An African American interpretation of Buddhism, it is a collection of articles by scholars and Buddhist activists who, writing from their personal experiences of racial exclusion, explore “trauma, belonging, healing, and transformation,” even as they “wrestle with their suffering.”

Subtitled Buddhism Can Teach Us about Race, Resilience, Transformation & Freedom, the book prompted a thought even as I carried it in my hand: if Dalits in India have been embracing Buddhism in large numbers, why wouldn’t Black Americans do the same, given that they, too, have experienced a qualitatively similar form of discrimination?

Even before I began reading the book, which was published in 2020, I sought to find out what percentage of Americans are Buddhists and, of these, how many are Black. This is what I found: Buddhists represent approximately 1.0% to 1.3% of the U.S. population, or about 3.5 to 4.4 million people. A majority are of Asian descent—roughly 60% to 67%—while about a quarter to one-third are White.

As for Black Americans, they make up roughly 3% of all Buddhists in the United States. And within the broader Black American population, less than 0.5% identify as Buddhist. Yet, from my personal interactions in the United States, I have found that Buddhist cultural presence, visibility, and affinity appear to be growing rapidly.

Someone I know intimately is by no stretch of the imagination a Buddhist. Yet he is among the millions living in America who identify as Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or “spiritual but not religious,” while regularly practising Buddhist meditation or adopting aspects of Buddhist philosophy. Not without reason, according to one source, the absolute number of Buddhist practitioners in the United States grew by more than 20% between 2010 and 2020.

Yet, as far as Black Americans are concerned, they haven’t gone the Dalit way.

Buddhists in India may make up a minuscule 0.7% to 0.8% of the country’s population, or about 8.4 million people, but a vast majority of them are Dalits—around 85% to 90%.

In all likelihood, many of them followed their icon, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who publicly converted to Buddhism at the fag end of his life—in October 1956, just two months before his death in December 1956—after concluding that the caste hierarchy and the practice of “untouchability” were inextricably embedded in orthodox Hindu scriptures.

Returning to Black & Buddhist, I couldn’t find any direct reference to Ambedkar or Dalits in its chapters. This could be because the anthology’s primary focus is specifically on the African American and Black diaspora experience in the United States, examining intergenerational trauma, white supremacy, capitalism, and the distinctive resilience of Black Buddhist practitioners in America.

However, in the book’s introduction, the two editors, Pamela Ayo Yetunde and Cheryl A. Giles, explicitly name “caste designations” alongside racism, sexism, white supremacy, imperialism, and colonialism as inherent, exploitative features of the capitalist system that Buddhism must actively confront.

There is, of course, a critique of Mahatma Gandhi by one of the contributors, Sebene Selassie, similar to what some Indian Dalit intellectuals, as well as the well-known litterateur Arundhati Roy, have been saying.

Selassie writes: “When (Gandhi) was living in South Africa as a young lawyer, his stance on anti-Black racism was well-defined and expressed: he believed Indians and whites to be part of an Aryan brotherhood and inherently superior to Black people, which was not an uncommon stance of Indians living there at the time.”

I didn’t expect Selassie to go on to examine whether Gandhi changed his views thereafter.

But let me turn to the book now.

Each of the eight contributors—Cheryl A. Giles, Lama Rod Owens, Sebene Selassie, Lama Dawa Tarchin Phillips, Pamela Ayo Yetunde, Gyozan Royce Andrew Johnson, Kamilah Majied, and Ruth King—gives graphic details of the suffering and trauma they have experienced, which led them to adopt the Buddhist way of life as a way out.

They go on to conceptualize Buddhism by identifying the paths they believe have helped them overcome their suffering: Right View, Right Mindfulness, Right Intention, Right Livelihood, Right Concentration, Right Action, Right Speech, and Right Effort.

Given this framework, what appeared particularly interesting to me was the way the book looks at capitalism.

While pointing out that in the capitalist society in which they live there is “creativity and freedom,” the book also underscores—and let me quote here—that the system leads to “exploitation, poverty, classism, caste designations, racism, sexism (and other ‘isms’ related to sex and gender), ageism, white supremacy, human supremacy, imperialism, and colonialism.”

Further, capitalism “allows for shortened lifespans for poor people due to chronic stress, hunger, thirst, and treatable but untreated diseases.”

This is quite close to the Marxian analysis—something the powers-that-be in the United States would perhaps detest from the bottom of their hearts.

A closer look, however, suggested that it is nowhere near the typical Communist way of thinking—the proletariat versus the capitalists.

One of the solutions offered is “Right Action.”

The book wonders: “A question Black Buddhists ponder is ‘What is Right Action when confronted by a violent racist?’ Our actions are not just about our own self-preservation but”—and here I paused—“also about the well-being of those around us, including violent perpetrators.”

It says that Black actions, from a Buddhist perspective, should lead to “domino effects and we vow not to become oppressors even while being oppressed.” Insisting that “hatred does not transform hatred” and “only love does that,” it underscores the importance of responding without reproducing the very violence one is confronting.

Quite Gandhian, I thought.

Further: “Right Action, at its core, is love. Love in Right Action applies to everything we do, including our hobbies, vocations, work, and activism. Right Action is necessary in the economic system we live in.”

And how does one observe “Right Livelihood” in a capitalist setup?

Not by rebelling against the system, but by ensuring that one does not make “money in a way that harms others.” In fact, one must live as “spiritually integrated, nonexploitative, generous, and constructive human beings” by beginning with “examining if and how greed operates in our lives.”

The book warns: “Capitalism can breed greed if we have the wrong view that possessing a multitude of things, or having much more money than we need, brings real security and real joy.”

Here, it cites “studies in the US” to argue that “being rich does not make one happy and does not promote mental, emotional, or psychological security.”

Regretting that Black people have “been the objects of capitalism and exploited as property,” the book says that, through the generations, they “have created a collective psychological defense against the vulnerability of being seen as financially insecure.”

The result is that “some of us have come to value things that don’t bring lasting joy.”

Often, “a large home, a luxury car, precious gems and metals, and expensive designer clothing, and paying for these things through doing work that exploits, maims, causes addictions, or kills others” are considered “symbols of success,” feeding the delusion “that being wealthy or appearing to be wealthy protects Black people from exploitation.”

The book believes: “Right Livelihood promotes safety, truth, nonharming, and constructive enterprises. Right Livelihood is not the pursuit of greed and has no interest in impressing others with material excess.”

It adds: “It is not a way to demonstrate economic viability or invulnerability. It can be used as a springboard to create economic alternatives within the system in which we find ourselves. Right Livelihood is certainly a fitting description for Right and Noble anti-racism activism…”

And how does one achieve Right Action and Right Livelihood?

The answer the authors offer is through Right Concentration.

“Supported” by experienced meditation teachers and students, one can undertake “meditation retreats” for this purpose. But here, they warn, one must be selective. One should check whether the retreat centre would be in a position to support participants during what could be an emotionally and mentally vulnerable period.

The book underlines: “Long meditation retreats evoke mental and emotional vulnerability because returning to one’s object of meditation over and over again can trigger trauma.”

But this “should not be taken to mean that meditation is not right… The real questions are these: What type of meditation retreat is appropriate? How long? How often? To what end?”

Why would an African American anti-racism activist want to experience Right Concentration?

By committing to “cultivating peace of mind and peace of body as we struggle for liberation”; by helping each other so that “our collective souls and collective selves may be nourished for generations of communities to come.”

Right Concentration, the book believes, would help one know one’s “traumatized history, without the constructs of race, ethnicity, gender, and religion and without preferences and desires, fears and terrors, anger and rage—imagine how much freedom there may be.”

“We would come out of that experience knowing ourselves as part of the Universal Renaissance in Black Self-Knowledge…”

All this would have to be done, says the book, at a time when, in the United States, one often hears African Americans being told: “Go back to Africa where you belong!”

It says: “Black belonging has always been contested in the United States and we are now being asked to support the exclusion of Brown people at our borders, Black people from African countries, and the Muslim world which is largely populated by people of color.”

This, the book argues, ought to be overcome through “benefactor practice,” which “weaves together the threads of ancestral myth, memory, and connection with others, all of which may be modes of healing intergenerational trauma that lives in our bodies.”

It says: “Integrating these threads is a lifelong process that can be supported by bringing our benefactors into our meditation practice. We know trauma lives in the body. We carry it every day. Trauma cannot be buried, ignored, pushed aside, or denied. As long as we breathe, trauma reminds us it is with us and rises to the surface. Transforming trauma means being willing to address it in our lives.”

“In other words,” the book argues, “being Black-identified does not mean that I am also anger-identified. To be Black has come with significant woundedness and trauma from having to survive a white supremacist culture as well as having to hold the transhistorical trauma of (the) ancestors who also survived the same trauma and passed it on unknowingly” to the next generation.

Yet, through meditation practice, one can experience “Blackness” as something “based upon resiliency, community, deep joy in the face of violence, and a profound gratitude” for Black culture, “which continues to transform marginalization into celebration.”

Courtesy: CounterView

The post From caste to race: Reading ‘Black & Buddhist’ through an Indian lens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The circumstances immediately preceding his death have become a central part of the investigation. Doolla was reportedly the invigilator during Wakode’s examination and, according to the institute’s initial account (later regretfully denied by IIT Mumbai), Wakode had been found using a mobile phone and had uploaded the examination question paper to ChatGPT to obtain answers. IIT Bombay initially stated that no disciplinary action had been initiated against him and that he had been counselled by the concerned faculty members.

But that account quickly became contested. Students and Wakode’s family alleged that the incident involved threats of disciplinary action and suspension and that Wakode had been humiliated. The Indian Express has since reported that Crime Branch investigators are examining CCTV footage from the examination hall showing Doolla approaching Wakode and asking him to leave the hall. The footage is now part of an investigation that is attempting to reconstruct what happened between the examination and Wakode’s death.

What remains equally important is what happened before September 18. Wakode’s family has alleged that the examination incident was not an isolated interaction but occurred against the backdrop of months of caste-based and mental harassment. Those allegations have not been established, and the Crime Branch investigation must determine whether they are supported by witness statements, communications, institutional records and other evidence. But the absence of a prior formal complaint cannot, by itself, be treated as proof that discrimination did not occur.

Breaking: IITB accepts that cheating allegation against Sahil Wakode are not proven, backtracks earlier letter

This is what we have been saying

Cheating allegation are not proven. IIT already backtracking

Prof Dulla should be arrested and investigated properly… https://t.co/BHjmciyQNv

— Ravi Ratan (@scribe_it) September 21, 2026

IIT Bombay has now suspended Professor Suryanarayana Doolla and also apologized over the matter.

The professor had falsely accused Sahil Wakode of using ChatGPT to cheat, an allegation that seriously damaged his academic career. pic.twitter.com/oQUlAb8WrM

— The Dalit Voice (@ambedkariteIND) September 21, 2026

Four suicides in one year at IIT Bombay. This is not a tragedy. This is institutional failure. This is institutional murder.

SFI stands with the students of IIT Bombay demanding action, accountability and transparency. pic.twitter.com/wSz7CastFD

— SFI (@SFI_CEC) September 20, 2026

It was never about cheating.

People justifying cheating leading to student ending his life in another pathetic view I came across.

I wish none of this happens to their kids. https://t.co/TaP02RiYKP

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) September 21, 2026

अब तो IIT Bombay ने भी बिना किसी जांच के साहिल पर चीटिंग के आरोप लगाने पर माफीनामा जारी कर दिया है।

पहले साहिल को आत्महत्या पर मजबूर किया गया और अब उसके सांस्थानिक हत्या को जायज भी ठहराया जा रहा है! शर्मनाक है! https://t.co/e5cg5jPdNB pic.twitter.com/pjkLlCT16B

— Priyanka Bharti (@priyanka2bharti) September 21, 2026

The apology came only after the institution had already framed the story

The most troubling aspect of IIT Bombay’s handling of the matter may be the speed with which the institution initially presented a particular account of Wakode’s final hours. Its first public communication foregrounded the alleged use of a phone during the examination and the uploading of the question paper on ChatGPT. That communication effectively placed an allegation of academic misconduct at the centre of the public narrative before the circumstances surrounding the death had been independently established.

On September 21, however, IIT Bombay apologised and acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to set out or characterise details relating to the events preceding Wakode’s death before they had been established through the appropriate investigative process. The Times of India reported that the institute apologised for its earlier communication concerning the examination incident, while The Indian Express reported that students had specifically demanded an apology over what they described as the “defamation” of Wakode.

That reversal matters as the question was not whether academic misconduct should be taken seriously. It should. The question is whether, when a student dies hours after an interaction with institutional authority, the first responsibility of the institution should be to establish facts carefully rather than to publicly foreground an allegation that potentially shifts attention towards the student’s conduct.

The institute itself has now acknowledged that the circumstances had not yet been duly established. That acknowledgment should also invite scrutiny of how institutions speak about students after their deaths, particularly when those students belong to communities that have historically experienced discrimination within educational institutions.

Doolla has been removed as Dean. But only as Dean

IIT Bombay has temporarily relieved Professor Suryanarayana Doolla of his duties as Dean of Administrative Affairs pending an investigation. But, as The New Indian Express reported, Doolla continues to remain a professor in the Energy Science and Engineering department. The Times of India similarly reported that the action was limited to his administrative responsibilities and that he would continue as a professor.

This distinction is important because students had demanded that Doolla be removed from his academic duties as well. Their concern was not necessarily a demand that the professor be treated as guilty before investigation, but that a person named in an FIR concerning the death of a student should not continue exercising academic authority over students while the circumstances are being investigated.

The institute has justified his removal from the administrative post as a step intended to ensure an independent and unbiased investigation. That is understandable as an institutional measure. But it also leaves an obvious question: if independence from administrative authority is necessary for the inquiry, what safeguards are in place to ensure that students who may have information relevant to the investigation do not feel vulnerable when the professor continues to teach and exercise academic authority?

The FIR is not the investigation. But neither is institutional denial

The FIR records allegations made by Wakode’s family. The Crime Branch investigation must determine what happened, whether there was sustained harassment, whether caste-based discrimination occurred, whether any conduct contributed to Wakode’s distress, and whether any institutional response failed him. At the same time, IIT Bombay’s statement that no complaint had previously been made to its SC/ST cell or administration cannot settle the question either. The Indian Express reported that the institute relied on the absence of any such formal complaint when responding to the family’s allegations.

Caste discrimination does not necessarily announce itself through a formal written complaint. Students may hesitate to complain against professors who control grades, academic progression, recommendations or other aspects of university life. The possibility of retaliation, stigma or simply the belief that an institution will not act can itself become a barrier to reporting. That is precisely why an investigation into allegations of discrimination cannot be reduced to a search for whether a complaint was filed in the correct institutional forum.

What exactly is IIT Bombay defending?

The response from sections of the IIT Bombay faculty has introduced another dimension to the controversy. The Faculty Forum of IIT Bombay publicly expressed solidarity with Doolla, saying that he had been discharging his duties according to institute-approved academic procedures and that the faculty was distressed by what it described as the tarnishing of his reputation. The Indian Express reported that faculty members gathered in support of Doolla after he was removed as Dean, while faculty bodies at other IITs also expressed support for him.

There is nothing inherently improper about insisting upon due process or resisting a presumption of guilt. But due process cannot mean that institutional solidarity with a faculty member becomes a substitute for investigating allegations made by a student’s family. The two principles can coexist. Doolla is entitled to a fair investigation and should not be declared guilty merely because he has been named in an FIR. At the same time, Wakode’s family is entitled to have allegations of caste-based harassment and institutional failure investigated seriously, independently and without the investigation being overshadowed by a defence of the professor’s professional reputation.

The concern becomes particularly acute when the institution itself had initially issued a public account that it later apologised for.

This is not the first IIT Bombay student death to raise questions about caste

The most difficult part of the present controversy is that IIT Bombay cannot claim to be encountering these questions for the first time. In February 2023, Dalit student Darshan Solanki died by suicide at IIT Bombay. His death generated allegations of caste discrimination and intense campus debate over whether students from marginalised communities were adequately protected within the institution.

Three years later, Solanki’s father, Ramesh Solanki, has returned to the IIT Bombay campus in connection with protests following Wakode’s death. The Indian Express reported that parents of previous IIT Bombay suicide victims joined the protests and raised concerns about transparency, accountability, discrimination and the treatment of students from reserved communities. Ramesh Solanki reportedly continues to question aspects of the investigation into his son’s death.

The significance of Darshan Solanki therefore cannot simply be historical. His death forms part of the institutional memory against which the present case is unfolding. The question now is not only what happened to Sahil Wakode. It is also what IIT Bombay learnt from Darshan Solanki’s death, what institutional mechanisms were changed afterwards, and whether those mechanisms could identify and address the forms of exclusion that students may experience without ever making a formal complaint.

And then there are the other deaths

Wakode’s death has also occurred amid wider concerns over student suicides at IIT Bombay. Reports have referred to other student deaths this year, adding to the sense among students and parents that the problem cannot be treated as a single tragic incident. Moneycontrol, reporting on the aftermath of Wakode’s death, noted that the episode had once again brought student suicides at premier engineering institutions into focus. The protests at IIT Bombay have consequently expanded beyond the circumstances of one student’s death to include demands relating to mental-health support, institutional accountability and student welfare.

This is important because individualising every death can prevent institutions from examining common structural conditions. If students repeatedly experience academic pressure, fear of disciplinary action, inadequate grievance mechanisms, social isolation or discrimination, then treating each death as an entirely separate personal tragedy leaves the institutional environment itself largely unexamined.

The 18 demands show how much larger the crisis has become

The student protests have made clear that the controversy is no longer limited to the question of what happened inside one examination hall. According to The Indian Express, students placed an 18-point charter before the IIT Bombay administration. Their demands included an independent inquiry, changes to student welfare mechanisms, student representation on committees, a formal mechanism for complaints against professors, greater accountability of institutional authorities and stronger mental-health support, including access to psychiatric care.

These demands matter because they reveal what students themselves see as the larger problem. They are not asking only for an answer about September 18. They are questioning how decisions affecting students are made, who exercises authority over them, what happens when a student has a complaint against a professor, and whether students have any meaningful role in institutions that make decisions about their academic and personal lives.

An institution can have rules on paper and still leave students without meaningful protection if those rules are difficult to invoke against powerful members of the faculty.

The protests have also brought the role of IIT Bombay Director Professor Shireesh Kedare under scrutiny. Students demanded his resignation as part of their broader charter. Reports also emerged suggesting that he had agreed to resign, although IIT Bombay subsequently denied that he had stepped down.

A campus divided between solidarity and accountability

The response to the protests has also raised questions about how dissent is being handled around the campus. The Indian Express reported that police detained activists from different organisations who were protesting outside the IIT Bombay campus. Ramesh Solanki, whose son Darshan died in 2023, was among those participating in the protest and seeking accountability over the earlier case.

The present situation has produced an uncomfortable divide. Faculty groups have rallied around Doolla and emphasised academic integrity and due process. Students have demanded accountability and institutional reform. Wakode’s family has alleged caste-based harassment. The police are investigating. IIT Bombay has apologised for its initial public account while simultaneously maintaining that the circumstances remain under investigation.

The question IIT Bombay must now answer

The academic misconduct allegation has also become central to the public discussion. But academic integrity and caste discrimination are not mutually exclusive questions. Even if the investigation establishes that Wakode violated examination rules, that would not automatically disprove allegations that he may have experienced caste-based discrimination or harassment. Conversely, allegations of caste discrimination cannot be used to establish that an examination rule was not violated.

The two questions require separate examination. The tragedy is that IIT Bombay’s initial public statement blurred those questions by placing the examination incident at the centre of its account of Wakode’s death. Its subsequent apology acknowledged that the circumstances preceding his death should not have been characterised before they were established through investigation.

The most important question is not whether IIT Bombay can defend its procedures. It is whether those procedures are capable of protecting students when the person they may need protection from is someone who exercises institutional authority over them.

Detailed reports on Darshan Solanki suicide case may be read here, here, here, here and here.

Related:

Mumbai Dharna for Darshan Solanki makes calls for law against caste discrimination

The Normalisation of Suicide at IITs: Institutional blindness and failure

A Long Battle, A Swift Stay: The Fight for Equitable Campuses

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

Another student lost to suicide at IIT-Delhi

IIT Kanpur: Third incident of suicide in five weeks, a 29-year-old PhD scholar found dead in her dorm room

Another student, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, dies by suicide in IIT

Crucial evidence overlooked by IIT Committee, internal survey by SC/ST Cell contradicts report findings

The post Three years after Darshan Solanki, Sahil Wakode’s death shows IIT Bombay still has no answer on caste, power and student deaths appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement has been Initiated jointly by Javed Anand and Feroze Mithiborwala (Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy-IMSD), Zakia Soman and Noorjahan Safia Niaz (Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan-BMMA), Shamsuddin Tamboli (Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal) and Bader Saeed (Roshni).

The signatories to the statement include Naseeruddin Shah, Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Sultan Shaheen, Teesta Setalvad, Ram Puniyani, Tushar Gandhi, Amol Palekar, Mallika Sarabhai, Ratna Pathak.

Read the full statement below: 

Progressive Muslim activists, intellectuals and women’s rights advocates strongly oppose the ill-conceived nationwide ‘Save India, Save Shariat’ campaign launched by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB).

• A Political Gift to Polarisation: 

Following the 2024 Lok Sabha elections where civil society and opposition parties rallied under ‘Save the Constitution’, the AIMPLB’s campaign inadvertently gives the BJP and the sangh parivar a platform to posture as defenders of constitutional norms. Ahead of crucial state assembly elections, this campaign reinforces false narratives and fuels propaganda that Indian Muslims reject the law of the land.

• Defending Patriarchy in the Name of Faith: 

The so-called “God-given Shariat Law’ in India is nothing but man-made personal laws, male interpreted patriarchal interpretations defended by the AIMPLB. In its September 2016 Supreme Court affidavit in the Triple Talaq case (Sayara Bano v. Union of India), the AIMPLB through its affidavit claimed divorce rights belong primarily to husbands because men allegedly possess “greater power of decision-making” and “control emotions.” It even argued that without quick separation option, a husband “may resort to illegal, criminal ways of murdering or burning her alive”—a disturbing rationalization of domestic violence. While claiming these laws are divine, the Board admitted in Paragraph 46 that “India is a patriarchal society, and therefore personal laws of all communities are aligned with the patriarchal notion…”

• Selective Use of the Constitution:

The AIMPLB selectively invokes Articles 25–30 (Religious Freedom), ignoring that these rights are explicitly subject to public order, morality, and health. They conveniently bypass Articles 14 and 15, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit sex or religion-based discrimination.

• Global Precedents of Reform:

Muslim-majority nations worldwide—including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tunisia, and Morocco—have codified and reformed personal laws to protect women’s rights. Millions of Muslims live in secular democratic nations with uniform family codes without putting “Islam in danger.” The Muslim community’s current legal predicament in India is the direct result of the AIMPLB and conservative leaders failing to proactively reform and codify Muslim Personal Law.

• Exposing Political Exploitation:

While mainstream parties often ignore Muslim women’s civil rights, the Hindu Right exploits the UCC debate for political polarization. Genuine family law reform must guarantee Muslim women equal rights regarding minimum marriage age, abolition of polygamy, mutual divorce, equal inheritance, child custody, adoption, and a ban on female genital mutilation and halala.

• BJP, Sangh Parivar’s Hate Campaign:

While secular parties rarely support the rights of Muslim women, the BJP and the Hindu Right do so with an obvious motive: communal polarization. The sangh parivar sheds crocodile tears for Muslim women while ignoring relentless hate speech (love jihad, land jihad…) and hate crimes—mob lynching, bulldozing homes, demolishing masjids, and economic boycotts, with chants of Jai Shri Ram to strike fear and intimidation. This accompanies state actions targeting Muslims: Waqf Amendment Act, draconian anti-conversion laws, and a weaponised SIR (Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls) to disenfranchise vast sections of the electorate.

• Ignoring Everyday Survival Concerns:

While ‘Saving Shariah’ tops the AIMPLB’s agenda, real life everyday challenges facing Indian Muslims—socio-economic marginalization, security, education, and employment—are ignored. The ulema must address survival issues rather than furthering retrogressive norms.

• Our Call:

We call upon all progressive forces, civil society organizations, and secular political parties to intervene actively to ensure that the demand for a gender-just, religion-neutral Uniform Civil Code is rooted in equality and human rights, rather than weaponized for communal division.

Signatories:

1. Javed Anand, Convenor, Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD), Mumbai
2. Zakia Soman, Co-convenor, Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), Ahmedabad
3. Noorjehan Safia Niaz, Co-convenor, BMMA, Mumbai
4. Feroze Mithiborwala, Co-Convenor, IMSD, Mumbai
5. Shamsuddin Tamboli, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
6. Bader Sayeed, Former MLA, lawyer, President, Roshni, Chennai
7. A. J. Jawad, Lawyer, Arbitrator, IMSD, Chennai
8. Afroz Javed Inamdar, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal Bengaluru
9. Ajij Sayyed Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal Pune
10. Akbar Shaikh, Social Activist, IMSD, Farmer, Solapur
11. Altaphusen Ramjan Nabab, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
12. Amar Tamboli, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal Satara
13. Amol Palekar – Actor, director, film producer – Pune
14. Anand Patwardhan, Documentary Filmmaker, Mumbai
15. Ani Zonneveld, President, Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV), USA, and Founder Member, Alliance of Inclusive Muslims (International)
16. Anita Cheria, Indian Christian Women’s Movement, Bangalore
17. Anjum Rajabali, Film Script writer, IMSD, Mumbai
18. Anwar Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
19. Arshad Alam, Columnist, editor, IMSD, Delhi
20. Ashok Dhiware IPS, Rtd. Additional DIG of Maharashtra State, Pune
21. (Dr) Ashwini KP, UN independent Expert, Bangalore
22. Asim Sayyed, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
23. Askari Zaidi, Veteran journalist, IMSD, Delhi
24. (Prof) Azharuddin Patel, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
25. Azim Pathan, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
26. Benazeer Tamboli, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
27. Benazir Kazi, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Solapur
28. Bismilla Sayyed, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Jalana
29. Dilawar Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
30. Gulab Attar, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Kolhapur
31. Hasan Ibrahim Pasha, Writer, IMSD, Allahabad
32. Hasina Khan, Bebaak Collective, Mumbai
33. Hilal Ahmed, Scholar and Author, Asst Professor, CSDS, Delhi
34. Iqbal Ahmad, BBC, Delhi
35. Irshad Wadgavkar, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Kolhapur
36. Jamir Momin, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
37. Jamir Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
38. Jeibunnisa R, BMMA, Tamil Nadu
39. Jyothi Yedulla, Vice-President, Casteless Society of India, Hyderabad
40. Khadijah Faruqui, Feminist and human rights consultant, Delhi
41. Dr. Lata Pratibha Madhukar, Bahujan Feminist Writer and Critique, Founder of Manomitr
42. Madan Lal Hind, Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Delhi
43. Madhu Bhaduri, Retd. Ambassador, Indian Foreign Service, Delhi
44. Madhu Bhushan, feminist, social activist, Bangalore
45. Mallika Sarabhai, Classical dancer, activist and actress, Ahmedabad
46. Mariya Salim, feminist development professional, Delhi
47. Mohammad Waheed, President, Casteless Society of India, Hyderabad
48. (Dr) Mohd Farooque Khan, Associate Professor, Marathwada University, Sambhajinagar
49. Mufid Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak, Mandal, Pune
50. Munir  Shikalgar Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Sangli
51. Muniza Khan, IMSD, CJP, Varanasi
52. (Adv) Nazrana Ahemad, Social activist, academician, Dibrugarh (Assam)
53. Naseeruddin Shah, Actor, Mumbai
54. Nasreen Contractor, Co-convenor, IMSD, Mumbai
55. Nasreen M, BMMA, Karnataka
56. Naureen Sophie Musvee. EC member, Roshni, Chennai
57. Parvin Altaphusen Nabab, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
58. Peehu Pardeshi, PEHEL Foundation, Mumbai
59. Preeti Oza, Development Professional, Gandhinagar
60. Qaisar Pasha, Homemaker, Allahabad
61. (Prof.) Radha Kumar, renowned academic, former GOI Interlocutor for J&K, Kodaikanal
62. Rajesh Singhi, Social Sector Consultant, Alwar, Rajasthan
63. (Prof) Ram Puniyani, Author, Activist, President, CSSS, Mumbai
64. Ratna Pathak, Actor, Director, Mumbai
65. SR Darapuri, IPS(Retd), National President, All India Peoples Front, Lucknow
66. Sabah Khan, Parcham, Mumbai/Mumbra
67. Sachendra Pratap Yadav, Activist, Lucknow
68. Salim Momin Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Sangli
69. Samina Pathan Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
70. Samreen Khan, Socio-political Blogger, Kolkata
71. Sandeep Pandey, General Secretary, Socialist Party of India, Lucknow
72. Sandhya Gokhale – Author and activist, Pune
73. Sayara Mulani Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Kolhapur
74. Shabana Dean, IMSD, Pune
75. Shagufta Musvee, President Soroptimist International, EC member, Roshni
76. Shahed Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
77. Shaikh Yusuf Baba, Convenor, Duniyadari Social Reform Movement, Hyderabad
78. Shahjahan Patel, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Mumbai
79. Shakun Mohini, feminist, social activist, Bangalore
80. Shama Zaidi, filmmaker, script writer, Mumbai
81. (Dr) Shaniya Zarina Khan, Dentist, Delhi
82. Shriya Maini, Advocate, Supreme Court, Delhi
83. (Dr) Shujaat Ali Quadri, Convener, Muslim Youth organization of India
84. Sultan Shahin, Editor-in-chief, New Age Islam (online portal), Delhi
85. (Dr) Suresh Khairnar, Social Activist, Nagpur
86. Suresh Nautiyal, India   Green Party (IGP), Garhwal, Uttarakhand
87. Teesta Setalvad, Journalist, activist, educationist, Secretary Citizens for Justice & Peace, IMSD, Mumbai
88. Tushar Gandhi, President, Hum Bharat ke Log, Mumbai
89. Ummid Shaikh Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
90. Yash Paranjpe, Writer, Navi Mumbai
91. (Dr) Zaheer A Sayeed, Neurologist, Chennai
92. Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Islamic Scholar, Director-General, Wisdom Foundation, Mumbai

The post Shariat Campaign: Ulema’s Boon to Hindutva appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 19t and 20 2026, representatives of NAPM from Maharashtra and several other states across the country met and interacted with fisherfolk, Adivasis, farmers, die-makers, landless people, workers, and other affected communities in the Vadhavan area.

The Vadhavan Port project proposes to reclaim approximately 1,448 hectares of the sea to create land. In addition, large areas of land will be required for roads, railways, and other associated infrastructure. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has publicly stated that Vadhavan Port will transform Maharashtra’s economy, turn Palghar into a “Fourth Mumbai,” and create lakhs of jobs. But the fisherfolk, Adivasis, farmers, die-makers, and other local communities protesting along the Vadhavan coast do not want a form of development that destroys their lives and livelihoods.

The proposal for a port in the Vadhavan area had been questioned earlier as well on environmental grounds. Today, various agencies of the Union and State governments are taking the project forward. Yet the environmental and social concerns raised earlier remain unresolved, even as the scale of the project has expanded many times over. The experience of JNPT and other ports must be studied – including the traffic, urbanisation, pollution, impacts on fishing, and expansion of infrastructure that they have brought to coastal areas – and an independent assessment of the overall impacts of Vadhavan must be carried out. The damage already witnessed elsewhere should serve as a grave warning.

“We do not want a Fourth Mumbai. Our sea, our farms, our forests and our villages must remain as they are!”

With this demand, communities across the area have united under the leadership of the Vadhavan Bandar Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti to oppose the port. Beyond the port itself, the project entails approximately 1,448 hectares of marine reclamation, over 10 kilometres of breakwater, large-scale dredging, road and rail connectivity, storage and logistics infrastructure, and industrial and commercial development. In other words, this is a project that will transform the entire coastline. In NAPM’s view, this is not a chain of development, but a chain of destruction. The government speaks of an investment of Rs. 76,220 crore and the creation of lakhs of jobs. But alongside government agencies, major international port, terminal, logistics, and dredging operators are participating in this project. Who, then, will count the cost to the generations-old livelihoods of local fisherfolk, Adivasis, farmers, and small producers?

According to government studies, the 16 fishing villages in the project area are home to 20,809 fisherfolk belonging to 5,333 households. Fishing is the principal livelihood of these communities. Skill training or compensation of a few lakh rupees cannot replace the sea for a fisher. Traditional fishing, local fish resources – including lobster – and the entire economy built around them must be protected. Vadhavan lies within the ecologically sensitive Dahanu region. The cumulative impacts of massive marine reclamation, dredging, and the breakwater on sea currents, sediment movement, fishing grounds, and tidal ecosystems must be examined seriously.

A fundamental question remains: Have the traditional knowledge of local communities, their lived experience of the sea, and data on local biodiversity been adequately reflected in these studies?

If mangrove areas are affected, marine ecosystems could be destroyed. Such ecosystems are nearly impossible to recreate elsewhere, making their protection and conservation critically important. The impacts of sourcing material for Vadhavan’s reclamation and associated infrastructure – including quarrying in hilly areas, impacts on Adivasi areas, and deforestation – must also be taken into account. Cutting down a forest in one place and planting trees in another district cannot compensate for the loss of that ecosystem.

Official information indicates that private land, Adivasi land, forest land, and government land will be required for the roads and railways connecting the port. The impact of the project will therefore not remain confined to the port area. For Adivasi communities, land cultivated over generations is the very basis of survival. We cannot accept taking away these lands in the name of development – blasting hills, cutting forests, and dumping reclamation material, and calling this “development.”

It is misleading to present Vadhavan as simply a “container port.” According to official documents, it is a deep-draft major port with the capacity to handle bulk chemical and crude cargo in addition to containers. Under the Central Pollution Control Board’s classification, ports, harbours, jetties, and dredging operations fall under the Red Category, while ports handling only containers fall under the Orange Category.

Government documents claim a sea depth of 20 metres. However, the local Sangharsh Samiti says that measurements taken at low tide found the depth to be lower. Activists say that although this issue was raised during the public hearing, no satisfactory response was provided.

The NAPM has demanded:

—Put a halt to the Vadhavan Port project immediately.

—Immediately halt tree-felling and all related infrastructure works.

—-Conduct an independent and transparent cumulative impact assessment, with the participation of local fisherfolk, Adivasis, farmers, and women.

—-Independently re-measure the depth of the sea, including verification of the claim of a 20-metre depth. The exercise must be public and conducted in the presence of local communities.

—-Protect the generations-old livelihoods of fisherfolk. Traditional fishing must not be destroyed in the name of compensation or alternative employment.

—Protect Adivasi land and forests, and safeguard all their legal rights, including rights under PESA.

—-Protect the local ecosystem instead of afforestation in distant districts as compensation for the destruction of local forests.

—-Instead of imposing uncontrolled urbanization in the name of a “Fourth Mumbai,” establish schools, colleges, hospitals, healthcare services, and employment opportunities based on the needs of the local people.

Finally, the statement issued by NAPM states that the people’s movement at Vadhavan is not a struggle against one port alone. It is a struggle to defend the coastline, fisherfolk and Adivasi communities, agriculture, forests, and biodiversity.

“The people of Vadhavan do want development – they want schools, a college, hospitals and doctors; they want markets for their agriculture and horticulture; fisherfolk need facilities and fair prices; and young people need dignified employment in their own region.

“NAPM stands firmly with the Vadhavan Bandar Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti and with the fisherfolk, Adivasis, and local communities fighting this project. We reject a model of development built by destroying the sea, forests, land, and livelihoods.NAPM appeals to people’s movements across the country to express their solidarity with the sit-in protest that has now continued for the past 48 days.”

NAPM has been part of this struggle, which has continued for several decades, from the very beginning. Medha Patkar, the late Thomas Kocherry, Rambhau Patil, N. D. Koli and many other activists have stood with this struggle over the years.

The statement has been issued by Sanjay Mangala Gopal, Suniti S. R – National Convenors (from Maharashtra), Sujay More, Sirat Satpute, Maharashtra State Convenors. The Solidarity Team Members include Prasad Chacko, Ahmedabad; Pranjali Tripathi, Jaipur; Adv. Mini Mathew, Bandra; Siddharth Chakravarti, Bengaluru; Sakshi Samant, Thane; Nandkumar Pawar, Mumbai; Ramesh Koli, Uran; Mangesh Koli, Uran; Mayur Koli, Uran; Dhananjay Shinde; Rajshree Shinde, Mumbai

Related:

Dahanu locals reject JNPT survey that pushes for a new port at Vadhavan

Maharashtra’s fishing community fights to protect its ‘golden belt’ coast

50,000 strong Adivasi, farmers march from Charoti to Palghar, hold indefinite dharna for land rights

The post Stop construction of Vadhavan Port, have open discussions with local communities: Climate change activists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hence the alliance of women rights organisations from across the country has rejected the conflation of equality with uniformity and homogeneity. Likewise, ALIFA has ‘refused the criminalisation and surveillance being imposed in the garb of ‘gender justice’. We demand an immediate rollback of these Codes and insist that there must be no rush to enact or impose them without ensuring that all constitutional rights of the affected communities are fully safeguarded and that widespread consultations are held with them.’

‘A week ago, on September 13, 2026, Mr Amit Shah, the Union Home Minister, publicly said that a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) would be implemented in all 21 BJP- and NDA-ruled states before 2029. This renewed push by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to impose a UCC across the country before the 2029 elections demands a firm and clear response from women representing diverse social locations across India, in whose name this monolith project of the BJP-RSS is being orchestrated.

The Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand has been in force since January 27, 2025. The UCC Bills passed by Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh in their Legislative Assemblies are awaiting Presidential assent as of September 2026, and therefore, not yet in force. Neither Uttarakhand’s UCC nor the frameworks contained in the Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh UCC Bills provide a model that incorporates substantive gender equality, let alone gender justice. A critical scrutiny of the UCC Codes across states by ALIFA has revealed the many ways in which these are likely to have adverse impacts on women and vulnerable social groups, while claiming to ‘safeguard women’s rights’.

The All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) elaborates on our key concerns regarding the UCC Law and Bills here:

• The new codes retain and reproduce unjust provisions that push back against hard-won rights, over decades. They retain restitution of conjugal rights equally for men and women, a remedy long denounced by women’s rights advocates for compelling marital cohabitation and for its potential use against women attempting to leave abusive marriages. They restrict access to divorce during the first year of marriage, subject only to narrow exceptions, rather than expanding women’s ability to leave a marriage safely and autonomously and include religious conversion as a ground for divorce. All these provisions are regressive and inimical to constitutional freedoms and rights.
• The new Codes fail to address the gaps already known in the existing Personal and secular laws across the country. Rather than providing a comprehensive family-law framework, many remain largely focused on marriage, divorce, succession and live-in relationships. They do not address issues such as marriage inequality, the absence of a concept of marital property for women, no-fault divorce with safeguards for women, and marital rape, which have been consistently brought before the Supreme Court for redressal or raised by women’s and queer movements, and legal reform campaigns. Nor do they suggest reform of adoption and guardianship to guarantee equal parental rights irrespective of gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or marital status.
• Instead, some of these Codes introduce new criminal penalties into intimate and family relationships without adequate provision for ensuring the matrimonial rights of women. The emerging approach of selectively criminalising certain marriage and divorce practices historically associated with Muslim Personal Law and practices such as Triple Talaq is a glaring example of this. Gender justice does not mean arbitrarily singling out particular communities and practices for penal treatment, while leaving the structural inequalities experienced by women across communities substantially untouched. As feminists, we oppose the substantive inequality and discrimination related to divorce, separation and annulment, inheritance, custody, and guardianship in all communities.
• Most glaringly, the Codes do not address women’s economic inequality within marriage. They do not establish a marital-property regime that recognises women’s unpaid care and domestic labour or guarantees an equitable share in assets accumulated, sustained, or value-added during marriage. Formal equality in marriage and inheritance means little, if women must leave decades-long marriages without an enforceable share in the wealth their unpaid and paid labour helped create.
• The succession provisions in the Codes also require much closer scrutiny than the language of “equal inheritance” suggests. Under the Hindu Succession Act, daughters and sons currently have a birthright in Mitakshara coparcenary property. Uttarakhand’s UCC removes the distinction between coparcenary and other property and permits property to be disposed of by will, potentially removing the limited protection against disinheritance that daughters had in ancestral joint-family property. The Muslim Personal Law provides mandatory shares for legal heirs, including daughters and sons, and restricts testamentary disposition to one-third of the estate. The Goa Succession Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act stipulates one-half of the estate to the “forced heirs” in case of children. The UCC displaces these protections too. A genuinely gender-just succession regime should not merely ask whether formal shares are described as equal, but whether women and other vulnerable heirs remain protected against disinheritance and economic dispossession.
• The UCC Law and Bills empower the State to surveil and arbitrarily intrude into the intimate lives of citizens, including coercive intervention through registration, inquiry, reporting and penal provisions in the name of ensuring equality in marriage, inheritance and other aspects of family law. These provisions are especially dangerous for inter-faith, inter-caste, queer and transgender couples whose relationships are already under extreme scrutiny and stigma. The Gujarat Bill, which makes registers of marriages, divorces and other prescribed records open to inspection, allows certified extracts to be obtained on application, and requires employers, government bodies, companies and other authorities to rely on UCC registration certificates before changing a person’s recorded marital status, typifies this approach. While this may protect women who could be deceived if information regarding their intended marriage is not in the public domain, there are no safeguards for the adverse consequences this can have for inter-faith or inter-caste marriages that face opposition from family or civil society groups.
• The UCC Law and Bills criminalise aspects of consensual adult relationships, creating victims and culprits without a crime. The provisions transform consensual adult intimacy into a matter for administrative verification, third-party complaint, police record and criminal punishment, including imprisonment merely for failure to register a consensual adult relationship. Under Uttarakhand’s UCC Law, adults in a live-in relationship MUST register it within a month or face imprisonment; similar mandatory-registration and penal provisions have now been reproduced in the Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh Bills. In Gujarat, for example, the Registrar may summon the partners or “any other person” as part of an inquiry; records of live-in relationships are required to be forwarded to the local police; parents or guardians are required to be informed where either partner is below 21and non-registration can attract imprisonment. A complaint or information from a third party can trigger proceedings requiring the couple to register as well. The arbitrariness and discrimination are stark, as those in consensual adult live-in relationships are subjected to registration and policing under the garb of protection, while corresponding protections are not included in the Codes for adults in forced marriage, in inter-caste, in inter-faith marriage or queer and transgender couples facing familial coercion or violence.
• The UCC Law and Bills do not apply to all women. One, they explicitly exclude Scheduled Tribe communities, almost 15% of the Indian population. Two, some emerging UCCs continue to organise marriage and family around binary categories of “man” and “woman”, do not recognise same-sex marriage, and fail to create a clear framework recognising queer and trans people’s relationships and families and other forms of CIS families. The Gujarat Bill, for example, contains no reference to transgender persons at all, thereby completely excluding the relationships and marriages of transgender people and other queer people.  Transgender and queer people, as well as Adivasi women, have been demanding gender justice, rights and equality (not UCC) in live-in and marital relationships for a long time. A UCC Law or Bill cannot credibly describe itself as “uniform” while shutting out the lived experiences of entire communities and family forms and/or rendering them legally invisible.
• The new Codes totally ignore Goa’s experience and the complexities and contradictions with its UCC. The Goa ‘UCC’ is hardly uniform when looked at closely. It continues to recognise both canonical and civil registration of marriages, which may not per se be discriminatory, while many discriminatory provisions of the Code of Customs and Usages of Gentile Hindus continue to be applicable. Uniform provisions that are discriminatory for women include empowering the male spouse to manage the marital property. The issues of inadequate access to family law and several other concerns identified in the Goa UCC remain unaddressed in the new UCC Law and Bills.
• The Uniform Civil Code was placed in the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution, under Article 44, a goal that the State should be working towards. But Article 44 does not prescribe what form such a Code must take, nor does it require uniformity to be pursued through the erasure of legal pluralism and social diversity.  Thus, Article 44 clearly enables amendments to existing laws to move towards uniformity of rights. Even the 21^st Law Commission (2018) set up by the BJP government found that a UCC is neither necessary nor desirable. Instead, it recommended amending every Personal Law to remove discrimination within family laws while preserving diversity where difference itself was not discriminatory. Similar demands have been placed by several women’s groups for decades.
• The UCC Law and Bills, by conflating equality with uniformity, miss the point that uniformity does not guarantee equality, nor is non-uniformity necessarily discriminatory. The prescriptive law of monogamy has not ensured justice and equality. This for instance, is the case for women whose husbands enter subsequent relationships or marriages without their consent or knowledge, as also for women who marry not knowing of the prior marriage of their husband, and those who marry in coercive circumstances. Nor does formally identical treatment necessarily address unequal bargaining power, unpaid care work, economic dependence, domestic violence or women’s lack of access to marital assets.
• Notably, despite BJP’s push, UCC is not fully agreeable even to all NDA constituents. Bihar’s ruling JD (U) has ruled out implementing a UCC in the state. Other NDA allies have called for discussion or consultation rather than automatic implementation. Those objections cannot simply be overridden.  BJP cannot and should not manufacture consent by projecting the UCC as an instrument for achieving women’s rights in live-in relationships or marriage.
• BJP deliberately denies the plural Indian reality that all people need not live by ONE prescribed model of family, culture or community and that gender justice does not require erasure of non-discriminatory difference. India has multiple kinds of kin relationships/families that are determined by locality, community, history, geography, religion, caste, sexuality and gender. Customs differ across the country within the same religious community too. Likewise, the communities categorised as scheduled tribes also have diverse customs within. What we require is that women, queer and transgender persons across communities and social locations, enjoy equitable rights, dignity, autonomy and freedom, and the capacity to determine the terms on which they live their own lives.
• In an electoral democracy, lawmaking for citizens in the absence of their significant representation in national parliament and state assemblies is undemocratic. Laws restructuring the intimate and family lives of hundreds of millions of people require meaningful participation by those most affected, including Muslim women, Adivasi women, Dalit and Bahujan women, queer and transgender people, women from indigenous communities, persons with disabilities, single women and women from diverse regional and religious communities. Representation cannot be substituted by governments claiming to speak on their behalf. In fact, without immediate and unconditional implementation of Women’s Reservation (including for women from all disadvantaged and vulnerable groups), such laws having far-reaching implications cannot be legislated on behalf of women. If specific provisions of Personal Laws that are discriminatory in nature require reform, the Government should bring in the reforms only through widespread consultation with women, queer and transgender people from all social and geographical locations.

For all these elaborated and articulated arguments, ALIFA states that it “believes that BJP’s obsession with regulating intimacy – who to marry, form relationships and constitute families belongs to an age-old repertoire of social control, now refurbished in the garb of ‘modernity’, ‘reform’ and ‘women’s empowerment’. The BJP cynically co-opts and turns upside down this language of women’s empowerment and gender justice to advance a much wider project of cultural homogenisation, control, and Hindu Rashtra. We see this pattern across a range of current initiatives, from the politics around NRC and SIR to the High-Powered Demography Mission that proposes demographic surveillance and other measures that seek to define who belongs, who does not, and what constitutes an acceptable citizen and family. We firmly place the UCC within this larger political context, rather than treating it as an isolated question of legal reform.”

Among the demands placed before the government are:

1. The Government of Uttarakhand to immediately repeal rights-repulsive provisions including those that criminalise non-registration of consensual live-in relationships, mandatorily require police and parental notification, and subject adult relationships to State inquiry, and to incorporate provisions that factor in both legal pluralism and enabling rights after due consultative processes.
2. That the Governments of Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh immediately withdraw the Bills passed in the respective state Assemblies.
3. That the governments of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Chhattisgarh, which have set up committees to recommend a draft UCC, do not take any further steps and instead institute widespread democratic consultations with women’s rights and civil rights organisations, queer and transgender persons groups, Adivasi organisations, disability-rights groups, minority organisations and other affected communities.
4. That all the state government’s stop family law legislation in the name of UCC, which is being imposed and accompanied by an Islamophobic diatribe.
5. That any amendments to family laws that are discriminatory should be done only after consultation with women, queer and transgender people across communities and social locations, and should be assessed against the substantive outcomes of equality, autonomy, dignity, economic security and freedom from discrimination and violence rather than against uniformity for its own sake.
6. Any reform of succession law must preserve or strengthen protections against the economic disinheritance of women, rather than replacing existing birthright or mandatory-share protections with unrestricted testamentary power.
7. Any reform of family law must recognise the different consensual relationships, families and parental rights of adult cisgender, queer and transgender people rather than maintaining a formally uniform but substantively heteronormative and gender-binary framework that is effectively discriminatory.
8. The State must address the substantive areas on which women’s, transgender and queer movements have repeatedly demanded reform, including marital property, no-fault divorce with safeguards for women, equal guardianship and adoption rights, marital rape, maintenance, economic security on dissolution of marriage, and meaningful access to family-law justice.
9. Family-law reform must recognise unpaid care work and women’s contribution to assets accumulated during marriage and create enforceable equitable economic rights at separation, divorce and death.
10. Any legal recognition of live-in relationships must be rights-conferring and dignity-affirming rather than surveillance-based, intruding on privacy: access to maintenance, protection from violence, inheritance and other remedies must not depend upon compulsory registration of an intimate relationship.
11. Personal and relationship data collected under family law must be subject to strict necessity, confidentiality and data-protection safeguards, as also upheld by the Supreme Court in the right to privacy judgements and must not be routinely shared with police, families or third parties.
12.  No person’s free choice of partner or intimate relationship should trigger parental notification, police scrutiny or administrative investigation because of their religion, caste, gender identity, sexuality or decision not to marry.
13. Any comprehensive reform must be tested not only for formal equality but for its actual impact on women and people facing social and structural disadvantage, particularly economically poor women, Adivasi and Dalit-Bahujan women, Muslim women, queer and transgender people, persons with disabilities, migrants, single women and survivors of violence.

In conclusion, All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) has stated in this detailed public statement that it “unequivocally rejects the deeply paternalistic, invasive and unwelcome ‘reforms’ being imposed in the name of women and the attempt to homogenise equality for all women, erasing the agency of women across social locations. We refuse to be fooled by the smokescreen of ‘women’s rights’ and seek to expose both the rhetoric and the substantive content of the Uniform Civil Code, including enacted and emerging Codes across India. Through a continuing critical examination of their provisions and underlying political project, we shall strive to engage with and enable women, queer and transgender people across India to see through these UCCs for the falsehoods that they are and collectively resist the exclusionary politics, the conflation of uniformity with equality, and cultural control with women’s empowerment.”

The statement has been issued by both the All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM).

Related:

Assam: Bill on Uniform Civil Code (UCC), a partisan act?

Uttarakhand implements Uniform Civil Code (UCC) attracting criticism and concerns

Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code: A Majoritarian Code – Neither Uniform nor Civil

The post Strengthen gender justice & secular legal frameworks, No To ‘Uniform Control Code’ in garb of UCC: ALIFA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One of the first conventions was a gathering of over 3,000 women in Dahanu taluka, Thane-Palghar district. Mariam Dhawale, Prachi Hativlekar, Lahani Dauda, and Sunita Shingda addressed and guided the attendees. Similar conventions will be organised across all other talukas of the district, followed by all districts in the state.

When the Janwadi Mahila Sanghatana announced its state-wide decision during this gathering to lead a massive march of thousands of such excluded women to the Mantralaya in Mumbai on November 3, 2026, the thousands of women present welcomed it with resounding slogans.

From the Thane-Palghar district alone, 3,000 excluded ‘Ladli Behna’ beneficiaries from the Dahanu tehsil expressed their strong protest at this arbitrary exclusion and vowed to join the protest march under the AIDWA banner, said the organisation.

The AIDWA in Maharashtra is conducting a state-wide campaign for the nearly 1 crore women who were arbitrarily excluded recently from the BJP Chief Minister’s ‘Ladli Behna Scheme’, by giving flimsy reasons.

It may be recalled that before the 2024 Maharashtra state assembly elections, the BJP-led state government had begun the ‘Ladli Behana Scheme’ of giving Rs 1,500 per month to nearly 2.63 crore women in the state, clearly with a view to induce their votes. After winning the election, the BJP-led regime started a so-called ‘verification’ drive, after which it arbitrarily excluded nearly 1 crore beneficiary women from the Scheme in July 2026 and stopped giving them the amount, leaving only 1.66 crore, many of whom are also not getting their amounts regularly.

That is the rationale behind the AIDWA campaign which started by filling up thousands of forms of the excluded women, and holding large women’s gatherings across Maharashtra from September 20, 2026, onwards.

AIDWA national vice president Mariam Dhawale, state general secretary and national joint secretary Prachi Hatiwlekar, district president and state vice president Lahani Dauda, and district secretary and CEC member Sunita Shingda addressed the gathering. Similar gatherings will be held in all other talukas of the district till September 27 and then in all districts of the state.

At this large Dahanu gathering, the AIDWA leadership announced its decision to organise a massive Struggle March to Mantralaya in Mumbai, bringing together thousands of women from across Maharashtra who have been excluded from the Scheme. This announcement was greeted by thousands of women present with resounding slogans and great support.

Earlier, in July this year, Indian Express reported that the BJP-led Maharashtra State government has sent a list of 25 lakh probable beneficiaries for Income Tax verification. The reason: the deletion of over 92 lakh beneficiaries from the Ladki Bahin scheme — nearly 38 per cent of those enrolled — proved deeply embarrassing for the Maharashtra government and drew sharp political attacks.

As part of a “stricter verification process” before rolling out its flagship farm loan waiver scheme, the first list of around 25 lakh probable beneficiaries under the Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar Loan Waiver Scheme has been sent to the Income Tax Department for verification before it is made public. Farmers who are income taxpayers will be excluded before the final list is published.

Unlike Ladki Bahin, where benefits were released before eligibility checks were completed, farmers shortlisted for the loan waiver will also have to verify details uploaded by banks before the final beneficiary list is notified. The actual waiver process is now expected to begin only by end of July.

Related:

AIDWA Calls for Fight Against Increasing Gender-Based Violence

AIDWA Writes to Parliamentary Panel, Seeks More Time for Views on Personal Law Reforms

Scrap the move to raise the age of marriage of girls to 21: AIDWA

The post Struggle for re-inclusion of lakhs of women ‘deceptively excluded by govt’, march to Mumbai: AIDWA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pooja Mathur set the tone at the meeting held by the Press Club of India, the Delhi Union of Journalists and the Network of Women in Media to protest attacks on women journalists.

Mathur spoke boldly of how she has been targetted by the UP government for her coverage of the bulldozing of a Saharanpur masjid on Sept. 6. Mathur said she was the first to report the demolition on her YouTube channel Red Chili Live. She interviewed the Imam of the mosque and took a video of the rubble. After that she received messages demanding that she delete the videos, followed by threats when she refused. An FIR has been filed against her.

Mathur said courageously, “I was doing my job. I àm not afraid. I will not cry, I will make them cry.” She also pointed out that women journalists like her are the voice and the inspiration of countless other women who dare not step out of home and raise their own voices against oppression.  Mathur also said to the big gathering present, “Do not dismiss us as mere Youtubers. We are serious journalists, we are qualified, we do our research before we go online.”

Divya Srivastava spoke of how she was targetted after she dared to speak at a ‘press conference’ held by UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Sept 12. The CM spoke but took no questions. When Divya loudly called him out, asking him to hear her question, he simply walked away. This smàll incident was blown out of proportion with some fellow journalists warning her to go into hiding as she would now be under fire. She was trolled heavily, with threats, abuse and allegations that she had been sent by a rival political party to ask questions.

“Why should I hide, journalism is not a crime,” Mathur said.

She said her job at a channel was now insecure as the channel owners were afraid of the backlash.

Bindu Romi Gujjar and Monika Singh, both independent journalists based in Delhi, were among the first to reach Balaghat in Madhya Pradesh after several Baiga tribal children died of disease in August 2026. They interviewed parents and relatives of the children.

Gujjar described the trauma of witnessing funeral rites. She said there was only one primary health centre for 25 villages and the nearest hospital is 130 km away. No ambulance is available. She said that the deaths were caused by malaria, a treatable disease. She asked why no malaria vaccines are provided in malaria prone areas. Singh described conditions in the government hospital where three or four children were lying in each bed. The journalists’ documentation of 30 deaths, backed by Aadhar cards and other evidence, embarrassed the local administration which claimed there were only eight deaths. The reporters were shadowed for several days and threatened. The Superintendent of Police wanted them to meet him. They did not go. Two policemen came to their hotel room at 2 a.m. at night, she said. They began to fear for their lives. Eventually they left the hotel in the night and returned to Delhi.

Singh spoke of the conditions in the Baiga villages where there are no facilities, not even clean drinking water. She spoke of the hospital which the District Magistrate, she said, visited several days after the first deaths. She claimed that 34 children were discharged the day before his visit, more beds were supplied, bed linen changed and the entire hospital disinfected. She said the journalists were accused of being Muslim and a doctor at the hospital openly displayed bias.

On Sept 6 the social media accounts of Bindu Gurjar, Lok Singh and Monika were suspended. Monika’s account is still suspended. “We are independent journalists,” she said, “how will we earn and continue to work if accounts are suspended?”

Impassioned testimonies came from Shaheen Khan and Nafeesa Khan of 4 PM News, who were picked up by Saket police on Sept 3, 2026, while standing on the roadside to report the visit of Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Minister Rekha Gupta to Max Hospital to inaugurate a new wing. Nafeesa described in detail their detention at Saket police station and the trauma of being beaten with fists and a lathi by a woman inspector. She said she began to fear for her life after the inspector learnt they were Muslim and began to beat them more viciously. The SHO, she said, had ordered the beating and other police personnel were complicit.

Shaheen said that after the incident became public senior policemen later apologised and admitted there had been a mistake. However, she said, the FIR eventually registered names of only two police personnel, although they have filed a complaint against several personnel. She urged journalists to take up the issue and ensure justice.

The meeting was also addressed by PCI President Sangeeta Baruah Pisharoty, Secretary General Afzal Imam, DUJ President Sujata Madhok, Divya Arya of the Network of Women Journalists in India, journalist Khushbu Akhtar and Caravan Editor Hartosh Singh Bal who expressed solidarity with the media women and applauded them for their courage in speaking out.

Sabrangindia was among the first to interview both Shaheen and Nafeesa Khan. The interview may be watched here. 

Details of these testimonies by women journalists were released by the Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) in a statement, by the organisation’s president, Sujata Madhok and its general secretary, A.M. Jigeesh.

Related:

Press bodies condemn alleged assault on women journalists at Saket Police Station, seek inquiry and action

Two women journalists allege police assault after questioning Delhi CM, say attack intensified after police heard they were Muslim

Two Delhi-based women journalists arrested by Assam police on request from Tripura cops 

The post Women journalists who were attacked prevented from reporting, protest attacks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It’s worth asking because the answer may say less about literature than it does about the way we have learned to read caste. We have, as readers and viewers, built a fairly narrow set of terms under which we are willing to engage with caste at all, and sorrow fits neatly inside those terms. Anger doesn’t.

Sadness is an easier thing to host. A Dalit character suffers, we feel for them, we close the book or leave the theatre a little shaken -quietly proud of ourselves, even, for having felt something at all. It’s a tidy transaction. The pain stays over there, on the page or the screen. We stay over here, safely watching.

But anger doesn’t play by those rules. “Look what was done to me” is a sentence we can pity from a comfortable distance. “You were part of the world that let this happen” is different. It doesn’t ask for our sympathy. It asks what we will do with our discomfort.

Beyond this literary pattern, it played out in real life in July 2016, in a small town called Una in Gujarat. Four Dalit men were skinning a dead cow, their traditional, caste-assigned occupation, when a group of self-declared cow vigilantes accused them of killing it. The men were stripped, tied to a car, and beaten in public with sticks and iron rods while onlookers filmed it. The video spread within hours.

It wasn’t the usual cycle of outrage, sympathy, silence. Thousands of Dalits marched across Gujarat. Tens of thousands eventually joined what came to be called the Dalit Asmita Yatra, the Dalit Pride March. And at the end of it, they didn’t ask to be pitied. They pledged: they would stop removing dead cattle from upper-caste villages altogether. Let the carcasses lie where they fell if no one else would touch them.

That was a refusal. And refusal is harder to watch because it changes the position of the person watching. An entire social order had quietly depended on their silence and that silence had run out.

The instinct to prefer sorrow over refusal has a longer history.

In the 1870s, Jyotirao Phule’s Gulamgiri was asking why a system of oppression had been built in the first place. Later, Dalit writers and theorists would continue to challenge the expectation that Dalit lives should appear on the page primarily through suffering.

The same discomfort appears in the Marathi film Fandry. Jabya, the protagonist, spends the story being humiliated, and the audience is given every reason to feel for him. Then, in the final shot, he picks up a stone and throws it straight at the camera- straight at the viewer. He is no longer simply someone to pity; he is someone looking back. It is harder to sit with than anything that came before it.

That moment matters because the viewer can no longer remain comfortably outside the scene. The stone crosses the invisible distance between the character and the audience.

None of this makes Dalit anger the “right” emotion, any more than suffering ever was. The ask is simple: let people be whatever they actually are, on the page and off it. Let them suffer if that’s true. Let them refuse, the way Una refused, if that’s true too. Nobody should have to stay pitiable to be taken seriously.

Maybe that’s the real thing being asked of all of us: not compassion, which is easy to hand out and feel good about, but the willingness to face Dalit anger without demanding that it make us comfortable. Some voices were never meant to comfort us. They were meant to make us listen.

(The author is a postgraduate student of English Literature with interests in Dalit studies, South Asian Literature, media, cultural identity and representation based in Bengaluru.)

Related:

Thirty years on, justice remains elusive for Dalits in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana

Dalit Justice Demanded: CJP exposes 30 brutal anti-Dalits atrocities, urges NCSC to confront nationwide caste violence under Article 338

No to Dalits who are Christian, Muslim, how the AP HC limits its understanding of caste and faith

The post Outside the World, Outside the Page: Why We Are More Receptive to Dalit Suffering than Dalit Anger appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The advise offered by Dhirendra Krishna Shastri (Parchiwale baba, whom Prime Minister Modi calls his younger brother) in this regard, evoked reactions in fish and meat-eating West Bengal. The state is on the eve of celebrating its biggest festival, Durga Puja. The BJP swept to power in in West Bengal in early-mid 2026. Even before this, the visibility of BJP’s political assertion in the state has been accompanied by promotion of Lord Ram (over Maa Kaali/Durga). This is a move which had previously yielded rich electoral dividends for it in North India, also affecting the electoral scenario in India as a whole.

As the BJP government settled in to ‘governance’ in the state, the season for the annual Durga Puja came. And the party in power invited Shastri of Bageshwar Dham as its passport to vegetarianism. This was a testing tactic, a well-honed technique tried by the far right sangh parivar, to test its schemes before an all-out imposition.  He visited West Bengal for a ‘Hanuman Katha’ in Howrah’s Liluah. He advised the people to keep non-vegetarian food away from Durga idols during the Puja. Similar advice was already proffered by the RSS affiliate, the Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP). This triggered a storm among Bengali Hindus, including those calling themselves “Hindu nationalists”. There were statements and protests from prominent Bengalis that Shastri should not teach them how to celebrate Durga Puja and what to eat and what not.

The reaction was due to the fact that fish in particular but goat-meat too, during the Durga festival are almost mandatory to the menu. Many of them underlined that fish is very crucial to Bengali culture and the broad umbrella of Hindu religion has many tendencies where non-vegetarian food is part of the ritual. Many from former Tripura Governor Tathagata Roy to journalists and content creators, people from a diverse section, including those who described themselves as “Bengali Hindu nationalists”, retaliated. “Don’t tell a Bengali how to celebrate Durga Puja,” Kolkata-based content creator Shreyasi Biswas Banerjee wrote on Facebook. In the video (link attached), Biswas underlined that an “outsider” was prescribing rules for a festival embedded in Bengal’s distinct religious and culinary traditions. A few people even tore down posters of Shastri.

Suvendu Adhikari who had earlier received Shastri with great warmth thereafter attended a ceremony at a Durga temple and was seen consuming ‘Fish Prasad.’ A clear mitigatory gesture! Many right-wing sympathisers and detractors even stated that the core value of fish in Bengali culture.

India is a country full of diversities in all matters, food, clothing, language and religion. Hindus also have many sects and many diverse food habits. We have Kashmiri Pandits for whom Mutton dishes are as an inalienable part of their culture. The food habits are decided by multiple factors, geographical location being an important part of that. In Coastal areas, sea food is an important part of their diet.

However, the ruling regime has persisted this vegetarian imposition.

In the recently held BRICS meeting, in the Gala dinner (mid-September 2026), only vegetarian food was served. Indecently Xi Jing Ping skipped this dinner, whatever be his reasons! While serving only vegetarian food for international guests was criticised by the opposition parties, Kiran Rijiju, the minister and loyal handyman of the most powerful in the government, defended it by saying that the guests appreciated the menu.

The Uttar Pradesh (UP) Government (its chief minister is Yogi Adityanath) recently published a map of important food items of all districts of UP. In this culinary map, the much loved and savoured Lucknow’s Tunde kabab was missing!! Only vegetarian items were presented, as if UP consumes only the vegetarian food.

In yet another incident 14 Muslims were put behind the bars (some months ago) for having chicken biryani at their private Iftar party on a boat ride in Ganga River. Interestingly some Hindus who consumed liquor during another private boat ride were left un-policed.

Despite knowing the fact that nearly 70% of Indians are non-vegetarians, vegetarianism is being promoted by the BJP Governments, and at some places successfully. In Gujarat where BJP has been in power for the past three decades, non-vegetarian joints have been selectively invisibilised. Many people go to the restaurants near Gujarat border and satisfy their craving for non-vegetarian food.

This remains a dilemma for the majoritarian BJP: a balancing act between Indian’s prevalent food habits and their agenda of imposing vegetarianism. At every possible chance they and their cohorts try to push forward vegetarianism. Somehow BJP associates’ non-vegetarianism with Muslims (and Christians) in particular, never mind what history tells us about the food habits of early India. This bypassing of non-vegetarian food, an essential part of Indian food habits, irrespective of religion of the people is facing this dilemma. They get away with this aggressive vegetarianism in places like in Gujarat, however in WB, they are facing an opposition.

Human society has evolved through various stages, and food habits have always been very diverse. The aim of RSS-BJP and their political-cultural supporters remains to glorify vegetarianism purely for ideological reasons. There may be some other reasons for promoting Veganism or vegetarianism, but respect for people’s food habits is the starting point for a democratic society.

How much does this regime believe in democracy is free for all to see.

Related:

Non veg food ‘ban’: Student group plans protest at Delhi’s Hansraj College

Most Indians Non Vegetarian; Men More Than Women, South & East Most

Can majoritarian societal pressure re-write the rulebook? The illegality behind forced non-veg shutdowns during festivals

The post Politics through a forced imposition of food habits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What led to the violent disruption of the reading circle on August 27 at the AUDA Garden in Vastrapur this year? Was it just the two books – ‘I Am Malala’ and ‘Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl’ that provoked the violent mob led by the Bajrang Dal? Or was this part of a much larger pattern of violence in the Hindu version of Taliban where everything – from books, clothes, food, to films, comedy and protests – offends them?

More troubling is the role of a section of parents who brought in Bajrang Dal elements to “solve” their issues with the school management. Why would they willingly invite extremist hindutva elements into a school their wards studied in? While they sought to force changes in curriculum and administration, did these parents think that bringing in goons was the best way to do so?   

How it all started

The genesis of the reading circle was the decision of the Anand Niketan School, a private upmarket school in Ahmedabad to remove the books – the memoirs of Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani education activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner and the diary of the German Jew and holocaust victim Anne Frank from its reading list after protests from a section of parents and right-wing groups.

But even before the books became the target of these parents and their rightwing supporters, a food safety issue at the school had pitted parents against the school administration. On August 12, a piece of glass was found in the canteen food, and the school authorities, rushed to get the student X-rayed to assure his parents that it was not swallowed.

The angry parents did not trust the report and soon the issue escalated. Other, unconfirmed reports said that a student had found worms in vegetables and   parents protested about eggs being cooked in the school canteen.

Target of Attack Shifted From Food to Books

The parents then chose to target a Muslim curriculum consultant who had been associated with the school for several years. They objected to the books ‘I Am Malala’ and ‘The Diary of a Young Girl’ being on the optional reading list. According to reports, some parents called Bajrang Dal members to fight the school administration on their behalf and on Aug 14, a mob led by Bajrang Dal leader Hiren Rabari climbed the gate and the boundary wall of the school to demand the removal of the books from the curriculum.

The issue snowballed from then on and the school administration decided to remove the books as well as terminate the contract of the consultant.

A young businessman in the city found the controversy over the books troubling and wanted to organise a silent reading in protest. He reached out to core members of the Students and Youth Collective (SYCA), Ahmedabad, and the collective co-organised the reading.

Violent Disruption of a Peaceful Reading

 The reading went on peacefully from 4 p.m. to about 6:15 p.m. at a park near the DEO office in Vastrapur. Around 6:30, as the group was dispersing, about 40 men entered the park shouting “Jai Shree Ram” and carrying thick wooden sticks, metal rods and baseball bats. Some wore saffron scarves. They had left more sticks outside the park, near the entrance.

Their body language was aggressive from the start, and the first thing they objected to was I Am Malala, though we also had books on Sardar Patel, Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar. They shouted, “Kya bola tha Malala ne Kashmir ke baare mein?” and “Usko padhne wale desh drohi hain.”

I was standing a little behind the group, filming. Two of them were staring at me, and I asked, “Kya hai, ghoor kyun rahe ho?” They said, “Tujhe dikkat hai to bahar chali ja, humein jo karna hai hum karenge.” Another said, “Zyada bolegi to pakad lo isko.” A second woman who was recording was told, “Kal tak gayab kar denge tujhe.” The man who appeared to be leading the mob gave his name: Hiren Rabari.

I could see this would turn violent quickly. A call was made to the police helpline. Some people tried to sit the men down and talk calmly, but they had no interest in a dialogue. To buy time, some of the readers began singing the national anthem; the attackers objected to that too, claiming one person’s shoulders had moved and that this was disrespect!

Then they began pushing and beating people. They shouted, “Inke pant utar ke check karo ye Musalman hai ki nahin.” Two or three ran towards the gate and tried to shut it so no one could come in to help. I ran over and stood there so they could not, shouting, “Aapki private property nahi hai ye, jo darwaza band kar sakte ho.”

By then, they were chasing people down the street in separate groups. It was about 7 p.m., peak office hours, and the street was full of people walking and riding two-wheelers. Residents of Casa Vyoma, the society directly opposite the park, were also watching.

Despite telling the police that the mob had assembled in large numbers, only two policemen arrived in a van — one in uniform, the driver in casuals. When the officer in uniform tried to stop the assault, the attackers beat him too, in front of everyone. No one watching said or did anything.

A man came up asking questions, giving the impression that he might be able to help. In my panic, I told him we had been reading books silently and that Bajrang Dal goons had come and started hitting us. He immediately began shouting, “Aeee, gunda kisko bola?” I said, “Jo dande leke aayega aur pitai karega wo gunda hi hai,” and he turned aggressive himself, advancing on me and repeating the question multiple times.

Another woman was hit with a stick. I saw that a friend was being beaten and ran towards him. By then, the police officer was panicking and instructing us to get into the van. We tried, but the attackers kept pulling my friends back out and slapping them. Both policemen looked badly shaken. “Kaise bhi jaldi baitho van mein, hum tumhe police station le ja rahe hain. Yahan ruke to ye log tumhe maar dalenge,” they said.

We reached Vastrapur police station. Others arrived with the books, and with sticks left behind in the park to show both the range of what we had been reading and the weapons used. We gathered in one room and began explaining the sequence of events. The PI, G M Chaudhary, spoke to us but did not pay attention to the details.

She watched some of the videos we had taken and asked the writer to record our statement, who wrote a single summary paragraph that left out everything specific. Seeing this, we said we would give a written complaint instead of an oral one. Some lawyers and senior activists had reached the station by then. We went over the draft several times, since each detail could determine a corresponding criminal charge.

We gave Hiren Rabari’s name. We had also identified some other attackers by matching our videos to their Instagram accounts — after Bajrang Dal Gujarat’s official account posted a video of the attack, boasting that they had taught us a lesson in their own language. The algorithm began pushing similar accounts to us, and we identified another attacker as Jimit Rabari.

The police brought three young attackers to the station, and they sat in the same space as us, quite casually. Soon, more of them began arriving, as though they were sitting in a park. It was very intimidating and triggering. We recognised at least 20 to 25 of their faces from the park. Two or three senior Bajrang Dal men came to the station and spoke to the PI for a long time behind a closed door.

Unlike the businessman, who had protested for the first time in his life, perhaps the rest of us did not look gullible. The PI shrewdly took him aside, recorded his statement — which again left out crucial details from our written complaint — and persuaded him to sign it. The rest of us, the primary complainants, witnesses and informants, were left out of the FIR process without our consent.

The PI kept saying she would match the details later, that she needed to eat, that she wanted to go home. We left the station at 2:15 a.m. The FIR, without the details we had been promised, was uploaded at 3 a.m., and, based on the messages we received in response, all three of those arrested were released at the same time.

No arrests, no further police action against the mob

There have been no arrests since. We filed an additional complaint setting out the differences between our written complaint and the FIR, had it inwarded from the DCP office and met the DCP Harshadkumar Patel, who said action would be taken within a week. Nothing followed. We were attacked on 27th August. On 31st, we held a press conference demanding the arrest of the two primary accused, Hiren Rabari and Jimit Rabari, within 72 hours; a ban on Bajrang Dal in Gujarat and across India; and a response and apology from Home Minister Harsh Sanghvi for failing to protect us and to deliver justice.

Twenty days on, we are still waiting. We hold responsible not only Bajrang Dal, the state government and the police — for a grave violation of our safety, for rioting, and inciting religious violence — but also the section of Anand Niketan parents and the people on the street, who have let Gujarat become a factory of hate and crime over the decades. These elements have given complete impunity to state-sponsored terrorism and culture wars.

These are the people who countenance violence against Muslims and Dalits every Navratri, or behave with cowardice and hypocrisy even when their own friends are attacked by saffron-clad men. These are the Brahmin and Jain men who eat meat in private while the administrators of their children’s school claim “all the students are strictly vegetarian.” They laugh at cheap jokes on caste, gender and class. They laugh at pronouns and the Palestinian flag and blame reservation for everything.

However, there is a pushback. The reading circle itself had emerged as a coming together of two groups -one led by students and the other, by working professionals – who were undoubtedly part of privileged castes and classes and would have been otherwise invested in the status quo of a post-2002 pogrom model of a “rising” Gujarat.

What follows now is a contest between the collusion of these elite hate mongers and the persistence of not-so-privileged young people who refuse to be cowed by political and social violence. We won’t be silenced!

*(The writer, who prefers to remain anonymous, was a participant in the reading circle and a witness to the violent mob’s disruption of it.)

Courtesy: Free Speech Collective

The post Anatomy of a Censoring Mob Threatened by Book Reading in Public appeared first on SabrangIndia.