely depicting Israel’s Iron Dome.

• The complaint highlights that the footage was presented with a tone of real-time urgency and lacked any disclaimers or source identification, creating a false narrative of active military escalation. This broadcast constitutes a gross violation of the NBDSA Code of Ethics—specifically regarding accuracy, impartiality, and neutrality—and disregards the MIB advisory dated April 25, 2025, which prohibits real-time reporting of defines operations and the dissemination of disinformation.

• India TV

Complaint Date: May 16, 2025

Title/Theme: “Pakistan Drone Destroyed in Rajasthan: राजस्थान के रामगढ़ में गगराया गया पागकस्तानी ड्रोन [Pakistani drone shot down in Ramgarh, Rajasthan] IND Vs PAK” dated May 9, 2025.

• Facts: On May 9, 2025, India TV broadcasted a segment titled “Pakistan Drone Destroyed in Rajasthan: राजस्थान के रामगढ़ में गगराया गया पागकस्तानी ड्रोन [Pakistani drone shot down in Ramgarh, Rajasthan] IND Vs PAK.” The complaint filed before NBDSA on 16.05.2025 highlighted that the channel used a four-year-old video of Israel’s Iron Dome Air Defence System (originally published on May 11, 2021, by @NSFchannel) to represent a current drone intercept in Jaisalmer. The broadcast lacked any “file footage” disclaimer, creating a false narrative of real-time military success.
• Consequently, on May 29, 2025, the channel admitted the error, removed all digital content, and issued a public apology.

The 2025 Media Sentinel: CJP’s Crusade against ‘Digital Hate’

This, in 2025, continuing with its systematic monitoring and well-researched interventions, CJP emerged in the vanguard against the digital-ised hate era of Indian television. By moving beyond isolated protests and focusing on the systemic weaponisation of newsroom aesthetics, CJP urged the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) to deliver its most significant set of accountability orders to date.

The year 2025 has established that communal polarisation is no longer a “risk-free” revenue model for broadcasters. Through sustained legal interventions, CJP has turned the NBDSA from a silent regulator into an active arbiter of truth. Broadcasters are now on notice: every sensational ticker, unverified “war” clip, and biased panel will be documented, challenged, and eventually dismantled in the interest of constitutional harmony.

Related

CJP files complaint with six news channels for spreading misinformation, making false terror links: Operation Sindoor

Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news

Human Rights Day 2024: CJP’s Fight for Access to Justice in India

The post CJP’s 2025 Hate Watch: leading the fight for accountability in the digital media appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Methodological Prologue: Theory as Lens, not Template

To be able to think caste within the same analytical field of reference as Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci— two intellectual giants who have left an indelible impression upon his generation—whose long shadows loom large over the landscape of modern Europe, demands a first-order methodological clarification. It is an undeniable premise that caste is uniquely South Asian, a totalising social system with a distinct ontology around indigenous cosmologies of purity, pollution and hierarchal interdependency. Its thinking, its historical trajectory and the experience it embodies can be only partially understood through terms drawn from European history such as class or feudalism or racism, as people like Gopal Guru, Sundar Sarukkai and Dalit Studies thinkers have never tired of insisting. To apply these categories would amount to an act of epistemic violence, the imposition of an artificial reality onto a queasy and never quite-fitting architecture that illuminates nothing but dims what appears from Indian soil, reiterating the colonial knowledge systems that sought once to solidify and regulate caste under alien rubrics. Such as it is, the critique of Eurocentrism isn’t merely an afterthought but a disciplinary sensibility tout court.

So, I provide an inversion in this engagement with Foucault and Gramsci. I am not trying to “apply” their theories to the Indian “case” (as if it were a case of universal concern) in order to fit caste into the Procrustean bed of their local historical referents (the clinic, the prison, the European factory or the making of the Italian nation-state). Rather, I seize their essential methodological insights as adaptable analytical heuristics for shedding light on an essentially novel object. Foucault’s dialectic of the scene and the obscene is indispensable if not as an explanation of European épistémès, at least for its sophisticate analytic tool for understanding how power arranges seeing and saying, produces zones of authorized words and tactical silence, articulates a frontier between what is audible and inaudible. And, once again, Gramsci’s idea of hegemony is not used as a theory of European class making but as a dynamic way to grasp the securing of domination through the construction of “common sense” and the combined action between coercion and consent. Within such a machine, theory is no longer a master narrative so much as an array of precision tools. I do this by deploying these instruments to dismantle the historically specific materiality of caste from its sacred roots to its colonial codification and postcolonial mutations making it possible for the specificity of the phenomenon itself to interrogate and remould the theoretical tools. This essay is then a thought experiment of a critical, situated translation. It deploys Foucauldian and Gramscian optics in order to illumine caste’s internal architecture, its historical transmogrification, while insisting that the image at which one arrives is thoroughly, irreducibly Indian and needs also to conjure up its own vocabulary even as it speaks a global language of power. 

Introduction: The Architectonics of Invisibility

One of the most enduring and complex systems of social stratification in the world—India’s caste system (varna-jati)—is found in the Indian subcontinent. Its analysis requires tools that can penetrate not only its economic or political aspects, but its deep entrenchment in the spheres of knowledge production, body and space. Michel Foucault’s conceptually rich dyad of the “scene”, (what is made visible, sayable and governable) and the “obscene” (that structurally figured beyond but which in its beyond-ness constitutes the scene) provides a powerful prism. When coupled with Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, the means by which ruling groups achieve consent via an ideological “common sense”, this set-up reveals how power functions not just through suppression but through careful organization of social reality itself.

This paper opines that the history of caste has to be considered as a history involving managing (or mismanagement) of this scene/obscene border. The shift from premodern India to modern makes for a seismic change in such tactics of management: from an integral sacral-political scene to a fragmented modern settlement, where the official defacement of caste on real constitutional law and its attendant discourse on the public scene is the very condition for its raucous (albeit often underhand) existence in that social obscene. In it, the dominant scientific and technological discourses on which the ‘normalisation’ of modern society is based cohabits uneasily with remnants of an archaic and pre-modern social universe intricately woven into a powerful hegemonic discourse that systematically normalizes denial akin to what we have called here the hermeneutics of caste. The analysis draws from, among others, works by Nicholas Dirks (2001), Anand Teltumbde (2014) and Gopal Guru (2016) to map this transition showing that contemporary caste should be best understood as a sort of social schizophrenia driven by imaginative acts whereby power perpetuates itself through a convoluted hermetic legitimising act in India.

I. The Integrated Premodern Scene: Inscription, Spectacle and Sacral Hegemony

The caste hierarchy was a relatively coherent and explicit “scene” in the precolonial and early colonial environment. Its effectiveness was based on its thoroughgoing visibility and its cosmological basis. This can be felt clearly through the texts and inscriptions of medieval India.

Case of the Chola Temple Inscriptions and the Smritichandrika: The walls of the temples in Chola period (approx. 9th-13th centuries) are not just structural, but are public records of the social scenario. That act of reciprocation is documented in countless inscriptions which record the details of gifts but also control in great detail the spatial and ritual order: which castes could offer which kinds of gift, how close they might reside to the temple, and what the penal fines would be if they broke faith. At the same time, codified legal digests such as Devanna Bhatta’s 13th-century Smritichandrika continued to systematise dharma for a wide range of varnas and jatis, dictating clothing and ornaments suitable for narrow groups and stipulating edible diets or respectable partners in marriage.

They are performances of sovereign power. The law was not concealed in statute books but carved onto the holiest public edifices. That made the caste system, already a great monument to human pettiness and pride, permanently, monstrously visible. The elaborately clothed body of the Brahmin (instituted with the sacred thread, instringent in particular fabrics) contrasted with the regulated “nakedness” or coarse apparel of those belonging to “lower castes” was a wearable map of social arrangement- status could be read at once on bodies. “Conjugable” was not private, but public, scripture-regulated machinery for the perpetuation of biology and society.

This was an order that was not only maintained through coercion. It was the centre of agrarian economic and ritual life. Writing caste duties on the walls, the ruling powers (the Chola king, Brahmin sabha) attached social status to divine will and royal command. What it did was not to punish, but explain, rationalise and naturalise. It was polished over by embedding caste inside a sanctified “common sense” in which following one’s svadharma was identified with piety, social tranquillity and karmic reward. Consent was produced by the reaffirmation of ritual incorporation and cosmological tale.

An opulent calligraphy of gleaming inscriptions is what this glittering scene silences. The manual, waste-dirty work of temple purification, cleaning, and waste management, labour assigned to the lower (in caste hierarchy) communities, was the necessary but repelled root. There they were a required obscenity, consigned to literal geographical peripheries (the cheri outside the village) in order to keep unsullied, the jatra’s pure centre. The violence required to maintain this order, whenever necessary, was a public spectacle in its own right, a Foucauldian “scene” of sovereign punishment that reaffirmed the parameters of the permissible.

The coherence of this “scene” can be better appreciated, and the premodern character of it more clearly identified, by consideration to a ritual control of everyday practices that makes hierarchy in large measure visible and ever self-evident. The very access to water for instance worked as a micro-theatre of caste power. Shudras and untouchables were forbidden to draw water from a common source that the Savarna castes drank. The prohibition was not just economical or hygienic, it was dramaturgical. The distance at which awaiting castes waited to receive water from above the threshold through a high-caste intermediary enacted hierarchy as embodied choreography. Here, power did its work not by abstract law alone, but through disciplined gestures and spatial distance and the policing of touch. The practice of pollution was practised time and again on the body, making domination a matter of course.

Temple Restrictions of Entry Again, temple entry restrictions circumscribe how the holy solidified the sightedness of the field. As a condensation of the cosmic arena for legitimacy, these were the gatekeepers to those who could and could not come near divinity itself but whose mere presence would cause ritual chaos. Therefore, being kept out of temple space was not just  marginalisation but rather the ontological disqualification from the moral order which organized village life. The untouchable body was constitutively “ob-scene”, that which was vulgar so as to be excluded from the sacred frame, and thus a figure of purity in the visible scene. But this exclusion, counter-intuitively, verified centrality: the system needed what it banished. Carcass removal, tanning and sanitation-labour were materially integral to the agricultural way of life, and that the obscene was not external to power but its hidden basis.

This paradox has the kind of echo that Foucault will say later, that power creates what it seemingly excludes. The untouchable was, then, not simply oppressed but discursively produced as pollutant, essential to the symbolic unity of Brahmanical purity. Visibility and invisibility therefore comprised one and the same machine. Although his labour was required to be concealed in the sacred space of ritual, it was common for punitive violence against him to become hyper-visible. Public flogging, forced parade or head-shaving was used as exemplary scenes; measures which were not so much punishments for the individual violator but white lines re-drawn in the scene for all its observers. Acts of sovereign violence, in this respect, reconfigured ritual order by sporadic eruption into theatrical display.

But coercion alone cannot account for the endurance of this structure. Hegemony in Gramsci’s sense explains how domination hardened into “common sense.” The karmic reading of suffering converted structural inequality into a moral story: One’s birth deserved, one’s duty redemptive. Most importantly, this imagination was not the prerogative solely of the dominant castes. The participation of the subalterns in ritual hierarchies, through service function in festivals, acceding to hereditary occupation or practicing endogamy indicates to what extent voluntary and coercive approaches were complementary. This was not passive belief, but lived practice that was realised through kinship, worship and toil.

At the same time, however, that premodern scene was never perfectly sealed. Bhakti movements in various regions periodically disrupted the ritual hierarchy by emphasising devotional equality and vernacular expression. Literary figures like Ravidas or Nandanar made religious claims that transcended caste lines, briefly disturbing the visibility of the status quo. Even these challenges, however, were frequently absorbed (or re-absorbed), their radical potential domesticated within particularities of tradition. This ability to absorb demonstrates the strength of hegemonic formations: protest could be recognised symbolically without altering the material basis of hierarchy.

Here, the premodern caste order is not merely a system of hardened stratification but a staged totality through which space, body, work, force and belief converged aesthetically. The Foucauldian pairing of scene and obscene demonstrates the need for purity to be premised upon exclusion, as well as how visibility became a mode of discipline, while the Gramscian lens helps us understand that the long half-life was driven by moral internalization and quotidian consent. Together they reveal a system whose stability was founded on portraying hierarchy as both sacred and natural, a portrayal that subsequent historical developments would gradually start to undo, but not without enormous effort.

II. The Colonial Interregnum: Re-Scenography, Biopower and Taxonomic Hegemony

With the beginning of colonial governance, a significant change occurred. The British colonial state, a modern bureaucratic state at work, wanted to know, categorise and govern its subjects, effectively transforming the performance of caste.

Case of the 1901 Census and Risley’s Anthropometry: The Census, especially under Superintendent Herbert Risley, turned into one of the effective colonising projects. Risley tried to confer a “scientific” legitimacy on caste hierarchy through the use of anthropometry (the measuring of nasal indexes, skull shapes and other bodily features) to construct a racial taxonomy of Indian castes. This information was then used to generate all-India rankings for caste status. This was biopolitics in the pure, administrative state. Power worked in the colonial state by treating the Indian as an object to know, measure, and categorize. The caste became a fixed category rather than the fluid groups of jati relations that it had been, as well as an enumerated and pan-Indian taxonomy, a trope of colonial “governmentality” (Dirks 2001). The muddled local logic of purity/pollution was transformed into a clean, bureaucratic chart. This gave rise to a new all-India “scene” for caste: the statistical report, the ethnographic survey, the gazetteer. The ritual body became a racialised or datafied body.

This scene of bureaucracy had far-reaching hegemonic implications. In cataloguing (and ranking) castes so consistently, the Census rendered new identities that groups came to accept even as they fought them. It laid the groundwork for caste-based political organisation, as represented in the Non-Brahmin Manifesto of Madras (1916) or in the demands for separate electorates. The strategy of the colonial state was one of “divide and rule,” but it did so by offering the vocabulary, among the enumerated caste identity, through which political claims could be made. It fragmented older, more local solidarities and forced a re-configuration of the political terrain along these freshly rigidified lines.

In fact, this act of scientific observation ushered in an obscene that was entirely new. The native logic of purity/pollution, the “scene” which could be publicly declared is now called by the colonial “civilising” eye primitive, irrational and obscene to modernity. The colonial state could thus present itself as a modernising referee, underling proving to the world that it was not some backward social order the British had themselves rendered calcified. The “native obscenity” of caste practices became the rationale for the colonial mission, just as the colonial economy frequently solidified caste-based divisions of labour.

Colonial rule did not just “disperse” (de Kiewiet’s word) the prehistoric caste “scene”; it re-staged its appearance through its interventions in western technology of knowledge, and techniques of administration and surveillance. If the previous order was premised on ritual spectacle and cosmological legitimacy, colonial modernity made caste legible as an object of bureaucratic reason. Authority was transformed from the dramatic practice of impurity to its less conspicuous, but more far-reaching, work of sorting and classifying. In Foucauldian terms, there was a substitution of sovereignty for governmentality: the village stage of hierarchy was slowly but never entirely replaced by that of archive, census table and legal code.

And enumeration was central to this transformation. Colonial census, from the end of the 19th century onwards, attempted to freeze caste identities into universal pan-Indian categories. What had been a locally contingent and regionally flexible hierarchy became interpretable to the state through lists, schedules and ethnographic description. This act of naming was not neutral. In forcing the community to map onto certain fixed classificatory grids, the colonial state both reinforced and naturalised caste. The scene was not just spatial and ritual; it had turned statistical. From the village square, visibility moved onto the bureaucratic paper. The hidden ‘obscene’ here was not just secret labour, but the insecurity and indeterminacy of everyday caste relations, just what enumeration aspired to hide.

The law additionally re-fashioned the grammar of hierarchy. Colonial law did not assimilate such norms of Dhar­mashastras to create “Hindu Law” but the principles selectively codified in colonial jurisprudence and statutes, transformed Brahmanical textual traditions into enforceable legal standards. But this juridification introduced an unintended ambivalence. On the one hand, it consolidated some structures of endogamy or patrimonial inheritance and, on the other hand, made possible certain space for contestation. Instead, pursuing cases in court and challenging bureaucratic rulings or attempting legal reform created new sites for subordinated groups to express grievance. Power was less visibly violent, but more extensively inscribed in institutional procedure. Foucauldian discipline supplanted sovereign terror, at the same time as older types of social coercion remained a reality.

Meanwhile, colonial political economy transformed the economic basis of caste. Monetisation, commercialisation of agriculture and a new exposure to labour mobility disrupted hereditary occupations to an extent. Emigration to plantations, railways or cities created scenarios in which ritual oversight was diluted and anonymity expanded. These spaces didn’t eliminate caste, but they broke the hermetic unity of the premodern set. Hierarchy had to be re-made in unfamiliar landscapes, creating new solidarities along with new exclusions. The obscene, once exiled from the village borders, began to seep back in through developing public forms, often in submerged or indirect ways.

Gramscian hegemony likewise underwent mutation. The karmic “common sense” which previously helped to naturalize hierarchy faced rival ideological formations: missionary critiques, liberal ideas of equality, print-mediated reform movements and pre-modern anti-caste intellectual traditions. Cosmology alone could no longer determine consent, it had to be negotiated in the languages of rights, representation and progress. But hegemony did not disappear; it was transformed. Domination groups re-articulated caste privilege through discourses of tradition, community autonomy or social order that translated ritual authority into cultural capital in the colonial public- sphere. What emerged was not rupture but re-arrangement: An older hierarchy learned to speak new idioms.

More importantly, the colonial moment created conditions for a systematic anti-caste politics. Access to education, print circulation and associational life facilitated figures like Jotirao Phule and later B.R. Ambedkar to unveil the hidden underpinning of social order. Their criticisms made visible that which had been structurally hidden for so long, the historical making of caste inequality. In Foucauldian terms, new counter-discourses challenged the regime of truth supporting hierarchy; in Gramscian terms, subaltern groups revolted for moral-intellectual hegemony. The very scene itself became a battleground not one that was divinely settled.

Colonial modernity then should be neither mistaken for sheer continuity nor for simple break. It eclipsed spectacle with surveillance, ritual fixity with bureaucratic classification and karmic inevitability with ideological contest. But that dialectic of inside-outside, the mobile frontier between scene and obscene endured in the new guise. Caste lived by infiltrating modern institutions, even as the very same institutions nurtured the forces that would eventually question its legitimacy. The oneness of the pre-modern theatre was broken, and what followed was a much more complex and unstable stage for caste drama to develop.

III. The Postcolonial Modern: Schizophrenia, Eruptions and the Hegemony of Denial

The founding of the Indian republic was a script most thrillingly re-written of the scene/obscene dialectic. Inspired by liberal democracy and led by a modernising elite, this new nation-state wanted to make a complete break with the past. And India’s public, legal “scene” was dramatically re-scripted. The framework of the Constitution, authored under B.R. Ambedkar, a Dalit jurist deeply critical of caste, effectively banished it as obscene to the political-juridical order. Articles 15, 17 (which destroyed untouchability) and the guarantee of equality before the law erected a new platform that transformed individuals into citizen, rather than caste subject. The reservation policies (Articles 15(4), 16(4)) became a temporary, exceptional instrument in this stage, as corrective historical justice until achieving the final goal of “Join Casteless India”. The rhetoric of secular nationalism and, later, that of neoliberal meritocracy helped create a public sphere in which caste was meant to be sloughed off in the interests of national or consumer identity.

Caste, however, did not vanish. It had strategically migrated from the public-sacral scene to the privatised, affective, and social “obscene.” This obscene is no negative empty but a powerfully busy shadow stage. Endogamy would still be the strongest fortress. As sociologist G. Shah (2002) and others have shown, the “c­onjugable/u­nc­onjugable” binary flourishes in the private domain of family alliances, matrimonial ads, and community networks concealed from the law’s scrutiny. Purity/pollution practices can draw back into the private and daily life, who in principle may enter the kitchen, share a water glass, sit as an equal at a meal. These are not officially recorded, but they are vital to social reproduction. In contemporary institutions, the corporate office, the university, elite social clubs, caste operates as though it’s based on race and class, if by its own ecosystem of social capital and unspoken biases. The Dalit expert may be officially welcome on the corporate stage, but exclusion thrives in the obscene of informal circuits and cultural codes (such as hearing a last name). Anand Teltumbde (2010) calls this the “persistence of caste” in new, “camouflaged” versions in hitherto seemingly-casteless modern sites. Lynchings, social humiliations and caste-based rapes are not vestiges of a pre-modern past. They are modern obscene eruptions, as scholars such as Kalpana Kannabiran contend. They are frequently sparked, as others have also noted, by a perception of Dalits “overstepping” their bounds, owning land, riding horseback, sporting a moustache or falling in love across castes. Recorded on cell phones and disseminated through the social media, this violence is at once secret in its execution and hyper-visible in its sharing, revealing the brutal truth that the official scene seeks to deny.

The dominant casts in modern India have had a project: to naturalise the split. The new “common sense” is an aggressive discourse of the successful erasure of caste: “Caste doesn’t matter anymore,” “We are all casteless now,” “Only the backward castes talk about caste.” To talk about pervasive caste discrimination is characterised as “playing the caste card”, an obscene game of etching a primitive poison into the modern body politic. This is the hegemony that allows dominant caste persons to populate public spaces as generalised liberal individuals, free from caste bias while their social and intimate worlds are structured through caste power. It vulgarises the systemic character of caste to analysis, when it is reduced into ‘incidents’ alone or individual prejudices.

Case 1: The Khairlanji Massacre (2006): At Khairlanji town of Maharashtra wherein a Dalit family- the Bhotmanges—was lynched and women were sexually violated before they were murdered. The flash point was their testimony in a police case and the perceived social disobedience of owning property and being educated. Khairlanji is not a remnant of the archaic: it is a contemporary obscene explosion. The violence was not a spectacle of sovereign power but a secret, community-approved atrocity, later brought to light through the media and activism. It was a bid to violently re-assert a weakening local hegemony. By using the tools of modernity (courts, education, land titles), the Bhotmanges broke the “common sense” of Dalit acceptance by demanding subordination. The massacre was a demonstration to force a restoration of that “common sense.” The State’s initial reticence in using the PoA Act[1] was very much present. An alternate dialectic reveals: the progressive law (integral to constitutional scene) was subverted by the police, who were seeing it as a local arm of an obscene social order. The massive Dalit protests that followed were a counter-hegemonic gesture, dragging the obscene out of the closet and into the national eye-scape, compelling the official scene to abandon its hollow bromides and reckon with the violence it had rendered invisible.

Case 2: Corporate India and Duality of the Sabhya-Gavva: In the glass-and-steel offices of Bangalore or Gurgaon, it’s a different story. The office is a place of casteless modernity, it is run by HR (human resource) manuals and meritocratic ideology and professional dress codes. Here, caste is officially obscene; to mention it is a breach of professional etiquette. But it flourishes in the obscene of social capital (Teltumbde, 2010): weekend resorts gupshup, references and mentor chains; and crucially, ‘off-siting’ matrimonial alliances. Attempts to bring the Dalit professional into the elite corporate fold abound but they are not part of these obscene networks driving genuine career mobility and cultural identity. The hegemonic “common sense” is strong: “We don’t see caste here.” Such is the hegemony of caste, the many-layered monopoly by which privilege functions when you are a dominant caste, that it can reproduce itself updated to the gilled hilt with practised ease like no other marauding bandit – and all Dalit assertion of identity or complaint about bias can be counterpoised not as an obscenity but even better – since there’s always a reason why an obscenity cannot be effective enough in its monstrosity: casted as something that comes from ob-scoot-ated couches. This is the crowning achievement of modern caste schizophrenia: an absolute disconnection between the formal scene of liberal equality and the informal obscene of caste-reinforcing sociability.

Independence and the acceptance of a new constitution did not so much lead to the death of caste as to a transformation in the means adopted by it. If colonial modernity banished ritual spectacle in favour of bureaucratic classification, the postcolonial state ushered in a new grammar of visibility mediated by democracy, rights and representation. Caste was no longer publicly exalted in the form of sacred hierarchy; it now existed in the juridical idiom of egalitarianism and administrative calculus of reservations. The stage went from the village square and census archive to the courtroom, legislature, and electoral arena. But this transformation did not erase the old boundary of scene and obscene, it transformed it.

The explicit abjuration of untouchability and fundamental rights in the Constitution was a symbolic break with Brahmanical social ontology. In other Foucauldian terms, a new regime of truth was articulated: caste discrimination became something that it is illegal to speak about, but something that persists. That created a paradox of democratic visibility. Dalit presence in educational institutions, government bureaucracy, Parliament indicated an entry into the national scene, but leaves a lot of mediation through categories of injury, backwardness and compensatory justice. The reservation system, which is and was both re-distributive and emancipatory of caste identity, necessitated –for its operation– ongoing administrative naming of caste identity. By this, the very mechanism proposed to erode hierarchy itself re-inscribed caste within state knowledge. Visibility (to use the title of a good read) became two-edged: recognition and regulation.

This ambivalence is indicative of the larger movement from sovereign or disciplinary power toward what Foucault named bio-political administration. The post-colonial state manages its populations through welfare, quotas, development programmes and statistical surveillance. Caste in these instances is neither simply ritual nor only juridical, but becomes a demographic for techniques of governance. The obscene is no longer the occult labour that sustains ritual purity, but the residue of structural degradation that survives beneath the language of formal equality. Day-to-day violence—social boycott, atrocities, denial of access to housing or marriage networks—is frequented in a domain beyond the spectacular optics of national democracy, where it appears as exception rather than rule. What cannot be incorporated into this story of progress is relegated to the fringe of visibility.

Hegemony, as in Gramsci, thereby assumes a new form. The national promise of unity, development and democratic citizenship generates a strong ‘common sense’ that situates caste as a left-over social problem being slowly dissolved by the process of modernisation. This story line allows for some reform but overcomes more radical change. Dominant castes adjust by converting historical privilege into educational capital, bureaucratic power and management of local political establishments. Hegemony now moves away from ritual superiority to meritocratic language; inequality is no longer described using karma, but as the result of competition, culture, or efficiency. You win consent not so much by theology as by the aspirational rhetoric of the nation-state.

But the post-colonial picture is also one of an un-anticipated countervailing assertion. Dalit protests, Ambedkarite politics, literary publics and mass mobilizations turn humiliation into a collective critique. Public conversion ceremonies, acts of remembrance and symbolic appropriations of public space such as university campuses or spaces of atrocity re-perform the terrain from which Dalits were once confined. In Foucaldian parlance, subjugated knowledge systems explode into discourse questioning the neutrality of law and development. In Gramscian terms, these struggles are driven not only to inclusion but to moral-intellectual leadership capable of redefining the very order. Democracy doubles as instrument of regulation and terrain of insurgency.

This visibility is also complicated by both media and modern popular culture. Caste now whirls through television debates, digital activism, electoral rhetoric and bureaucratic documentation. The scene widens to a national and ever more virtual canvas. But growth is not the same as change. This is the realm of spectacular, and sometimes scripted, moments of outrage which can be simultaneous with banal indifference, giving rise to what could be termed a politics of intermittent visibility- caste appears dramatically in crisis and disappears back into normalcy. The obscene endures right in this several back and forth.

The postcolonial condition, then, is to be understood as a dynamic antagonism [rather than resolution]. Inherited hierarchy is contested by constitutional morality, but is also constantly re-articulated through social practice. Caste becomes subject to critique under democratic inclusion, even as administrative governance secures its categories. Power works less by oppressive and direct prohibition than by selective recognition; hegemony less by naturalised order than by promised development. It is not the distinction between scene and obscene that disappears, but rather becomes mobile, contested and historically contingent.

On this slippery ground, caste endures not as immobile tradition but as malleable entity materialised in modern institutions. Its strength is its adaptability; its weakness, the very visibility that democracy requires. The postcolonial stage then sets the stage for the contemporary moment, where neoliberal recalibration, digital moderation and new identity politics will once again realign what is visible, sayable and contestable in caste’s name.

IV. The Contemporary Neoliberal-Digital Scene: Circulation, Concealment, and Algorithmic Power

The late modern and early postmodern era represents another re-organization of caste’s scene of action, one related to neoliberal financialization, ever-faster urban transformation and digital communication. If the postcolonial constitutional order made caste visible in the languages of rights and welfare, neoliberal modernity deflects attention to markets, mobility, and privatised aspiration. Power increasingly functions by means of circulation rather than repression: capitalist, informational or affective flows transform social existence. In this terrain, caste does not vanish; it mutates, finding solace in infrastructures that seemingly are formal and neutral. The scene becomes diffuse, meshed and not entirely transparent.

Urban anonymity at first appeared to hold the promise of eroding inherited hierarchy. This was a society of skill, and with the migration to metropolitan labour markets, service economies now expanding, and meritocratic competition as the order of the business day it was implied a world governed by skill rather than by birth. But a closer look shows that caste does indeed change in response to these conditions through more subtle forms of recognition and exclusion. The segregation of housing in both the formal and informal real-estate markets, matrimonial advertisements coded by surnames and community markers, professional networks organized around kinship: All are reminders of how caste survives beneath the surface equality of contract. Free choice is, quite often, the cover for inherited social capital. In the Foucauldian sense, discipline becomes internalized as self-improvement: people structure their education, language and behaviour to mimic upper-caste cultural models. Power functions through aspiration.

This paradox of visibility and obscurity is only magnified by digital media. Social media, internet archives and digital journalism created, and continues to create, new Dalit self-presentation, memory-making and political mobilization. Stories of discrimination spread quickly and turn localised instances of pain into national or global conversations. Hashtag activism, digital memorialisation and virtual community building generate new counter-publics that challenge hegemonic narratives of caste vanishing. Subaltern knowledges gain a technological magnification, attempting to recall Foucaultian perceptions of the growth of discourse as a place for resistance.

Yet it is precisely these digital infrastructures that produce new forms of obscuration. Algorithmic sorting, datagov and platform economies all function through categories that look caste-blind even though they frequently reproduce historical inequality. Bandwidth access, linguistic capital, digital literacy, and social networks are variously unevenly distributed such that who can speak and what differences ultimately get heard is formed accordingly. Online anonymity can obscure caste identity, but it also opens the doors to a revival of abuse, harassment and symbolic violence stripped from responsibility. And so once more the obscene moves: not invisible work outside the ritual space, nor systematic humiliation under constitutional equality, but coded replication of hierarchy within seemingly neutral technological systems.

Neoliberal political economy also recasts Gramscian hegemony. Developmental nationalism is displaced by entrepreneurial individualism, with success recast in terms of personal realization rather than collective redistribution. This is an ideological shift that pulls the rug from under solidarity-based politics, while eclipsing structural constraint. Dominant caste privilege is reformulated as excellence, professionalism or global-competitiveness. Today, it is not through moral doctrine (as ideology) that hegemony functions but through desire: the desire for upward mobility within market society. Consent is obtained by promising the irrelevance of caste when in fact, material divisions remain.

Simultaneously, counter-hegemonic energies take on new shapes. Dalit entrepreneurship, trans-national mobilization, inter-sectional alliances, and cultural production in literature, film, and digital art re-invent dignity beyond the abjection of victimhood or what Geisser calls state-replaced recognition. Memory turns into political technology: archives of atrocity, commemoration of historical resistance, re-imagining Ambedkarite thought travel across geographies to confront neoliberal amnesia. These operations are not content with coming in from the outside: they want to redraw the lines of its deck, show us the hidden continuities between ritualized past and digital present.

The result is that the present period is one not of stability but rather of heightened contradiction. Caste is there and it is not; submerged in words while floating above them, crushed and dispersed in the personal but ominous in its structural totality, sundered across experience but knit tightly through data. The Foucauldian analysis shows that there is a move towards power as dispersed and infrastructural – algorithmic, not spectacular – while the Gramscian emphasises a hegemonic order built on aspiration, consumption and selective memory. The line between scene and obscene is constantly reconfigured by media circulation and political contestation.

In this neoliberal-digital formation, caste continues because it is able to occupy invisibility and exploit visibility: become visible when mobilised, disappear when asked. Its fate will rest on whether emerging counter-publics are able to change technological exposure into structure-changing possibilities, converting sporadic oppositional outcry’s to new moral-intellectual leadership. The drama of caste, far from being over, therefore moves on to a stage where power itself is more and more ethereal, and the fight to make inequality observable becomes the primary political act.

Anand Teltumbde’s analysis of caste’s “camouflaged” persistence provides a powerful lens for understanding the modern obscene. As he argues, “caste today is not what it appears to be. It has shed its religious garb and put on the secular attire of modernity” (Teltumbde 2010, 23). This insight resonates deeply with the Foucauldian scene/obscene dialectic: caste thrives precisely because it has migrated from the visible ritual scene to the hidden networks of social capital, professional networking, and matrimonial alliance. The corporate office that publicly celebrates meritocracy while privately excluding Dalits from informal mentorship networks exemplifies this schizophrenic condition. Yet Teltumbde’s Marxist commitments also remind us that this is not merely a matter of discourse or visibility: caste’s persistence is ultimately rooted in material control over land, capital, and labour. The scene/obscene dialectic, therefore, must be understood not as an alternative to materialist analysis but as a framework that reveals how power organises the visibility and invisibility of material exploitation itself.

V. Dalit Politics: Shattering the Proscenium Arch

It is possible to see the history of anti-caste resistance, from Jyotirao Phule’s radical philosophy through Ambedkarian revolutionary constitutionalism to today’s post-bahujan (radical) politics, as a prolonged struggle against this forced dialectic.

It may be noted that Dr. Ambedkar’s public burning of Manusmriti in 1927 was an archetypal act of shattering the sacred instrumentality constitutive of the old stage in scene making. In drafting the Constitution, he was seeking to reconstruct a new, fair scene from below. Dalit political and cultural assertion is, at bottom, a way of calling the obscene into the eye of the scene. The Bahujan political parties (such as the BSP party) emerging to prominence have put caste identity, previously considered a shame marker, on the national stage of the electoral politics for a source of pride and community mobilization. The taking of public space, a public scene which performs the exhibitionism of “dalitness” could be interpreted by authorities as a sign that dalits are trying to create some kind of counter-­public space. The “cattle meet festival” is striking in this regard, by publicly eating the meat deemed most polluting within Brahminical norms, activists force the unspeakable into public space, undermining the grammar of purity/pollution itself.

Dalit Studies, as it is being launched by veteran scholars such as Gopal Guru and others, does this important labour of theorising from the site of the obscene. It confronts the hegemonic “common sense” with a systematic recording and analysis of the lived experience of caste, not leaving it as anecdotal or passé.

VI. Synthesis and Conclusion: The Dialectic’s Enduring Grip and Its Cracks

The Foucauldian Gramscian analysis discovers that caste-modernity is not to be located in its end, but rather its strategic disintegration. Power circulates by keeping intact the gap between disavowing public scene and luminous private torque. The state’s role turns Janus-faced: progressive legislation that has made lives more livable and breathable in some ways, but that has also all too frequently, through institutional bias and political compromise, proved itself powerless to prevent obscene eruptions of violence.

This arrangement suits liberal democracy down to the ground, for it provides protection for the “private” sphere as an area beyond state interference and lets caste flourish there behind a screen of personal choice and cultural preference. It is also conducive to global capitalism, which can use caste-based social networks to control labour even as it floats a veneer of meritocratic neutrality.

But the dialectic is also an inherently unstable one. Every Khairlanji that turns into an issue of national interest, every corporate diversity report that whispers exclusion, every inter-caste marriage that invites ridicule is also a moment of rupture. In its varied avatars, it is Dalit politics that remains the sustained force challenging this division. The last struggle, as Ambedkar hoped, is not one for entry into the existing scene so much as to destroy the double stage itself, to establish a social order where the caste-based history and present are not some dirty secrets but an openly avowed basis for a common sense that is genuinely universalist and egalitarian. So long as that dialectic exists, caste in its morphed and schizophrenic form continues to survive.

(Note-An earlier version of this paper has appeared on SSRN E-Library, Elsevier.)

(The author teaches history at Shivaji College, University of Delhi. He can be reached at skandpriya@shivaji.du.ac.in)

References

Cohn, Bernard S. Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge. Princeton University Press, 1996.

Dirks, Nicholas B. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton University Press, 2001.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage, 1977.

Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers, 1971.

Guru, Gopal. Humiliation: Claims and Context. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Guru, Gopal, and Sundar Sarukkai. The Cracked Mirror: An Indian Debate on Experience and Theory. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Pandian, M.S.S. Brahmin & Non-Brahmin: Genealogies of the Tamil Political Present. Permanent Black, 2007.

Rao, Anupama. The Caste Question: Dalits and the Politics of Modern India. University of California Press, 2009.

Rege, Sharmila. Writing Caste/Writing Gender: Narrating Dalit Women’s Testimonios. Zubaan, 2006.

Risley, H.H. (Sir). Census of India, 1901. Vol. I, India. Part I, Report. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, India, 1903.

Teltumbde, Anand. The Persistence of Caste: The Khairlanji Murders and India’s Hidden Apartheid. Zed Books, 2010.

The Smritichandrika of Devanna Bhatta (Trans. J.R. Gharpure). 1948.

South Indian Inscriptions (Vol. III, Chola Inscriptions). Archaeological Survey of India.

[1] Prevention of Atrocities Act (1989)

Related:

The Anatomy of Humiliation: Defining caste violence in the Constitutional era

It is religion-based politics that refuses to root out caste: Baba Adhav in conversation with Teesta Setalvad

Caste and community creations of human beings, God is always neutral: Madras HC

The post The Double Stage: Caste’s Schizophrenic Modernity between Spectacle and Shadow appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the centre of the controversy are two distinct but intertwined developments:

1. AISA women leaders alleging verbal sexual abuse and threats inside and outside a police station. There are videos of this abuse circulating online
2. YouTuber Ruchi Tiwari claiming she was attacked by a mob of nearly 500 people while covering the protest.

As FIRs have been registered and political leaders have entered the fray, the struggle has increasingly shifted from what happened on campus to who controls the narrative of victimhood.

The Protest: UGC equity regulations and campus tensions

The protest on February 13 was organised by the All India Students’ Association (AISA) and allied groups demanding implementation of the University Grants Commission’s (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026.

The regulations — intended to strengthen safeguards against caste discrimination affecting SC, ST and OBC students — were recently stayed by the Supreme Court of India, which observed prima facie concerns of vagueness, particularly in the definitional scope of caste-based discrimination, and directed that the 2012 framework would remain in force pending further hearings.

Details may be read here.

Students supporting the regulations have emphatically argued they are essential to address structural caste bias within higher education. Opponents –many who have led aggressive and violent protests against their implementation –claim certain provisions are “vulnerable to misuse.”

This mobilisation was framed as part of a broader “Adhikar” campaign asserting dignity and institutional accountability.

The Flashpoint: Ruchi Tiwari’s presence and the confrontation

According to reports in The Print, tensions escalated when Ruchi Tiwari, who runs the YouTube channel Breaking Opinion, arrived at the site to cover the protest.

Tiwari describes herself as an “independent ground reporter”. Her channel, which has over 59,000 subscribers and more than 460 uploaded videos, frequently features a privileged caste lens depicting confrontational campus coverage, particularly around reservation, caste debates and identity politics. One of her recent YouTube Shorts is titled: “They want reservation but say don’t indulge in casteism.”

She has alleged that before she could begin reporting, individuals began calling out her name, asking her full identity and caste, after which a crowd surrounded and assaulted her. In statements to ANI (an agency that has increasingly been called out for its right-wing bias) , she claimed nearly 500 people attacked her, that she was held by the neck and arms, subjected to rape threats, and that there was an attempt to push her into a vehicle with its door open — which she described as an attempted abduction and “mob lynching.”

Videos online show pushing and scuffling. However, the full sequence remains disputed.

AISA’s Counter-Version: Provocation, altercation and selective framing

AISA has rejected Tiwari’s allegations as “false and motivated.”

According to statements cited by The Print, AISA leaders allege that the confrontation began when Tiwari engaged in provocative questioning and allegedly made casteist remarks referencing the Mahad Satyagraha led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. AISA further claims she harassed a Dalit journalist named Naveen and attempted to snatch his camera.

Some circulating videos, according to AISA, show Tiwari striking Naveen and later pushing or punching AISA activist Anjali during the confrontation. Another clip shows activists holding Tiwari while attempting to escort her toward police presence.

AISA has argued that several clips being widely shared omit audio or preceding events and therefore reshape public perception.

It is at this point, AISA claims, that the narrative began to shift — from a protest demanding caste equity to a viral storyline of a “woman journalist attacked by Left mobs.”

Another video from the February 13 incident at Delhi University exposes the conspiracy of Sanghi-Casteist-Feudal goons against students demanding equity and social justice. These goons threatened AISA activists and DU students with vulgar abuses inside the Maurice Nagar Police… pic.twitter.com/ObROzq3H4r

— CPIML Liberation (@cpimlliberation) February 14, 2026

Condemn the right-wing assault and hooliganism against Comrade Anjali in DU! Today, AISA DU Secretary Anjali was physically assaulted by a right wing group. Despite the heavy presence of Delhi Police and CRPF, the attackers were given a free hand.

This violence is the clearest… pic.twitter.com/0AS2xYOyIZ

— CPIML Liberation (@cpimlliberation) February 13, 2026

Statement of Communist Party of India -Marxist Leninist- Liberation:

The Police Station Incident: Allegations of sexualised abuse

The most serious allegations, however, concern what happened later at Maurice Nagar Police Station.

AISA leaders Anjali and Neha allege that when they went to file complaints, a right-wing mob gathered outside the police station premises. According to AISA, the crowd swelled from dozens to hundreds, shouting slogans and issuing rape and death threats.

AAP MP Sanjay Singh publicly condemned the episode on X, sharing a video and alleging that in the presence of police personnel, AISA women leaders were abused with explicit insults directed at their mother and were told to “remove their clothes.”

देश की राजधानी दिल्ली में थाने के अंदर, पुलिस वालों के सामने AISA की महिला नेता अंजली और नेहा को मां की गाली देते हुए कहा गया, “कपड़े निकाल।” एक बिहार की बेटी, दूसरी उत्तराखंड की — दोनों सवर्ण हैं, लेकिन वंचितों के हक की आवाज उठाना उनका गुनाह हो गया। अगर यह घटना पंजाब या बंगाल… pic.twitter.com/JgRZ9cgf99

— Sanjay Singh AAP (@SanjayAzadSln) February 15, 2026

Singh questioned how such an incident could occur in the national capital and linked it to broader concerns about women’s safety. He alleged that the targeting of the two women leaders was connected to their vocal advocacy for marginalised communities.

AISA has termed the episode “state-sponsored hooliganism,” alleging that activists were effectively confined inside a room for hours while threats were issued outside. Anjali was reportedly taken for a medico-legal examination.

Delhi Police, according to ANI, has registered two FIRs — one based on Tiwari’s complaint and another based on a complaint by a female AISA student — under sections relating to assault, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint and common intention under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

UGC का समर्थन कर रही दिल्ली यूनिवर्सिटी कि छात्राओं को दिल्ली पुलिस के सामने थाने में भद्दी-भद्दी गालियां दी जा रही हैं। UGC के नए प्रावधानो का महत्व इसी बात से लगाया जा सकता है कि दलित और पिछड़ों के हुकूक का उलंघन ना हो… pic.twitter.com/Qs8e7eew71

— Ashraf Hussain (@AshrafFem) February 15, 2026

ABVP, DUSU and administrative responses

The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) has maintained that Tiwari was present in her professional capacity and was attacked for asking questions. Its Delhi state secretary described the episode as an attack on media freedom and characterised Left-affiliated campus politics as violent.

Aryan Maan, President of the Delhi University Students’ Union, condemned the alleged assault on Tiwari and called for a fair and impartial investigation. DUSU leaders have stated that violence has no place in campus politics.

Meanwhile, Vice-Chancellor Yogesh Singh described the incident as a matter of concern and urged the university community to maintain social harmony. He confirmed having spoken with student and teacher groups as well as police authorities.

मैं दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के सभी शिक्षकों और विद्यार्थियों से अनुरोध करता हूं कि वह आपस में सौहार्द बनाए रखें। कोई भी ऐसा काम न करें जिससे आपसी मनमुटाव बढ़े और राष्ट्र व विश्वविद्यालय की छवि को नुकसान हो।

दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय में कल जो घटना हुई वह चिंता का विषय है।…

— University of Delhi (@UnivofDelhi) February 14, 2026

The Larger Question: When violence becomes a narrative weapon

What unfolded at Delhi University is no longer simply a dispute about who pushed whom in a scuffle.

It is a case study in how protests over caste equity are rapidly reframed into spectacles of disorder; how women activists alleging sexualised abuse must compete for credibility against viral video clips; and how digital ecosystems determine which injury becomes the “real” one.

At stake is not merely the credibility of AISA or the veracity of Ruchi Tiwari’s claims. It is the deeper question of whose victimhood travels faster, and why.

When allegations of rape threats and sexualised slurs inside or outside a police station struggle to command sustained outrage — while a competing claim of assault dominates headlines within hours — it reveals something structural about public discourse. Gendered abuse against politically inconvenient women often dissolves into “partisan noise.” Caste-based mobilisation is quickly recast as mob aggression. And campus politics becomes content.

This is not to prejudge the outcome of the FIRs. Due process must determine individual liability. But focusing exclusively on the procedural neutrality of “both sides have filed complaints” risks obscuring the larger asymmetry: narrative power in the digital age is unevenly distributed.

A protest demanding the restoration of equity regulations meant to protect SC, ST and OBC students has been displaced by a battle over viral footage. The structural issue — caste discrimination in higher education — has receded behind the spectacle of confrontation.

This shift is not accidental.

Related:

Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India

The stay of UGC Equity Regulations, 2026: The interim order, the proceedings, and the constitutional questions raised

Higher Education: How Centre is Undermining State Autonomy & Politicising UGC

‘Diluted Existing Rules’: Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi’s Mothers Slam UGC’s Draft Equity Regulations

Academic Freedoms at Risk: Federalism and autonomy challenged by UGC’s VC appointment guidelines

The post UGC Guidelines 2026: AISA Protest at Delhi University followed by sexual abuse allegations amid police presence appeared first on SabrangIndia.