The findings emerge from The Elusive Search for Justice: 30 Year Review of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act, a 267-page report published in 2020 by the Human Rights Advocacy and Research Foundation (HRF), a Tamil Nadu-based human rights organisation that has extensively documented caste discrimination, atrocities, and the functioning of the PoA Act. The volume brings together contributions from a wide range of experts, including former civil servants, lawyers, academics, Dalit rights advocates, human rights defenders, and international observers working on caste discrimination and access to justice.

Among those contributing to the review are P.S. Krishnan, former Secretary to the Government of India and one of the country’s foremost authorities on Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe rights; Paul Divakar, Convenor of the Global Forum on Communities Discriminated on Work and Descent; Gerard Oonk, Ambassador of the International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN) and former director of the India Committee of the Netherlands; Sandra Claassen, Director of Advocating Rights in South Asia (ARISA); senior advocates, grassroots activists, researchers, and organisations that have spent decades documenting caste-based discrimination and the implementation of protective legislation.

Published to mark three decades of the anti-atrocities law, the report is both a historical review and a contemporary assessment of the Act’s functioning. Drawing on government records, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics, court data, implementation reports, policy documents, and field-level experiences, it seeks to answer a fundamental question: why, despite one of the strongest legal frameworks against caste violence in the world, do Dalits and Adivasis continue to struggle for justice?

The answer offered by the report is stark. While Parliament has repeatedly strengthened the law through amendments, expanded victim protections, increased compensation, created monitoring mechanisms, and established special courts, implementation has lagged so dramatically that the law’s transformative potential has been severely undermined. According to the review, the crisis facing Dalits and Adivasis today is no longer primarily a legislative one. It is a crisis of enforcement, accountability, and institutional will.

Across its chapters, contributors describe a system marked by rising atrocities, low conviction rates, massive case pendency, poor investigations, dysfunctional monitoring mechanisms, delayed compensation, and widespread impunity for perpetrators. The report’s central contention is that while India has created an impressive legal architecture to combat caste violence, the institutions responsible for enforcing these protections have repeatedly failed those they were intended to protect.

Why the PoA Act was considered necessary

The report places the Act within the broader historical context of caste oppression and the limitations of earlier legal protections. Although the Constitution abolished untouchability through Article 17 and guaranteed equality before the law, violence and discrimination against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes continued largely unabated in the decades following independence. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, was intended to address practices of untouchability but proved incapable of tackling the growing incidence of organised violence, social boycotts, land-related attacks, sexual violence, economic coercion and collective punishment directed at Dalit and Adivasi communities.

The report notes that atrocities frequently occurred when members of historically marginalised communities sought to exercise rights formally guaranteed to them. Assertions of dignity, attempts to access public resources, educational advancement, economic mobility, political participation or resistance to exploitative labour arrangements often provoked violent backlash from dominant caste groups. Rather than being random criminal acts, such violence frequently functioned as a mechanism for maintaining entrenched social hierarchies.

It was this recognition—that caste violence was systemic rather than incidental—that ultimately led to the enactment of the PoA Act in 1989.

A stronger law, but not a safer reality

One of the report’s most significant findings is that the strengthening of legal protections has not been accompanied by a corresponding decline in atrocities. Over the years, the PoA Act has been repeatedly amended to address gaps in implementation and expand protections for victims. Amendments in 2015 and 2016 broadened the list of offences, strengthened victim and witness protections, increased compensation amounts, imposed stricter timelines for investigations, and expanded state obligations towards survivors. Further amendments in 2018 restored automatic registration of FIRs and removed procedural barriers to arrest that had been introduced through judicial interpretation.

Yet the report argues that these reforms have not translated into meaningful protection on the ground. Drawing on National Crime Records Bureau data, the review notes that registered atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes continued to rise throughout the decade. The report cites figures showing 44,946 cases in 2015, 48,679 in 2016, 51,712 in 2017, and 50,749 in 2018. Far from indicating a decline in caste violence, these figures suggest that atrocities remain widespread across the country. The authors caution that the real scale of violence is likely much larger because many incidents are never reported or formally registered.

The report rejects the argument that rising registration necessarily reflects greater awareness or improved reporting alone. Instead, contributors argue that persistent violence, combined with weak enforcement, continues to create conditions in which dominant caste perpetrators often act with confidence that punishment is unlikely.

The Central Problem: A justice system that rarely delivers justice

At the heart of the report lies a devastating critique of India’s criminal justice response to caste atrocities.

According to the review, the problem is not merely that atrocities continue to occur; it is that survivors rarely see justice even when they approach the legal system. The report points to chronically low conviction rates and massive case backlogs across the country. Referring to national data and official observations, the review notes that conviction rates in atrocity cases have remained alarmingly low while pendency rates have hovered around 80 percent. In practical terms, this means that a large proportion of cases either remain unresolved for years or end in acquittal.

Contributors argue that these outcomes cannot simply be attributed to false complaints, as is often alleged by critics of the Act. Instead, they identify a range of systemic factors that undermine prosecutions from the outset. These include delays in registering FIRs, improper invocation of PoA provisions, poorly conducted investigations, failure to collect evidence, hostile witnesses, intimidation of complainants, prosecutorial negligence, institutional bias within law enforcement agencies, and inadequate legal support for survivors. The cumulative effect is a justice system that frequently fails long before a case reaches trial.

The report warns that every acquittal secured through institutional failure reinforces a broader culture of impunity. When perpetrators repeatedly escape punishment, the deterrent value of the law erodes and confidence in legal remedies diminishes.

Tamil Nadu: A disturbing example of impunity

Among the most striking sections of the review is its detailed examination of Tamil Nadu’s implementation record. The report describes the state’s performance as a cautionary example of how strong laws can be rendered ineffective through administrative neglect.

According to the findings cited in the review, Tamil Nadu recorded an acquittal rate of 92.21 percent in cases under the PoA Act, substantially higher than the already troubling national acquittal rate of 74.3 percent. Approximately 94 percent of accused persons were acquitted. Even more alarming, the report notes that the State government did not file appeals against a single acquittal during 2015 and 2016.

The implications of these figures are profound. If acquittals are neither challenged nor reviewed, the report argues, the criminal justice system effectively communicates that caste-based crimes carry little risk of punishment.

The review identifies several additional implementation failures in Tamil Nadu:

• Less than 10 percent of survivors received compensation despite statutory entitlements.
• Only six of the thirty-two mandated Exclusive Special Courts had been established.
• Barely 55 percent of District Vigilance and Monitoring Committees were functioning.
• None of these committees conducted all mandatory meetings required under law.
• No action was taken against police officials accused of negligence despite explicit provisions enabling such accountability.

For the report’s authors, these failures demonstrate that the crisis lies not in the text of the law but in the state’s unwillingness to enforce it.

The Implementation Gap: India’s most persistent problem

Throughout the review, contributors repeatedly return to what they describe as India’s most enduring governance challenge—the gulf between legal promise and administrative reality.

The PoA Act creates a comprehensive framework for accountability. It mandates special courts, special public prosecutors, relief and rehabilitation measures, district-level monitoring bodies, state-level review mechanisms, time-bound investigations, and compensation schemes. Successive amendments have only expanded these protections.

Yet the report argues that many of these mechanisms exist only on paper. Monitoring committees frequently fail to meet. Compensation payments are delayed or denied. Investigations exceed statutory timelines. Exclusive courts remain unestablished in many districts. Police officers often fail to invoke relevant provisions. Survivors are left without meaningful support throughout the legal process. Several contributors describe this not merely as bureaucratic inefficiency but as evidence of deeper structural prejudice operating within state institutions. The report repeatedly suggests that caste bias continues to shape the functioning of the police, bureaucracy and judiciary, undermining implementation at every stage.

Untouchability has changed form, not disappeared

A particularly important intervention made by the report concerns the changing nature of caste discrimination in contemporary India. The review argues that while the PoA Act addresses many forms of physical violence and overt discrimination, large areas of everyday exclusion remain either inadequately addressed or entirely outside the law’s reach.

Contributors point to discrimination in access to public services, exclusion from marketplaces, discrimination in recruitment and employment, caste segregation in private institutions, barriers within educational institutions, workplace discrimination, and violence associated with inter-caste relationships. These forms of exclusion may not always manifest as spectacular acts of brutality, but they continue to shape the lives of Dalits and Adivasis in profound ways.

The report argues that while the legal framework has evolved from addressing untouchability to addressing atrocities, many contemporary manifestations of caste hierarchy remain insufficiently recognised within the legal system.

As a result, the review calls for a broader understanding of caste discrimination—one that moves beyond criminal incidents to include structural barriers affecting education, employment, housing, public participation and social mobility.

The Report’s Broader Argument: The crisis is structural

Perhaps the most important contribution of the review is its insistence that the crisis cannot be understood solely through the lens of criminal law.

Writing in the report, international human rights advocate Gerard Oonk argues that the struggle for justice must be viewed within a larger framework of caste hierarchy, economic inequality, social exclusion and institutional discrimination. According to him, expecting a single law—even a powerful one like the PoA Act—to transform social realities is unrealistic when the broader structures producing discrimination remain intact.

Oonk argues that what is missing is a shared societal commitment to dismantling caste-based inequality. He contends that meaningful progress requires equal access to education, healthcare, land, public resources, government institutions and the justice system itself. Without such structural changes, legal protections alone will remain insufficient.

The report repeatedly emphasises that caste discrimination intersects with class, gender, religion and economic vulnerability. Dalit women, Adivasi communities, informal workers and other marginalised groups often face multiple layers of exclusion that compound barriers to justice.

Thirty years later, the promise remains unfulfilled

The report ultimately presents a paradox. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act remains one of the strongest legal instruments enacted by the Indian state to protect historically oppressed communities. Over three decades, Parliament has expanded its scope, strengthened its enforcement mechanisms, increased relief measures, and responded to judicial attempts to dilute its protections.

Yet the report’s findings suggest that legal reform has consistently outpaced institutional commitment. Atrocities continue to rise. Conviction rates remain dismal. Compensation is frequently denied. Monitoring bodies are dysfunctional. Special courts remain absent in many areas. Officials rarely face consequences for negligence. Survivors continue to encounter barriers at every stage of the justice process.

For the authors of The Elusive Search for Justice, this is the central lesson of the last thirty years: India’s challenge is no longer simply creating laws against caste violence. The challenge is ensuring that those laws are implemented with the seriousness, urgency and political will necessary to make justice a reality rather than a promise.

Three decades after the PoA Act came into force, the report concludes, the struggle against caste violence remains not merely a legal battle but a test of the Indian state’s commitment to equality, dignity and constitutional justice itself.

The complete report may be read below:

Related:

UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos

‘We Were Promised Rehabilitation’: Gurugram’s oldest Dalit settlement bulldozed after decade long battle; police violently beat and detain residents for protesting

CJP flags casteist, anti-Dalit videos on YouTube targeting CJI Gavai; seeks urgent takedown

Unending Violence: Caste atrocities haunt Uttar Pradesh’s Dalit communities

Custodial Death of Dalit Law Student Somnath Suryawanshi: FIR registered after Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC directive

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

The post Three decades after the PoA Act, justice remains elusive appeared first on SabrangIndia.

More than two months have passed since the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 came into force. The Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha on March 13, passed on March 24, affirmed by the Rajya Sabha the following day, and received the President’s assent on March 30. Among its many far-reaching consequences and years of un-doing of a movement, the amendment left unresolved the question of what would happen to transgender persons already midway through hormone replacement therapy when the law came into force. Since then, petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the law have been filed in the High Courts of Rajasthan, Kerala, Karnataka, Delhi and now the Supreme Court itself. Trans persons and their allies are fighting back.

On May 4, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act, directing that the matter be placed before a three-judge bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice. Notice was made returnable in six weeks to the Union government, all states, and Union Territories through their Advocate Generals and Standing Counsels.

A report in the New Indian Express stated that on May 27, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Supreme Court to consolidate and transfer all pending challenges from the various High Courts to the apex court. The Chief Justice, however, appeared reluctant.

“Sometimes we can have the advantage of a high court view as well,” the CJI remarked. When the law officer pressed the point, the CJI said he “will see.”

What the 2026 Amendment Changes and Why It Is Contested

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was Parliament’s legislative response to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) in which the Court explicitly rejected the biological test (the principle that chromosomes or genitalia should determine legal sex) in favour of a psychological test. The Court ruled:

“Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes one’s right to expression of his self-identified gender.”

“Article 21, as already indicated, protects one’s right of self- determination of the gender to which a person belongs. Determination of gender to which a person belongs is to be decided by the person concerned. In other words, gender identity is integral to the dignity of an individual and is at the core of “personal autonomy” and “self-determination””

In its operative directions, the Court declared that “any insistence for SRS for declaring one’s gender is immoral and illegal.”

The 2019 Act, with its own imperfections, encoded foundational principles that gender identity is self-perceived and that Trans persons have an enforceable right to a certificate of identity based on self-declaration alone.

The 2026 amendment retreats from each of these principles.

The amendment deletes Section 4 (2) of the 2019 Act, which stated that a person recognised as transgender under sub-section (1) shall have a right to self-perceived gender identity. The Statement of Objects and Reasons justifies this deletion by claiming the Act was never intended to protect persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities, and that legislative policy was always aimed only at those facing exclusion due to biological reasons.

Under the 2019 Act, Trans persons could also apply directly to the District Magistrate for a certificate of identity and medical evaluation was not a prerequisite. The 2026 amendment replaces this with a mandatory two-stage medical filter. First, the applicant must obtain a positive recommendation from a state-appointed medical board, headed by a Chief Medical Officer or Deputy Chief Medical Officer. Then, the DM may seek further evaluation from ‘other medical experts’ at their discretion. Neither stage specifies what criteria the board is assessing, and no appellate mechanism is prescribed. Since the certificate is the gateway to welfare schemes, healthcare, insurance, educational and employment reservations, and government-funded gender-affirming surgeries, those without it are excluded from all these entitlements.

The new Section 7 (1A) also requires every medical institution where gender-affirming surgery is performed to furnish details of that patient to the concerned District Magistrate and the medical board. However, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court had held that any intrusion into informational privacy must be sanctioned by law, pursue a legitimate state aim, and satisfy proportionality. The burden of demonstrating all three rests on the State.

A few of the key changes have been summarised in the table below for the ease of comparison:

The 2026 amendment also adds four new offences. Abducting and causing grievous hurt to force someone into a trans identity carries ten years to life imprisonment for adults, and life imprisonment where the victim is a child; compelling someone to present as Trans and subjecting them to begging or servitude carries five to ten years for adults and ten to fourteen years where the victim is a child. By contrast, sexual abuse, physical violence, and economic exploitation committed against trans persons remain punishable by a maximum of six months to two years.

In March this year, SabrangIndia had reported that:

“…the language of these provisions is vague and potentially overbroad, as such clauses may inadvertently criminalise support systems that have historically sustained transgender communities, including families, chosen kinship networks, and civil society organisations. There is concern that by framing transgender identity in the context of inducement or coercion, the law risks reinforcing the idea that such identities are not self-originating but externally imposed.”

The full report can be accessed here.

Petitions Filed in High Courts

Kerala High Court

On April 7, Advocate Padma Lakshmy filed two petitions in the Kerala High Court on behalf of Akhil K. Thampi (34) and Neethu (38), plausibly the first petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. Senior Counsel Arundhati Katju, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that both were receiving hormone therapy, which the hospital had discontinued following the amendment act.

“Because the definition excludes me from the definition of transgender persons. There are people who are getting medical attention. But because of the change in the definition of transgender, the institutions which were earlier providing me medical treatment by way of hormonal therapy…Now the private medical institution is declining to provide it to him. It is like a sudden shock to the system.” counsel submitted.

The petitioners had sought a declaration that Section 2 (k) and related provisions are unconstitutional as violative of Articles 13(2), 14, 15, 19, and 21, and that the right to self-identification of gender is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Justice Bechu asked the Additional Solicitor General whether a person already undergoing hormone replacement therapy could be affected by the change in definition, and suggested that rather than staying the provision, the Court could grant relief individually to the petitioners.

“There cannot be a stay of statute. There is a presumption of constitutionality of a statute,” he observed orally.

On April 10, the Court permitted the two petitioners to continue hormone replacement therapy, subject to the condition that they had already commenced treatment.

“Having regard to the entirety of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that an abrupt stoppage of the hormone replacement therapy already started by the petitioner, would lead to adverse and absurd results. Such an object cannot prima facie be deciphered from the statutory provisions, as amended,” the order read.

The orders passed by the Kerala High Court may be read here:

Delhi High Court

On April 8, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to the Central Government on a PIL filed by Advocate Dr. Chandresh Jain (W.P. (C) 4587/2026). The petition contended that the amendment undermines fundamental rights and dilutes the legal recognition of gender identity as a matter of personal autonomy, and challenged the State-controlled verification and certification mechanisms introduced by the amendment.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 22.

Rajasthan High Court

On April 21, a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta issued notice in a PIL filed by the non-profit organisation Nai Bhor Sanstha, which claims to be Rajasthan’s first LGBTQ community-based organisation, working on trans and LGBTQ rights for over two decades.

The matter was listed after four weeks; court records however do not appear to reflect subsequent hearings.

Karnataka High Court

On May 7, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum of the Karnataka High Court passed an interim order in two separate writ petitions (WP 11652/2026 and WP 11655/2026) filed by two trans persons, one undergoing hormone replacement therapy for several years, another also in the process of changing her name and gender in official documents.

The Court found that the medical records produced prima facie indicated both petitioners had been undergoing hormone replacement therapy since November 11, 2023, and that abrupt discontinuation could have adverse and detrimental consequences on their physical and mental well-being.

It directed that the petitioners be permitted to continue hormone replacement therapy as per the existing medical protocol and that concerned doctors and medical authorities facilitate continuation of such treatment without interruption. It also said that the continuation of treatment be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions and any orders passed by the Supreme Court, including in any transfer proceedings.

The matter was listed for further consideration after the summer vacation which were to take place from Monday, May 4, 2026, to Saturday, May 30, 2026.

The Central Question

At its core, the controversy over the 2026 amendment is a question about the relationship between the individual and the State: can identity be subjected to verification, or must it be recognised as an inherent aspect of personhood?

In NALSA, the Supreme Court placed identity firmly within the domain of personal autonomy. The 2026 amendment moves in the direction toward verification, classification, and administrative control. How the Courts ultimately resolve that tension will determine not only the fate of this legislation, but the constitutional foundations on which the rights of trans persons in India rest. 

Update: HC Proceedings Stayed

On June 15, a bench comprising of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana stayed proceedings before the four high courts and issued notice on the Union government’s plea seeking transfer of all such cases to the apex court to avoid conflicting rulings on the legislation.

Dr. Chandresh Jain, petitioner in the Delhi High Court, opposed the transfer request and informed the court that as a qualified doctor, his challenge was among the most comprehensive and involved substantial medical and scientific issues. He suggested that if consolidation was required, the matters could be heard together by a High Court, so that the Apex Court would have the benefit of a considered judgment before examining the issues- invoking, in effect, the Court’s own wisdom that High Court rulings often enrich constitutional adjudication at the apex level before it is finally undertaken.

Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also requested that the matter be placed before a three-judge bench. Is this a step toward hoping that NALSA is overruled altogether? The concern is not without basis as Mehta himself appeared to acknowledge the structural problem when he pointed out that High Courts may find it difficult to take a view contrary to the precedent set in NALSA.

Opposing the submission, Dr. Jain contended that his challenge was not founded on NALSA at all, and in fact questioned provisions introduced through the amendment itself. He argued that the new law was not only unconstitutional but also lacked any credible medical basis.

The High Courts were doing their part by issuing interim protections and beginning to develop a record. With those proceedings now stayed, that work is suspended. The centre of gravity has shifted back to the Supreme Court, and with it, the anxiety about what the apex court will do with a precedent the government appears uncomfortable leaving undisturbed.

It is difficult not to feel that the clock has, in some measure, been turned back. The institutional uncertainty and the dependence of an entire community on the disposition of a single court bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the period before 2014.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Tanishka Shah)

Related Articles:

A Law of Identity, Passed Without Listening: Inside the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026 and the crisis it has triggered | SabrangIndia

Withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 NOW! | SabrangIndia

9 years since the passing of the NALSA judgment, has the cycle of discrimination and ostracism finally been broken for the transgender community? | SabrangIndia

The post A regressive 2026 amendment to rights of Trans persons is under legal challenge even as pride month is celebrated appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The protesters foot march happened days after the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which protects the mosque, wrote to the district administration to not allow any “large gathering” on June 10, even as the campaign was building up. However, under the banner of temple Shri Chakradhar Swami National Heritage Conservation Committee and several Jain organisations, a march was organised from Hostel ground to the district collectorate, covering nearly a kilometre.

Apart from Gujaratis, several followers of Chakradhar Swami from Amravati and other districts in Maharashtra participated along with local residents, holding placards and banners. Among the participants was Bhavesh Patel, who was released on bail after his conviction in the Ajmer Dargah blast case of 2007 investigated by the National Investigation Agency. Patel had by then become a self-styled godman, assuming the name of “Swami Muktanand” reported Indian Express.

Protesters handed a memorandum to Bharuch Collector Navnath Gavhane and demanded preservation of the monument to its original structure. The memorandum states that a drive was carried out to create public awareness in Gujarat and Maharashtra by the followers of Chakradhar Swami from May 18-23. Signatures of over 35,000 were taken, along with their mobile phone numbers.

Muktanand Swami alias Bhavesh Patel of Bharuch said, “The Jama Masjid has its origin in the birthplace of an ancient Jain temple, and the birthplace of Swami Chakradhar of Maharashtra. The Islamic rulers had converted the monument into a mosque. The Masjid is presently under the possession of the ASI. We have come to know that the rules and regulations of the ASI are not followed, as some people are involved in making changes in the existing structure. Actions should be taken against those who are involved in alterations or changes made to the historically protected monument.”

Quick to set the record straight, however Bharuch district collector Dr. Navnath Gavhane said, “There is no law-and-order situation. District Superintendent of Police, District magistrate office and ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) officials are maintaining it. We have appealed to people to refrain from making any generalised comments about the monument or believing in rumours and misunderstandings. The ASI is a competent authority to decide about the monument.”

Over the past decades, far right groups have been consistently mobilising to “re-claim” Mosques and Dargahs in campaigns that threaten the cultural and religious rights of the religious minority.

Related:

ASI, Gujarat: Will Bharuch’s 700 year old Jama Masjid be the next target of right-wing saffron grab and terror?

Bhojshala Judgment: MP High Court declares Dhar site a Saraswati Temple, ends Namaz rights at complex

The post Despite ASI’s warning protesters in Bharuch march to collector to ‘preserve original identity’ of Bharuch mosque appeared first on SabrangIndia.

To understand why this matters beyond electoral law, we must place the SIR process within a deeper theoretical framework: the biopolitical understanding of Hindutva fascism. The question of who qualifies as a citizen, and whose body bears the imprint of the nation, lies at the heart of this analysis. When the state deletes a voter, it is not merely updating a roll; it is making a sovereign declaration about whose life is politically legible, and whose life can be reduced to bare existence.

The question of who qualifies as a human being, who attains citizenship, and the intricate relationship between humanity and citizenship is profoundly significant. Fascism, as a historical phenomenon, emerges as a radical redefinition of this relationship, transforming what once were purely anthropological inquiries into politically charged, nationalist, racial, and ultimately fascist projects.

In the ancient context, the distinction between City and Citizen was central to the organisation of society. The city-state, or polis, represented the epitome of political life. A resident of the polis was inherently political, echoing Aristotle’s famous assertion that humans are political animals. However, not all individuals born within the city-state were automatically granted citizenship. Thus, while humanity may be defined as inherently political, not every individual born within the city was considered a political being.

This subtle understanding emphasises the complexity of citizenship and political participation in ancient societies. It highlights the selective nature of citizenship and the hierarchical structures that governed access to political rights and privileges. In fascist contexts, this distinction becomes even more pronounced, as regimes seek to manipulate and redefine citizenship according to arbitrary criteria, including race, ethnicity, and religious ideology.

Ultimately, the question of who qualifies as a human being and who attains the status of a citizen is not merely an abstract philosophical inquiry but a deeply political and historical one. It speaks to the fundamental principles of equality, justice, and democracy and underlines the enduring struggle to uphold these ideals in the face of tyranny and oppression.

The Superimposed Body: From Birth to the Body Politic

In the ancient Greek democratic system, the concept of citizenship was strictly exclusive. Neither women nor slaves were afforded a share in the polis. They were relegated to a subhuman status or entirely excluded from the realm of political humanity. In this framework, reproduction and labour were perceived merely as animalistic qualities, devoid of the political agency (bios) granted to citizens.

The human body, far from being solely a product of nature (zoe), is inseparably entangled with politics and law. It embodies a complex amalgamation of natural and political forces; a synthesis forged in the crucible of societal norms and governance. At birth, an individual’s body becomes imbued with a biopolitical essence, a term denoting the state’s regulation and control over biological life, and a body politic is superimposed on their natural form.

This fusion of the natural and the political renders the body a site of power and control, subject to the whims of the state, fascism, and sovereignty. It is through this superimposed body politic that individuals are governed and regulated, with their rights and freedoms dictated by the structures of power that govern society. Thus, the human body becomes not merely a vessel for biological existence but a battleground for competing political ideologies and systems of governance.

While Rousseau famously proclaimed that “man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains,” the truth of this statement is open to interpretation. Indeed, no individual is born into absolute freedom. Every human being is born into a web of preconceived roles and identities, predetermined by factors such as gender, language, nationality, and ethnicity.

The assertion that man is a political animal emphasises that human birth is not only a biological event but also inherently political. Each individual’s entry into the world is inseparable from the socio-political context of their birth. Their very existence is framed within a politico-juridical landscape, in which legal and political frameworks shape their rights, responsibilities, and opportunities.

Sovereignty, Agamben, and the Tragedy of the Declaration

The evolution of citizenship from ancient city-states to modern nation-states marks a profound transformation in the status of individuals, shifting them from subjects to active participants in political life. This shift also extended citizenship to previously excluded groups, broadening political engagement and rights. The transition from the sovereignty of kings to national sovereignty reflects the emergence of public sovereignty, in which the authority of governance is vested in the collective body of citizens.

However, the philosopher Giorgio Agamben highlights the latent risks inherent in this apparently progressive transition. By interrogating foundational documents such as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) and the development of habeas corpus in England, Agamben reveals the complexities and ambiguities underlying the construction of citizenship in modern liberal democracy. These documents, while intended to safeguard individual rights and freedoms, also reinforce structures of power and exclusion, perpetuating inequalities and hierarchies within society.

The French Declaration of Rights asserts that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights,” emphasising the fundamental equality and freedom inherent in all individuals. However, the term “man” in this context refers to a specific subset of humanity, namely, the citizen. While seemingly universal, the rights enshrined in the declaration are exercisable only by citizens, narrowing the scope of entitlements to a specific legal and political category.

This transition from the broader concept of “man” to the more limited category of “citizen” marks a shift from a natural or biological understanding of humanity to a legal and political construct. In essence, the declaration replaces the inherent rights of all human beings with the societal framework of citizenship, thereby transforming the abstract notion of “man” into the tangible status of “citizen.”

The transition from God-given royal sovereignty to national sovereignty marks a significant shift from subjects to citizens. However, this transition also brings a profound tragedy: the commodification of birth itself as a point of sovereignty. While all beings are born, not all possess the inherent rights to equality and life. These rights are reserved only for individuals whose bodies are explicitly imbued with citizenship. The metaphor of commodification describes how the modern nation-state transforms the natural, biological act of human birth into a state-controlled asset, a legal registry, and a tool of political currency. When modern democracy overthrew kings, sovereignty shifted to “The People” (National Sovereignty). But this created a massive bureaucratic problem for the new state: Who exactly are “The People”? Where does the state get its legitimacy?

The modern state’s answer was Birth. The nation-state linked political legitimacy directly to human reproduction. It declared that, by virtue of being born within a certain territory (jus soli) or to certain parents (jus sanguinis), a biological body is automatically claimed by the state. This is where commodification occurs. The state steps into the maternity ward, establishes a “territory” in the mother’s womb, and places an invisible, sovereign “tag” on the newborn body. The state turns the most innocent, natural act, a child entering the world, into the ultimate site of sovereign control, policing, and structural exclusion.

If your birth occurs outside the arbitrary criteria of the state, or if a majoritarian state retroactively changes the rules of belonging (like the ECI’s voter deletions or citizenship screenings), your birth is stripped of its political currency. You become an administrative Homo Sacer, a bare life. Your birth is suddenly worth nothing under the law.

According to Agamben, this transformation from biopolitics to “thanatopolitics”, a politics centred on the power to decide who matters and who is marked for death, occurs precisely at the intersection of citizenship, where the distinction between life and death becomes increasingly blurred. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), together with the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC), exemplifies this biopolitical shift in contemporary India, raising deep concerns about the potential legal vulnerability and targeted disenfranchisement of Indian Muslims.

The Political Production of the Homo Sacer

When attempting to define citizenship, the concept of identity becomes paramount. Defining citizenship is inherently problematic, as it often involves delineating oneself from the “other.” This process is particularly significant in Indian social psychology, where self-awareness as a Hindu often arises primarily in contrast to the identity of a Muslim. In the political absence of this “other,” the monolithic Hindu identity risks regressing into its internal, fractured realities of caste. To define oneself, one must establish something outside oneself. Thus, majoritarian citizenship can only be comprehended by creating an external boundary through the definition of the “other” and subsequent exclusion.

The answer to the question of citizenship varies with the ideology governing a nation. In some contexts, citizenship is defined by birthright (jus soli): anyone born within the country’s borders is considered a citizen. However, in regimes such as Nazi Germany, Ethnic Israel, and Hindutva India, citizenship is increasingly untethered from the place of birth and is instead tied to racial, ethnic, or religious identity. Hitler’s concept of German citizenship was strictly limited to those born within the Aryan race, excluding others regardless of birthplace.

This racialised or communalised notion of citizenship transforms the human body into a biopolitical entity, in which citizenship becomes a political stamp imposed on nature. Fascism divides society along identity lines, relegating certain groups to the margins through arbitrary definitions of belonging. Yet such exclusionary definitions erode individuals’ inherent humanity, reducing them to mere subjects of political ideology rather than autonomous beings.

In an ethnically defined concept of citizenship, individuals who do not belong to the designated group are considered to be born without rights. They are viewed as “Homo Sacer”, an ancient legal figure resurrected by Agamben to describe individuals whose lives are deemed “bare life,” stripped of legal protection, expendable, and subject to targeting with impunity. In essence, their mere biological existence is seen as a threat to the ideological purity of the state, rendering them legally disposable.

The Democratic Channel to Fascism

With the rise of modern democracy, marginalised lives, women, workers, and the vulnerable were formally integrated into the political sphere, leading to the complete politicisation of human birth and natural life. The modern nation-state rests on a political framework in which existence itself is explicitly managed by law. Consequently, those deemed irrelevant or dangerous by authority can be stripped of their political rights and expelled from the system.

This process renders anyone susceptible to political disenfranchisement, transforming them into Homo Sacer. Agamben’s observation remains highly relevant today: whereas biopolitics in Nazi Germany targeted specific, legally catalogued religious and ethnic groups as scapegoats, today any citizen can be reduced to bare life. The concept of bare life is no longer confined to an exceptional category; it resides within the biological body of every living being, leaving everyone vulnerable to being stripped of their rights and reduced to mere existence at the state’s discretion.

Agamben argues that modern democracy does not eliminate the sacred, banishable life but rather fragments and disperses it across every individual body, investing it in all civic bodies. When definitions change, citizens are transformed into refugees. This is historically exemplified by the plight of German Jews who lost their citizenship following the implementation of the Nuremberg Laws, as well as by Rohingya Muslims and Palestinians who were forced into refugee status due to shifting political boundaries and legal classifications.

Modern nation-states and democracies are founded on the biopolitical framework of citizenship, which determines who is considered a citizen. In this context, fascism is not an antithetical force opposing democracy; rather, it embodies the core political logic inherent in modern democracy itself. This explains how democratically elected leaders can transition seamlessly from democratic governance to fascist tendencies. The trajectory from democracy to fascism is facilitated by the underlying structures of democracy, such as majority rule, executive centralisation, and legal codification, which can morph into fascist ideologies when the constitutional coating of democracy is stripped away.

(To be continued)

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post The Biopolitical Anatomy of Hindutva Fascism: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Bare Life |Part 1| appeared first on SabrangIndia.

More than 200 renowned Adivasi-mulvasi leaders, representatives of people’s organisations, traditional self-governance representatives, academics, and activists have issued a joint statement appealing to Adivasis and all Jharkhandis to observe coming Tuesday, June 9, the martyrdom day of Dharti Abba Birsa Munda, across every corner of the state by commemorating his Adivasi culture, struggles, and the Ulgulan. Most critically, they have urged them to declare a solemn pledge to protect his legacy from manuvadi organizations such as the RSS, the Janajati Suraksha Manch, and the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram.

The signatories to the appeal include prominent socio-political leaders such as former minister Geetashree Oraon, former MLAs Bahadur Oraon and Mangal Singh Bobonga, Jyotsna Kerketta, Devkinandan Bedia, Kumar Chandra Mardi, Demka Soy, Ramesh Jarai, Rajni Murmu, Sukhnath Lohra, Durgawati Oraon, Aloka Kujur, Binsay Munda, Hari Kumar Bhagat, Kalicharan Birua, Dinesh Murmu, Sadhu Ho, Jaikishan Godsora, and Vasvi Kido; as well as renowned intellectuals like Jacinta Kerketta, Joseph Bara, Anuj Lugun, and Nitish Khalkho.

Other representatives from numerous organisations have also signed the appeal, including the Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Vikas Samiti, Gaon Ganrajya Parishad, Sarna Sagom Samiti (Khunti), Adivasi Sangharsh Morcha, Adivasi Moolvasi Adhikar Manch (Bokaro), Bharat Jakat Majhi Pargana Mahal (Ramgarh), Paramparik Gram Sabha Samanvay Samiti (Khunti), Adivasi Adhikar Manch, Manki Munda Swashasan Vyavastha (West Singhbhum), Adivasi Ho Samaj Sewanivrit Sangathan (Chaibasa), Adivasi Andolankari Morcha, Adivasi Samanvay Samiti, Birsa Sena, Adivasi Ekta Manch, Munda Adivasi Samaj Mahasabha, Sanyukt Gram Sabha, Yuva Jhumur, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, JOHAR, OMON Mahila Sangathan, and Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha.

The appeal has also been supported by several national activists and intellectuals working on Adivasi rights issues, such as Nandini Sundar, Bela Bhatia, Prafulla Samantara, and Ishwar Ahire. The entire list is attached to the appeal.

The appeal draws specifically attention to the ‘Janajati Sanskritik Samagam’ organised in Delhi on May 24, 2026, by the Janajati Suraksha Manch—an organization affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). During this event, speakers—particularly Amit Shah—repeatedly addressed the Adivasis as ‘Vanvasis’. Throughout the gathering, not once was Birsa Munda’s struggle for jal, jangal, jameen emphasised and remembered nor was his fight against the exploitation by dikus, commemorated.

The signatories believe that the RSS and its affiliated organisations deliberately avoid using the term ‘Adivasi’ because they view tribal communities co-optively as ‘Vanvasis’—occupying the lowest rung of the Hindu caste hierarchy. On one hand, these organisations are actively seeking to erase the independent identity of Adivasis by propagating the slogan “Sarna-Sanatan Ek”. On the other hand, they are attempting to fracture the collective solidarity of Adivasis by demanding the delisting of Christian Adivasis from the official list of Scheduled Tribes. The RSS, according to the signatories, is appropriating Birsa Munda’s name and legacy to serve its own agenda: to reduce Adivasis to mere ‘Vanvasis,’ to dismantle their collective unity, to plunder their natural resources, and to obliterate the heritage of the dharti aba.

The appeal asserts that Birsa Munda’s Ulgulan—waged for the sake of jal, jangal, jameen and against the British colonialists as well as all forms of exploitative dikus—laid the very foundation of the state of Jharkhand. However, the Sangh is actively engaged in an attempt to rewrite this history. The BJP-led Raghubar Das government, in particular, even attempted to dismantle the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act—a landmark legislation born out of the Ulgulan movement. In the very Munda Disum where Birsa Munda had first raised the clarion call of Ulgulan, the Raghubar government went so far as to label thousands of Adivasis as ‘anti-nationals’. The Modi government, too, state the group, is systematically working to erode the autonomy of Adivasis and to strip them of their constitutional and legal rights. Furthermore, these Manuvadi organizations have consistently opposed the demands of Adivasis for formal recognition of their distinct religious systems and for the inclusion of a separate religious code for them in the national census.

Therefore, prominent figures have appealed to all Adivasis and Jharkhandis, as well as all proponents of Adivasi identity, to safeguard Birsa’s legacy from the RSS and to convey the truth to the people on this death anniversary.

Names of all Signatories may be read here:

1. Geetashree Oraon, Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Vikas Parishad, Ranchi
2. Bahadur Oraon, Ex-MLA, West Singhbhum
3. Mangal Singh Bobonga, Ex-MLA, West Singhbhum
4. Jacinta Kerketta, Poet and writer, Ranchi
5. Anuj Lugun, Poet, East Singhbhum
6. Jyotsana Kerketta, Adivasi Mulvasi Manch, Khunti
7. Kumar Chandra Mardi, Gaon Ganrajya Parishad, East Singhbhum
8. Neetisha Xalxo, Assitant Professor, Dhanbad
9. Basavi Kiro, Indigenous Women India Network, Ranchi
10. Devkinandan Bedia, Adivasi Sangharsh Morcha, Ramgarh
11. Joseph Bara, Historian, Ranchi
12. Prabal Mahto, Film Maker, West Singhbhum
13. Ramesh Jerai, Jharkhandis Organization for Human Rights (JOHAR), West Singhbhum
14. Rajni Murmu, Adivasi feminist organization, Deoghar
15. Aloka Kujur, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
16. Sukhnath Lohra, Adivasi Adhikar Manch, Jharkhand, Ranchi
17. Durgawati Oraon, Sarna Sangom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
18. Binsay Munda, Paramparik Gram Sabha Samanway Samiti Jharkhand, Khunti
19. Chandramohan Birua, Adivasi Ho Samaj Sevanivrit Sangathan, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
20. Demka Soy, Jharkhand Andolankari Morcha, East Singhbhum
21. Dinesh Murmu, Adivasi Mulvasi Adhikar Manch, Bokaro, Bokaro
22. Hari Kumar Bhagat, Concerned citizen, Latehar
23. Jaykishan Godsora, Research scholar, West Singhbhum
24. Kalicharan Birua, Manki Munda Swashasan Vyavastha, West Singhbhum
25. Krishna Lohar, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
26. Ajay Bankira, Adivasi Andolankari Morcha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
27. Anant Kumar Hembrom, Activist, West Singhbhum
28. Anupam Hassa, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
29. Asman Hembram, Adivasi Andolankari Morcha Kharsawan, Seraikela-Kharsawan
30. Bablu Munda, Sayukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
31. Bahadur Hans, Sarna Sagom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
32. Basingh Hassa, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
33. Chandra Prabhat Munda, Adiwasi Samanway Samiti Khunti, Khunti
34. Chunulal Soren, Ekta Parishad,Jharkhand, Hazaribagh
35. Deepak Ranjeet, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
36. Jaisingh Bodra, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
37. Jamadar Kairam, Birsa Sena Noamundi, West Singhbhum
38. Kamal Purti, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, West Singhbhum
39. Laldeo Soren, Bharat Jakat Manjhli Pargana Mahal, Ramgarh
40. Mangal Singh Kuntia, Adivasi Ho Samaj Sevanivrit Sangathan, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
41. Manik Chand Korwa, Samudayik Van Prabandhan Federation Garhwa, Garhwa
42. Mukta Hans, Sarna Sagam Samiti Khunti, Khunti
43. Narayan Kandeyang, Jharkhandis Organization for Human Rights (JOHAR), West Singhbhum
44. Pramod Khalkho, Adivasi Ekta Manch and Jan Sangharsh Samiti Chainpur, Gumla
45. Renu Oraon, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Latehar
46. Sadhu Ho, Deshauli Foundation, West Singhbhum
47. Sanjay Horo, Sarna Sangom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
48. Shyamal Mardi, Visthapit Mukti Vahini, Saraikela Kharsawan
49. Siddharth Honhaga, Bhagwan Birsa Munda Red Cross Volunteers., West Singhbhum
50. Somnath Pareya, Birsa Seva Dal, East Singhbhum
51. Sukhram Hansda, Adivasi Mulvasi Adhikar Manch, Bokaro, Bokaro
52. Sukhram Pahan, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
53. Sunil Hembram, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
54. Sunil Soren, Birsa Sena, East Singhbhum
55. Sunita Boipai, OMON Mahila Sangathan Noamundi, West Singhbhum
56. Sunita Lakra, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
57. Tarkan Munda, Munda Adivasi Samaj Mahasabha Khunti, Khunti
58. Tej Munda, Adibashi Bhumij Munda Samiti Kukru Balak, Seraikela-Kharsawan
59. Vibhishan Jerai, Birsa Changul Malhar Club, Devgaon, West Singhbhum
60. Ajay Ekka, Adivasi Kshetra Yuva Manch, Simdega
61. Ajit Kumar Tirkey, Jharkhand organization for social harmony, East Singhbhum
62. Aman Kumar Marandi, Concerned citizen, Dhanbad
63. Anjana Besra, Activist, Khunti
64. Ashim Ashish Tigga, Tribal Journalist Association, Ranchi
65. Bineet Mundu, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
66. Elina Horo, Adivasi Women’s Network, Ranchi
67. Gadadhar Tiyu, Kendriya Ho Samaj Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha
68. Gautam Minj, OMON Mahila Sangathan Noamundi, West Singhbhum
69. Jagmohan Singh Angaria, Activist, West Singhbhum
70. James Herenj, Activist, Latehar
71. Jennifer Baxla, Activist, Ranchi
72. Jugal Munda, Jaura Sika Akhara, Khunti
73. Kailu Baskey, Concerned citizen, Sahebganj
74. Krishna Tudu, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
75. Lakhan Mardi, Jhalak (majhi Baba), Seraikela-Kharsawan
76. Madan Mohan, Jharkhand Navnirman Abhiyan, East Singhbhum
77. Manita Deogam, Activist, West Singhbhum
78. Mathiyas Suren, Adivasi Association Noamundi, West Singhbhum
79. Mission Soy, Adivasi Ho Samaj Mahasabha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
80. Nelshan Munda, Adivasi researcher, Khunti
81. Parmeshwar Manjhi, Concerned citizen, Bokaro
82. Rahul Oraon, HEC Hatia Vishthapit Parivar Samiti, Ranchi
83. Sadhu Charan Samad, Activist, West Singhbhum
84. Saroj Soreng, Concerned citizen, Simdega
85. Suresh Kayam, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
86. Abdus Subhan, Activist, Sahibganj
87. Abhinash Purty, Concerned citizen, West Singhbum
88. Abhishek Kujur, Student, Ranchi
89. Ajay Minj, Activist, Gumla
90. Albinus Lakra, Activist, Simdega
91. Ambika Yadav, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
92. Anamika Hansda, Activist, Godda
93. Ankit Kandulna, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
94. Arpana Kandulna, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
95. Ashok Verma, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
96. B B Choudhary, Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Jharkhand, Ranchi
97. Badal Kumar Singh, Jharkhand Navnirman Dal,Gumla, Gumla
98. Balma Purty, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
99. Balram Karmakar, Birsa Sena, East Singhbhum
100. Bharat Birua, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
101. Bharti Barjo, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
102. Binod, Adivasi Mahasabha, Simdega
103. Biplab Gorai, BGVS, East Singhbhum
104. Blacius Ekka, Activist, Simdega
105. Deepak Dholakia, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Delhi
106. Deepak Laguri, Student, West Singhbhum
107. Deepti Mary Minj, Concerned citizen, Simdega
108. Divya Vani Tirkey, Adivasi Yuva Chetna Manch (AICUF/AYCM), Ranchi
109. Dorothy Fernandes, Aashray Abhiyan, Patna
110. Emil Kandulna, Activist, Ranchi
111. Eric Murmu, Teacher, Deoghar
112. Faisal Anurag, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
113. Gangaram Jerai, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
114. Gabriel Bodra, Activist, West Singhbhum
115. Gautam Kumar Bose, Jharkhand Qaumi Ekta Manch, East Singhbhum
116. Geeta Godsora, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
117. George Monippally, Van Adhikar Manch, Latehar, Latehar
118. Jagat, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
119. Jano Purty, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
120. Jawahar Mehta, Activist, Palamu
121. Jayman Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
122. Jitendra Baraik, Activist, Ranchi
123. Jitendra Oraon, Concerned citizen, Latehar
124. Jitendra Sundi, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
125. Jivan Hembram, Majhi Baba, East Singhbhum
126. Joseph Kisku, Activist, Dumka
127. Jyoti Purti, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
128. Jyoti Behan, Mahila Mukti Sangharsh Samiti, Chatra, Chatra
129. Kamal Pahan, Concerned citizen, Khunti
130. Kamil Purti, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
131. Kamlesh Korwa, Concerned citizen, Garhwa
132. Khetro Mohan Birua, Activist, West Singhbhum
133. Kiran, Sambhava injor, Ranchi
134. Kiran Veer, Visthapit Mukti Vahini, Seraikela-Kharsawan
135. Kita Sinku, Activist, West Singhbhum
136. Kumari Leena, Human Rights Activist, Ranchi
137. Madhu Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
138. Manimala, Journalisr, Delhi
139. Manthan, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini, East Singhbhum
140. Mathias Sinku, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
141. Michael Jojo, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
142. Mikhael Hassa, Activist, Khunti
143. Mugli Kandeyang, West Singhbhum
144. Mukesh Hembram, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
145. Narendra Kumar, True Gandhian Group, Bokaro
146. Nawin Lugun, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
147. Nikita Hemrom, Bagaicha, Ranchi
148. Nimesh, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
149. Om Prakash, Azadi Bachao Andolan, East Singhbhum
150. Pius Topno, Student, Khunti
151. Ponderam Kayam, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
152. Poonam Deogam, Sprouts Child Grooming Center, West Singhbhum
153. Praphul Kujur, Activist, Ranchi
154. Praveer Peter, Sajha Kadam & Sadbhav Manch (NAPM), India
155. Prince Gill, JCM, East Singhbhum
156. Prof Yogendra, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Ranchi
157. Raj Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
158. Rajendra Champia, Activist, West Singhbhum
159. Rajesh Ramakrishnan, Campaign to Defend Nature and People, Chennai
160. Rajshree, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
161. Ram Sundi, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
162. Rashmi Sinku, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
163. Ravi Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
164. Rita Kandey, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
165. Rose Madhu Tirkey, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
166. Rose Xaxa, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Gumla
167. Sanjana Mehta, Student activist, Garhwa
168. Sarita Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
169. Satish Munda, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
170. Saurabh Sinha, Activist, Deoghar
171. Savita Kachhap, Social activist and Research Scolar, Ranchi
172. Shailendra Sinku, Student, West Singhbhum
173. Shakha Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
174. Shashi Shekhar Singh, Citizens for Democracy’s, Delhi
175. Shivam Barjo, Student, West Singhbhum
176. Siraj Dutta, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
177. Solomon, Concerned citizen, Dumka
178. Soumya, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
179. Subhash Barjo, Student, West Singhbhum
180. Sunil Champia, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
181. Sunil Kumar Bansingh, Activist, East Singhbhum
182. Sushila Minj, Concerned citizen, central
183. Thakur Baske, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
184. Vicky Beck, Activist, Ranchi
185. Vijay Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
186. Vijay Kumar Barwa, Concerned citizen, Latehar
187. Vikas Das, Concerned citizen, Khunti
188. Vikash Kumar, Activist, East Singhbhum
189. Vikram Minj, Activist, Latehar
190. Vishwanath Azad, Ekal Nari Sashakti Sangathan, Hazaribagh
191. Vivek Vishal, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
192. Ananta, Lokmukti Sangathan, Jharsuguda, Odisha
193. Ashok Vishwarai, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini (JASWA) / Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Unnao (Uttar Pradesh)
194. Ashok, MKSS, Pali, Rajasthan
195. Avinash Kadam, Shramik Mukti Dal, Thane, Maharashtra
196. Bela Bhatia, Human rights lawyer, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
197. Bimal Ekka, Concerned citizen, South Andaman
198. Sricharan Behera, Campaign for Survival and Fignity, Odisha, Khurdha
199. Shambhu Nath, Jan Sangharsh Vahini, Begusarai, Bihar
200. Ishwar Ahire, Manjur Sangharsh Vahini, Dhule, Maharashtra
201. Jag Narayan Mahto, Concerned citizen, Delhi
202. Joshy Jacob, Samajwadi Janaparishad, Kottayam, Kerala
203. Nandini Sundar, Sociologist, Delhi
204. Narbhinder Singh, Association for Democratic Rights Punjab, Tarn Taran, Punjab
205. Nelson Xess, Concerned citizen, N&M Andaman
206. Nootan, CDNP, Wardha, Maharashtra
207. Prafulla Samanthara, Lok Shakti Abhiyan, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
208. Ranjana Kanhere, Activist, Nandurbar
209. Richa Singh, SKMS, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh
210. Sanjay Kumar Lakra, Concerned citizen, South Andaman
211. Shalini Gera, Lawyer, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
212. Somar Singh Bhokta, Mazdoor Kisan Samiti and Jaswa, Gaya Ji, Bihar
213. Sujata Gothoskar, Nari Atyachar Virodhi Manch, Mumbai, Maharashtra
214. Umakanta Naik, Lokmukti Sangathan, Jharsuguda, Odisha
215. Vinod Vikram, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini, Allahabad (UP)
216. Virendra Kumar, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Mumbai

Related:

How Not To Remember Birsa Munda 

Adivasis protest BJP’s ‘insult’ to freedom fighter Birsa Munda

Jharkhand Adivasis celebrate Birsa Munda Jayanti on Jharkhand formation day

The post Appeal by Adivasi-Mulvasi leaders to Jharkhandis: Protect Birsa Munda’s legacy from the RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh: Members of the transgender community submitted a memorandum to the Police Commissioner demanding strict action against inflammatory social media posts spreading Hindu-Muslim division. They urged increased monitoring, legal action against offenders pic.twitter.com/6K3Lj4QtvS

— IANS (@ians_india) June 4, 2026

Ironically, while they had approached the Police Commissioner as conscientious citizens, they were not allowed to enter the premises but had to submit the memorandum at the gate. The social media post reflected a police official accepting the memorandum after perusing the contents.

Related:

A Law of Identity, Passed Without Listening: Inside the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026 and the crisis it has triggered

Withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 NOW!

The post Varanasi: Transgender Community demands action against communal social media posts, CP denies them entry into premises appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gujjar Bakkerwal community is a recognised Scheduled Tribe (ST) community and has lived in forest areas for centuries, sustaining their livelihoods, while maintaining a close relationship with nature and forest resources. The implementation of the Forest Rights Act 2006 in Jammu & Kashmir in 2021 recognized the legitimate rights of forest-dwelling tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers over their traditional lands, traditional migratory routes and habitats.
In view of these legal protections, any forceful eviction, intimidation, or use of violence and demolition of the houses of tribal families is a matter of serious concern. The Forest Rights Act 2006 was enacted to protect the rights of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD), and following its provisions is mandatory for all authorities.

The signatory organisations have demanded an immediate inquiry into the incident, repair and reconstruction of their demolished houses, protection of the affected families, and strict action against responsible officials regarding this grave violation of the rights of tribal communities.
The statement further says that “it is unacceptable that a sub divisional magistrate who carried out these demolition is faking ignorance of a parliament enacted law. The officer has been directed under FRA, a special Act of the Parliament in 2006 that the rights of the nomadic tribe should be protected. Government departments and authorities are supposed to help the forest communities to claim their rights. To the contrary, in Jammu, a government officer has uprooted dozens of families without any authorisation and violated the law of the land.”

AIWFP and others have demanded that Section 7 of the FR Act should be immediately invoked against the erring official and the person should be immediately punished for violation of this central Act. They have also urged the administration to ensure that no eviction takes place and that the rights guaranteed under the Forest Rights Act are fully implemented.

The AIUFWP is an Adivasi and Forest Dwellers Union and it has stated that they stand in solidarity with the Gujjar nomadic community and reaffirm our commitment to the protection of rights of forest dwelling communities, environmental justice, and the constitutional rights of all marginalised communities.

Related:

J&K: “Tribals Bachao” protest intensifies over govt move to declare upper castes as ST

J&K to implement Forest Rights Act by March 2021

Bakerwal girl was Brutalised Because She Was a Muslim; Period

The post Demolitions of homes of Gujjar Bakerwals in Jammu unconstitutional & violation of FRA 2006: AIUFWP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In many places, the festival passed peacefully. Families gathered after morning namaz, meat was distributed among relatives and poorer households, and local communities quietly adjusted practices to avoid confrontation. But in several cities and towns, Bakri Eid also became the centre of communal disputes over goats, housing societies, slaughter spaces, public prayer, and even the visibility of Muslim religious life itself.

The result was a festival that revealed two India’s simultaneously: one still capable of accommodation and coexistence, and another where Muslim festivals are increasingly subjected to suspicion, policing, and political contestation. Authorities across the country remained on high alert in the days leading up to Eid-ul-Adha. Police deployments were increased, livestock transportation was monitored, housing societies issued restrictions, and state governments reiterated cattle slaughter regulations. The atmosphere reflected the growing politicisation of Bakri Eid itself.

The festival under regulation

One of the clearest patterns this year was the extent to which Eid celebrations became governed through administrative control and legal regulation. As Moneycontrol reported in a detailed nationwide survey of cattle slaughter laws ahead of Bakri Eid, state governments issued extensive advisories and intensified enforcement drives around livestock transport, slaughterhouses, and sacrificial practices.

The report highlighted how India’s fragmented legal landscape around cattle slaughter shaped Eid observances differently across states. Maharashtra strictly enforced provisions under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, which bans slaughter of cows, bulls, and bullocks. Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat continued to enforce some of the country’s harshest anti-cow slaughter laws, with penalties extending to life imprisonment in certain circumstances. Assam intensified enforcement under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, while Karnataka reiterated provisions under its stringent 2020 anti-cattle slaughter legislation.

In Delhi, minister Kapil Mishra publicly warned that sacrifice of prohibited bovine species would invite criminal prosecution. Rapid response teams were formed across districts to monitor transport and slaughter activities.

Municipal corporations and local administrations across cities also insisted that qurbani be conducted only at officially designated spaces. In Mumbai, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation reportedly designated 109 authorised slaughter locations and discouraged sacrifice in residential societies and chawls.

Increasingly, the question was no longer merely what Muslims could sacrifice during Eid, but where, how visibly, and under whose permission.

Pandharpur and the other possibility

Yet even amid this tense atmosphere, there were moments that reflected a very different social reality. Perhaps the most striking example came from Pandharpur in Maharashtra. As reported by Hindustan Times, the town’s Muslim community voluntarily decided to defer goat sacrifice because Bakri Eid coincided with Adhik Maas Ekadashi, an occasion of deep significance for devotees of Lord Vitthal.

Members of the Muslim community told reporters that they wanted to honour the sentiments of Hindu pilgrims visiting the temple town. Some residents reportedly said that Muslims in Pandharpur had long-standing emotional and spiritual connections with the town’s religious culture and had similarly deferred sacrifice in previous years when such overlaps occurred. The symbolism mattered. At a time when Muslim religious practices were being intensely scrutinised elsewhere, Pandharpur offered a reminder that coexistence in India has historically depended less on legal coercion and more on negotiated accommodation and everyday mutual recognition. The story received wide attention precisely because it contrasted so sharply with the hostility unfolding elsewhere.

Mira Road: From housing dispute to communal flashpoint

The most widely discussed communal tensions around Bakri Eid this year emerged from Mira Road near Mumbai. What began as a disagreement by a few inside a housing society over goats being kept ahead of Eid soon escalated into a much larger communal controversy involving right-wing groups, police intervention, counter-protests, and allegations of deliberate provocation.

Detailed report by SabrangIndia may be read here.

Tensions erupted at Poonam Cluster Society after some residents objected to goats being housed within the premises. Muslim residents maintained that they had obtained municipal permission and pointed out that the practice had existed for years within the society. The dispute quickly moved beyond internal society negotiations.

As provided in our report, fringe elements associated with organisations such as the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad entered the scene. What followed was an escalation marked by religious sloganeering, clashes, and eventually one of the most disturbing incidents reported during this year’s Eid period: attempts to bring pigs into the housing society as a counter-protest to the legally valid presence of goats.

The symbolism was unmistakable. And yet, what happened afterward was equally important.

Three days later, the same society celebrated Eid peacefully under police protection. In a follow-up report, Hindustan Times quoted residents insisting that “outsiders” had aggravated what was initially a manageable internal disagreement.

Residents described years of communal coexistence inside the society. Muslim families explained that the temporary goat sheds had existed for years with proper drainage and regular cleaning arrangements. Hindu and Muslim neighbours reportedly exchanged Eid greetings despite the violence of previous days.

The Mira Road episode therefore became more than a local dispute. It illustrated how quickly ordinary disagreements over shared residential space can now be communalised through organised intervention and political mobilisation. At the same time, it also revealed the persistence of local social relationships that continue to resist complete polarisation.

Kalyan and the politics of religious space

Another major point of friction emerged in Kalyan, Maharashtra. As reported by The Hindu, police-imposed restrictions on animal sacrifice inside several housing societies and heavily barricaded the area around the historic Durgadi Fort complex during Eid prayers.

The site is politically and communally sensitive because a temple and mosque exist in close proximity within the fort complex. According to the report, temporary restrictions on temple access during Eid prayers led to protests by members of both Shiv Sena factions and Hindu organisations. Groups gathered nearby to recite the Hanuman Chalisa after prayers concluded, while demonstrations were organised around allegations that Hindu devotees were being prevented from entering the temple.

The issue carried deep historical resonance. The Hindu noted that the Durgadi Fort dispute has remained politically charged since the 1980s and is closely linked to the legacy of Shiv Sena strongman Anand Dighe. Bakri Eid here became not just a religious event but a symbolic battleground over ownership of public and sacred space.

Political language and “new Hindutva”

The tensions surrounding Bakri Eid also triggered overt political commentary. Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut accused certain groups of attempting to communalise the festival through what he described as “new Hindutva.” According to reports published by News The Truth, Raut argued that Maharashtra historically represented a culture of coexistence and criticised what he viewed as selective outrage around Muslim animal sacrifice while remaining silent on sacrifices associated with other traditions.

His remarks reflected a broader political argument emerging this year: that opposition to Bakri Eid practices was no longer being framed merely through animal welfare or civic regulation, but increasingly through majoritarian identity politics. At the same time, Hindu nationalist groups repeatedly framed their protests around language of “public hygiene,” “society rules,” “religious sensitivity,” and “illegal sacrifice.”

The conflict was therefore rarely articulated openly as anti-Muslim hostility. Instead, it often appeared through the bureaucratic and civic vocabulary of regulation, sanitation, legality, and public order.

Varanasi and the economics of Eid

The tensions surrounding Bakri Eid were not only communal or political. They were also economic. In Varanasi, authorities sealed the city’s decades-old Benia Bagh goat market just days before Eid, triggering panic among traders. According to reports carried by Indian Express, the market — one of eastern Uttar Pradesh’s largest seasonal livestock bazaars — had functioned for nearly four decades before authorities abruptly shut it down citing sanitation complaints and overcrowding.

Traders alleged that they were given little warning and faced devastating losses after travelling from multiple districts with goats purchased on credit.

Several traders reportedly said they had mortgaged valuables and borrowed money at high interest rates to participate in Eid livestock trade and now feared financial ruin if they could not sell their animals.

The closure highlighted another dimension of Eid increasingly overlooked in public discourse: the festival sustains a vast informal economy involving livestock farmers, transport workers, traders, butchers, leather workers, and local markets. Administrative crackdowns therefore carry not only symbolic implications, but material consequences for livelihoods as well.

Prayer, surveillance, and preventive policing

Even public prayer itself became contested in some areas. Reports circulated from Agra that Hindu nationalist leaders planned protests over temporary free entry arrangements at the Taj Mahal for Eid namaz. Police responded by placing several individuals under house arrest to prevent escalation. Elsewhere, social media videos documented protests around Eid prayers and public recitations of the Hanuman Chalisa near Muslim gatherings.

The visible police presence across cities became one of the defining features of Bakri Eid this year. In Mira Road alone, dozens of police personnel were reportedly stationed around sensitive housing societies to prevent further escalation.

The scale of preventive policing reflected both administrative caution and the extent to which Muslim festivals are increasingly treated as potential law-and-order situations.

The festival that revealed the country

Bakri Eid in India this year cannot be reduced either to a story of communal harmony or one of inevitable communal conflict. Both realities existed simultaneously.

There were stories of accommodation: Muslims in Pandharpur postponing sacrifice to respect Ekadashi; local communities negotiating solutions quietly; residents insisting that coexistence mattered more than provocation; neighbours exchanging Eid greetings despite recent tensions.

But there were also unmistakable signs of a changing political climate: housing societies policing Muslim practices; right-wing mobilisation around goats and sacrifice; counter-protests involving pigs; increasing restrictions on where Muslims may pray or perform qurbani; administrative language increasingly framing Eid through surveillance and control.

The deeper significance of Bakri Eid this year lay not merely in the incidents themselves, but in what they revealed about the condition of public life in India.

Questions that once belonged largely to the private domain of religious observance — where goats may be kept, where sacrifice may occur, whether namaz may be offered in a particular place — are now increasingly contested in public and political arenas. And yet, despite everything, the festival still passed. Families prayed. Communities negotiated fragile peace. And in many places, ordinary people continued to protect coexistence even when political actors attempted to fracture it. Bakri Eid in 2026 therefore became a portrait of contemporary India itself: anxious, polarised, heavily policed — but still, in countless everyday ways, struggling to hold together.

Related:

Have Hindus always been Vegetarian?

No ‘Pakistan conspiracy’ in Noida labour unrest: Fact-finding report

CJP files complaint against BJP MLA & Minister Nitesh Rane and right-wing leaders over alleged hate speeches in Maharashtra and West Bengal

Statues of icons of the Santhal Revolt, Sidhu Murmu & Kanhu Murmu vandalised in South Dinajpur village, BJP blamed

The post Between Celebration and Suspicion: How Bakri Eid passed across india in 2026 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

[Allahabad High Court judgement delivered on May 15, 2026]

“A group of dacoits clad only in undergarments allegedly carried out multiple robberies in Mustafabad and Sithauli villages [Uttar Pradesh]…Armed intruders reportedly scaled the wall of farmer Nizakat’s house in the early hours of Wednesday [May 20, 2026] and held his family hostage… When resisted, they assaulted the inmates, critically injuring six people…According to the police, the robbers beat women also for keeping a chicken dish at home, and told them to eat only vegetables.”

[The New Indian Express, May 21, 2026]

With RSS cadres in full control of the Indian State, June 2014 onward, the country has become a laboratory for a major dietary fabrication:  that vegetarianism is Sanatan to Hinduism. It is not that prior to Modi’s coming to power the concept did not exist, a substantial and powerful section of the ruling elite including Gandhi were vociferous believers in it. However, it was not a project for which Indian State worked vehemently.

The neo-zealots of vegetarian Hinduism argue that diet was not just nourishment for the body. It was a matter of spiritual realm which shaped “our thoughts, emotions, and karmic vibrations… The Vedas say, ‘Yad annam, tad manas’ which means ‘As is the food, so is the mind’ …Vegetarian food is considered sattvik-pure, calm, and balanced. It nurtures peace, compassion, and mental clarity. Non-vegetarian food, on the other hand, is tamasic- heavy, aggressive, and rooted in destruction. It dulls our spiritual perception and increases lower (read base) tendencies like anger, fear, and restlessness.”

[https://www.adityavastu.in/post/eating-non-veg-and-its-impact-on-karmikta]

With the beginning of Modi era, it became normal to ban sale and consumption of non-veg eatables for long periods during many religious festivals and many areas permanently declared out of bound for selling/consuming it. The issue of food was weaponized and both seller as well as consumers of non-veg cuisine were declared to be evil elements, a threat to Hinduism and society. Another sinister dimension added was that meat consumers were also attacked for indulging in beef-eating. There are countless incidents in public domain when non-veg consumers were attacked, lynched, their houses bulldozed, even burnt.

The zeal of RSS-BJP rulers in enforcing vegetarian Hinduism is to be seen and believed in dealing with foreign dignitaries. President of Russia Vladimir Putin visiting India in 2025 was chief guest at a lavish dinner thrown by India President on December 6, 2025) where only vegetarian cuisines were served. It was no different when EU delegation was State Guest on January 29, 2026, Seychelles President Patrick Herminie was chief guest at State dinner on February 9, 2026 and Vietnamese PM To Lam on May 6, 2026).

Only vegetarian menu of the banquet hosted by President Murmu for Seychelles President. For other dignitaries too it was only vegetarian menu with different dishes. As per a report in NDTV.

Across India, across educational institutions, businesses, railways and social-religious gatherings non-veg food has been banned. Debarshi Dasgupta (Strait Times, May 18, 2026) lamented the fact that in “Uttar Pradesh, a state also governed by the BJP, curated a list of local cuisines from each of its 75 districts and released it in May. It is a list that includes over 200 dishes, but, again, not a single one of them is meat-based. What makes this ludicrous is that more than half of the state’s population (53.6 per cent), according to a government survey, confirmed eating fish, chicken or other kinds of meat. It is also a state celebrated for its meat-based cuisines, particularly its capital, Lucknow, whose kebabs are legendary.”

Interestingly, the kebab “even found specific praise from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), when it added Lucknow to its ‘Cities of Gastronomy’ list in 2025. But when Minister of Culture and Tourism Gajendra Singh Shekhawat feted this decision on social media, he disingenuously used a poster of food items that were – no surprise here – entirely vegetarian”.

Pushpesh Pant, a renowned Indian academic and food historian as quoted by Dasgupta stated: “It is also a thinly disguised persecution of Muslims, many of whom are perceived to be butchers and vendors of meat and who supposedly are the beef-eaters.” As per a report in Asia News Network.

Varanasi Iftar-on-Boat Arrests

If we want to understand the gravity of weaponization against non-veg consumers and surrender of the State including judiciary, the case known as Varanasi Iftar-on-Boat Arrests needs to be taken note of. According to a detailed report by Shinjinee Majumdar in The Wire (March 27, 2026), the controversy started with a video of March 15 “in which 14 men — Azad Ali, Aamir Kaiki, Danish Saifi, Mohd. Ahmad, Nehal Afridi, Mahfooz Alam, Mohd. Anas, Mohd. Awwal, Mohd. Tahseem, Mohd. Ahmad alias Raja, Mohd. Noor Ismail, Mohd. Tausif Ahmad, Mohd. Faizan, and Mohd. Sameer — were seen breaking their Ramzan-month fast on a boat, allegedly consuming chicken biryani”.

The video was uploaded by one of the group members and soon went viral.  According to The Wire report: “A complaint filed on March 16 by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM)’s Varanasi president Rajat Jaiswal accused them of hurting religious sentiments by consuming non-vegetarian food on the river and disposing of waste into it. The police subsequently arrested 14 men under multiple charges, including hurting religious sentiments, public nuisance and polluting water. Days later, more serious charges — including extortion — were added, significantly raising the legal stakes.”

Jaiswal’s complaint on which Varanasi police took immediate action stated that eating non-veg while riding a boat at Ganga Mother was a grave sin. Moreover, after eating they washed their hands, dumping the waste, thus hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus.

The initial charges against the accused included: Section 298 BNS — Defiling a place of worship with intent to insult a religion, Section 299 BNS — Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, Section 196(1)(B) BNS — Promoting enmity between groups on religious grounds, Section 270 BNS — Public nuisance, Section 279 BNS — Fouling water of a public spring or reservoir, Section 223(B) BNS — Disobedience of an order by a public servant and Section 24, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Later two more serious charges were added, Section 308(5) BNS — Extortion under threat of death or grievous hurt and Section 67, Information Technology Act — Publishing or transmitting obscene material (linked to the viral video).

With these additions, the potential punishment increased significantly — from a maximum of around six years (under the Water Act) to up to 10 years due to the extortion charge.

According to The Wire report, a Varanasi court had denied bail to the accused on March 23. They had earlier been remanded to 14 days of judicial custody on March 19, until April 1.

However, Allahabad High Court Single Bench of Justice of Rajiv Lochan Shukla granted bail with some conditions to the incarcerated Muslims on May 15. The Judge’s words in the judgement, however, amplified the majoritarian and politicized Hindutva construct of vegetarian Hinduism: “members of the Muslim community having a Roza Iftar party, and during the said Iftar party, while partaking of food, non-vegetarian food is said to have been consumed by the members of the Muslim community, who are then alleged to have thrown the remains into the River Ganges. This fact in the dispassionate opinion of the Court could rightly be said to hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community.”

[]

The far right propaganda machine of “vegetarian Hinduism” is currently running amok in India belying contents of both scriptures and historical study.

Manusmriti for Meat-eating

According to Hindutva ideologue, VD Savarkar Manusmriti is the go-to scripture after the Vedas for Hindus.

[Savarkar, V.D., ‘Women in Manusmriti’ in Savarkar Samagar (collection of Savarkar’s writings in Hindi) volume IV, Prabhat, Delhi, 2000, p. 416.]

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak sangh, an organisation that is the organizational and ideological fountainhead of the present regime ruling India, made demands that it is the Manusmriti that needs must be declared as the Constitution of India—this at a time when the Indian Constituent Assembly was enacting the Constitution.

[Editorial, RSS English organ, Organiser, ‘The Constitution, November 30, 1949.]

This scripture –Manusmriti–that has been substantively critiqued by Dr BR Ambedkar among many other scholars– glorifies the eating of flesh as we will see in the following.

*That land where the black antelope naturally roams, one must know to be fit for the performance of sacrifices; (the tract) different from that (is) the country of the Mlechas. (II/23)

*[A Brahmin should not eat] food given without due respect, nor (that which contains) meat eaten for no sacred purpose, nor (that given) by a female who has no male (relatives), nor the food of an enemy, nor that (given) by the lord of a town, nor that (given) by outcasts, nor that on which anybody has sneezed. (IV/213);

*‘The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,’ that is declared to be a rule made by the gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas. (V/31)

*He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed (the animal), or has received it as a present from others. (V/32)

*A twice-born man who knows the law, must not eat meat except in conformity with the law; for if he has eaten it unlawfully, he will, unable to save himself, be eaten after death by his (victims). (V/33)

*After death the guilt of one who slays deer for gain is not as (great) as that of him who eats meat for no (sacred) purpose. (V/34)

*But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite), refuses to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty-one existences. (V/35)

*A Brahmana must never eat (the flesh of animals unhallowed by Mantras; but, obedient to the primeval law, he may eat it, consecrated with Vedic texts. (V/36)

*A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state. (V/42)

[This selection of Manu’s Codes is from F. Max Muller, Laws of Manu (Delhi: LP Publications, 1996; first published in 1886). The bracket after each code incorporates number of chapter/number of code according to the above edition.]

Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Meat-Eating

The Arthsastra of Kautilya (Chanakya) is the second go-to book of governance for RSS-BJP rulers and cadres. How dear this treatise is to them can be gauged by the fact that the Modi 3.0 government while organising the Sadhna Saptah (April 2-8, 2026) and Mission Karmayogi declared it to be a basic book  for training Indian administrators along with the Vedas.

Interestingly, the Arthsastra has 67 references decreeing flesh eating. The amazing part is that it has a specific chapter titled ‘Superintendent of Slaughter House’.

[R Shamasastry (trans), Kautilya’s Arthsastra, Mysore Printing and Publishing house,     Mysore, 1915, Pgs 149-53]

According to the rules of the slaughter house, “of beasts of prey that have been captured, the Superintendent shall take one-sixth; of fish and birds (of similar nature), he shall take one-tenth or more than one-tenth; and of deer and other beasts (mrigapasu), one-tenth or more than one-tenth as toll…(Butchers) shall sell fresh and boneless flesh of beasts (mrigapasu deer or wild animal) just killed. If they sell bony flesh, they shall give an equivalent compensation (pratipákam)” [P. 138].

There is no ban on slaughter of cows, however, “cattle such as a calf, a bull, or a milch cow shall not be slaughtered…The flesh of animals which have been killed outside the slaughter-house (parisúnam), headless, legless and boneless flesh, rotten flesh, and the flesh of animals which have suddenly died shall not be sold. Otherwise, a fine of 12 panas shall be imposed [Pgs. 138-39]”.

People are allowed to keep stock of dried flesh, skins, tendons (snáyu)…in such quantities as can be enjoyed for years together without feeling any want. Of such collection, old things shall be replaced by new ones when received. [P. 55]

Referring to different kinds of animals, Arthsastra decrees: “When an animal dies a natural death, they shall surrender the skin with the brand mark, if it is a cow or a buffalo; the skin together with the ear (karnalakshanam) if it is a goat or sheep; the tail with the skin containing the brand mark, if it is an ass or a camel; the skin, if it is a young one; besides the above, (they shall also restore) the fat (vasti), bile, marrow (snáyu), teeth, hoofs, horns, and bones. They (the cowherds) may sell either fresh flesh or dried flesh.” [P. 147]

Kautilya’s cities were not inhabited by vegetarian folks as we find that the chapter ‘Building within the Fort’ allots sites for flesh traders; “To the south, the superintendents of the city, of commerce, of manufactories, and of the army as well as those who trade in cooked rice, liquor, and flesh, besides prostitutes, musicians, and the people of Vaisya caste shall live.” [P. 54]

The chapter titled ‘Superintendent of Store-House’ [p. 101] assigns a duty of collecting taxes/recovery of past arrears to the superintendent from dealers of ‟Clarified butter, oil, serum of flesh, and pith or sap (of plants, etc.)…Dried fish, bulbous roots (kándamúla), fruits and vegetables form the group of edibles (sakavarga)”. [Pgs. 102-103]

The same chapter while dealing with the contents of each meal of an ARYA, low Castes, women and children states: “For dressing twenty palas of flesh, [1000 palas make one tula] half a kutumba of oil, one pala of salt, one pala of sugar (kshára), two dharanas of pungent substances (katuka, spices), and half a prastha of curd (will be necessary). For dressing greater quantities of flesh, the same ingredients can be proportionally increased. For cooking sákas (dried fish and vegetables), the above substances are to be added one and a half times as much. For dressing dried fish, the above ingredients are to be added twice as much.” [P. 105]

Under the head ‘Superintendent of Cows’ the boss has the authority of classifying “cattle as calves, steers, tamable ones, draught oxen, bulls that are to be trained to yoke, bulls kept for crossing cows, cattle that are fit only for the supply of flesh…” [P. 146] According to Chanakya, “When an animal dies a natural death, they shall surrender the skin with the brand mark, if it is a cow or a buffalo; the skin together with the ear (karnalakshanam) if it is a goat or sheep; the tail with the skin containing the brand mark, if it is an ass or a camel; the skin, if it is a young one; besides the above, (they shall also restore) the fat (vasti), bile, marrow (snáyu), teeth, hoofs, horns, and bones. They (the cowherds) may sell either fresh flesh or dried flesh.” [P. 147]

It may be shocking for many animal lovers that the feed for bulls apart from including grass one tulá (100 palas) of oil cakes, 10 ádhakas of bran, 5 palas of salt (mukhalavanam), one kudumba of oil for rubbing over the nose (nasya), 1 prastha of drink (pána) added one tulá of flesh in the daily diet. [P. 148] Daily diet for horse included “50 palas of flesh”. [P. 150]

Likewise, the rations for an elephant (of a specific height) includes “50 palas of flesh” and elephant, watchmen, sweepers, cooks and others shall receive apart from cooked rice, a handful of oil, sugar and salt 10 palas of flesh. [Pgs. 155-158]

The chapter dealing with ‘Remedies against National Calamities’ prescribes a non-vegetarian remedy by stating “Persons acquainted with the rituals of the Atharvaveda, and experts in sacred magic and mysticism shall perform such ceremonials as ward off the danger from demons. On full-moon days the worship of Chaityas may be performed by placing on a verandah offerings such as an umbrella, the picture of an arm, a flag, and some goat’s flesh”. [P. 239]

The Arthashastra makes it clear that tax was collected on flesh. “They (the king’s employees) may demand of cultivators one-fourth of their grain, and one-sixth of forest produce (vanya) and of such commodities as cotton, wax, fabrics, barks of trees, hemp, wool, silk, medicines, sandal, flowers, fruits, vegetables, firewood, bamboos, flesh, and dried flesh.” [P. 274]

The animal flesh/serum was used as medicines/remedies also. “When the body of a man is smeared over with the serum of the flesh of a frog, it burns with fire (with no hurt)…When the body of a man is smeared over with the above serum as well as with the oil extracted from the fruits of kusa (ficus religiosa), and ámra (mango tree), and when the powder prepared from an ocean frog (samdura mandúki), phenaka (sea-foam), and sarjarasa (the juice of vatica robusta) is sprinkled over the body, it burns with fire (without being hurt). When the body of a man is smeared over with sesamum oil mixed with equal quantities of the serum of the flesh of a frog, crab, and other animals, it can burn with fire (without hurt)…paste prepared from the roots of páribhadraka (erythrina indica), pratibala , vanjula (a kind of ratan or tree), vajra (andropogon muricatum or euphorbia), and kadali (banana), mixed with the serum of the flesh of a frog, can walk over fire (without hurt). Oil should be extracted from the paste prepared from the roots of pratibala, vanjula and páribhadraka, all growing near water, the paste being mixed with the serum of the flesh of a frog. Having anointed one’s legs with this oil, one can walk over a white-hot mass of fire as though on a bed of roses. The paste prepared from the powder of the rib-bone of náraka (?), a donkey, kanka (a kind of vulture), and bhása (a bird), mixed with the juice of water-lily, is applied to the legs of bipeds and quadrupeds (while making a journey). The fat or serum derived from roasting a pregnant camel together with saptaparna (lechites scholaris) or from roasting dead children in cremation grounds, is applied to render a journey of a hundred yojanas easy. [Pgs. 458-60.]

Restrictions

“King should prohibit the slaughter of animals for half a month during the period of Cháturmásya (from July to September), for four nights during the full moon, and for a night on the day of the birth-star of the conqueror or of the national star. He should also prohibit the slaughter of females and young ones (yonibálavadham) as well as castration. Having abolished those customs or transactions which he might consider either as injurious to the growth of his revenue and army or as unrighteous, he should establish righteous transactions.” [P. 449.]

Beef Eating Essential for Brahmins in ancient (early) India

Swami Vivekananda, regarded as a philosopher of Hindutva by the RSS, while addressing a meeting at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, USA (February 2, 1900) on the theme of ‘Buddhistic India’, declared:

“You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it.”

[Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 3 (Calcutta: Advaita Ashram, 1997), P. 536.]

He further stated that without eating beef, “no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin [a Hindu religious mendicant], a king, or a great man came into house, the best bullock was killed…” [Ibid., P. 174.]

This is corroborated by other research works sponsored by the Ramakrishna Mission established by Vivekananda. According to C. Kunhan Raja, a prominent authority on the history and culture of the Vedic period:

“The Vedic Aryans, including the Brahmanas, ate fish, meat and even beef. A distinguished guest was honoured with beef served at a meal. Although the Vedic Aryans ate beef, milch cows were not killed. One of the words that designated cow was aghnya (what shall not be killed). But a guest was a goghna (one for whom a cow is killed). It is only bulls, barren cows and calves that were killed.”

[Raja, C. Kunhan, Vedic Culture‟, cited in the series, Suniti Kumar Chatterji and others (eds.), The Cultural Heritage of India, vol. 1 (Calcutta: The Ramakrishna Mission, 1993), P. 217.]

Kunhan Raja countering the myth of vegetarian Hinduism stated:

“The Grhya Sutras prescribe different kinds of meat to be given to be given to children at the first feeding ceremony, for different results. Mutton, flesh of different kinds of birds, and other forms of meat were freely eaten by the higher Castes in those days, and still they were the most spiritual nation in the world.” [Ibid.]

One of the greatest researchers, scholar and an authority on Indian politics, religions and culture Dr. BR Ambedkar produced a brilliant essay on the subject titled ‘Did the Hindus Never Eat Beef?’

All those who are really interested in understanding the ‘Hindu Past’ must read this monumental work of Dr. Ambedkar. After studying a large number of Vedic and Hindu scriptures, he arrived at the conclusion that,

“when the learned Brahmins argue that the Hindus not only never ate beef but they always held the cow to be sacred and were always opposed to the killing of the cow, it is impossible to accept their view”.

[Ambedkar, B. R., ‘Did the Hindus never eat beef?’ in The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables? in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. 7, (Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990, first edition 1948) Pgs 323-328.]

Also see the scholarly work by Professor DN Jha, The Myth of the Holy Cow, link: https://archive.org/details/TheMythOfHolyCowJha]

Interestingly, the findings of Ambedkar were that cows were sacrificed and beef consumed because COWS were HOLY.

According to Ambedkar:

“It was not that the cow was not sacred in Vedic times, it was because of her sacredness that it is ordained in the Vajasaneyi Samhita that beef should be eaten.” (Dharma Shastra Vichar in Marathi, Pg. 180). That the Aryans of the Rig Veda did kill cows for purposes of food and ate beef is abundantly clear from the Rig Veda itself. In Rig Veda (X. 86.14) Indra says: ‘They cook for one 15 plus twenty oxen’. The Rig Veda (X.91.14) says that for Agni were sacrificed horses, bulls, oxen, barren cows and rams. From the Rig Veda (X.72.6) it appears that the cow was killed with a sword or axe.”

Ambedkar concluded this essay with the following words:

“With this evidence no one can doubt that there was a time when Hindus, both Brahmins and non-Brahmins, ate not only flesh but also beef.”

[Ibid., Pgs 323-328.]

Anandmath: Sanatan/Hindu Sena consuming flesh

Bankim Chandra Chatterjee is also a Rishi (Holy Teacher) for the RSS-BJP combine. This writer’s otherwise his pro-British novel, Anandmath, is another important (read holy) treatise for votaries of Hindu nationalism. A leader of Santan or Hindu army, Jivananda comes to visit her sister, Nimi who serves him, “some clean, jasmine-white rice, some tasteful dal, a curry of wild figs, some fish netted  [sic] from her own tank and some milk”.

[Sen-Gupta, Nares Chandra (translator Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s Anandamath), Abbey of Bliss, Padmini Mohan Neogi, Calcutta, P. 65.]

India as a global beef exporter/powerhouse under Modi

India has quietly emerged as global beef powerhouse. The country now ranks as the world’s second-largest beef exporter earning nearly 3.8 billion dollars or around 34,177 crore rupees worth of this meat, annually. Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra,, and Andhra Pradesh account for the bulk of these exports with Uttar Pradesh alone contributing nearly 60% of India’s beef shipments.”

[“India Becomes World’s Second-Largest Beef Exporter Amid Cow Vigilante            Violence”, Jan 02, 2026, https://www.deshabhimani.com/deshabhimani-english -/national-76192/india-beef-exports-cow-vigilante-violence-48452]

Fisheries export

Vegetarian India is making great strides in exporting seafood too, to the world.

According to a Government of India (GOI) press release dated April 3, 2026

“India’s seafood exports have recorded strong and sustained growth, expanding at an average annual rate of 7% over the past 11 years. Marine product exports have more than doubled during the period, rising from ₹30,213 crore in 2013‑14 to ₹62,408 crore in 2024‑25, driven largely by shrimp exports valued at ₹43,334 crore. India’s seafood exports span a wide and diversified basket, with over 350 varieties of products shipped to nearly 130 global markets.” [https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2248721&reg=3&lang=1]

Unholy use of the waters of the Holy Ganga

Hindutva’s claim vis a vis Holy Mother Ganga must be taken not just with a pinch, but fistfuls of salt. According to Government of India data Ganga water is supplied to Delhi, Patna, Rajgir, Gaya, Bodhgaya, Bhagalpur, and Nawada (Bihar), Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi and several cities in Western UP, Haridwar (Uttarakhand), and Kolkata (West Bengal). This supply is not for fulfilling some religious duties but for all kinds of cleaning, washing and sanitary purposes.

How is this tolerated? Is it not high time for the courts to intervene?

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

Rewriting NCERT school textbooks: ‘Muslim Raj’ is a mere excuse, the project is to conceal historical facts

Unity not Hate: Commemorating the 168th anniversary of 1857 War of Independence

How Hindutva forces colluded with both the British & Jinnah against the historic ‘Quit India’ movement: Archives

The post Have Hindus always been Vegetarian? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CJP stated in the complaints that the alleged hate speeches violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 21 and attracted offences under provisions relating to promotion of enmity between groups, criminal intimidation, statements conducing to public mischief, deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and incitement to violence.

The complaints concern speeches delivered in Chandivali and Malad Malvani in Mumbai, Kalyani in Nadia district of West Bengal, and Junnar in Pune district.

Complaint against Nitesh Narayan Rane over Chandivali speech: May 12, 2026

In a complaint dated May 12, 2026, addressed to Shri Nikhil Gupta, Additional Director General (Law & Order), Maharashtra, Addl. Commissioner of Police, West Region, Mumbai, and Senior Police Inspector, Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, CJP sought registration of an FIR against BJP MLA and Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nitesh Narayan Rane for allegedly delivering a divisive communal speech during a Hindu convention held in Chandivali, Mumbai on May 3, 2026.

CJP stated in the complaint that Rane utilised dehumanising language against Muslims, spread conspiracy theories regarding “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” “Corporate Jihad,” and “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” and openly encouraged social and economic boycott of Muslims. The complaint alleged that the speech attempted to create fear and hostility by portraying Muslims as an existential threat to Hindus and India.

According to CJP, Rane repeatedly referred to Muslims as “green snakes” and urged the audience to confront them. The complaint reproduces the speech transcript, including the following statements:

“[They] should come to Maharashtra. This writhing of green snakes (referring to Muslims) must stop. That is why the saffron flag has been unfurled in Maharashtra, remember this.”

“And therefore, while moving around as a Hindu, do so with self-confidence. Move with courage. If any green snake is writhing here, take guidance from Tai and then give me a call.”

The complaint further stated that Rane repeatedly described India as a “Hindu Rashtra” and suggested that Muslims were attempting to convert India into an Islamic nation through organised conspiracies.

CJP also stated in the complaint that Rane attempted to create fear among Hindus by claiming that Muslims would prevent Hindu religious practices if their population increased.

The complaint reproduces the following statements:

“You won’t be able to perform puja in your home. This saffron flag won’t be able to fly here. You won’t be able to apply the Tilak on your forehead.”

“Mothers and sisters won’t be able to apply vermilion (Sindoor) on their heads.”

According to CJP, the speech also included references to alleged communal incidents in Palghar and Virar to reinforce hostility against Muslims. The complaint additionally highlighted Rane’s remarks calling for economic boycott of Muslims:

“So, when we are dealing with them, buying from them, or giving them jobs—first, if someone is sitting at a shop, even if the shop’s signboard says ‘Jay Shri Ram,’ sometimes Abdul is sitting inside.”

“First tell him, ‘Recite the Hanuman Chalisa for me first.’ If you recite the Hanuman Chalisa only then will I buy from you, otherwise I won’t.”

“Therefore, if jobs are to be given or purchases are to be made, it should only be for Hindus—this should be the stance of all of us.”

CJP stated in the complaint that these remarks amounted to explicit encouragement of discrimination and exclusion of citizens based on religion and constituted a direct appeal for economic boycott of Muslims.

A copy of complaint dated May 12, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Nitesh Rane over Malad Malvani speech during Ram Navami Yatra

In another complaint dated April 28, 2026, addressed to Maharashtra Police authorities, CJP sought registration of an FIR against Nitesh Narayan Rane over a speech delivered during the Ram Navami Yatra held in Malad Malvani, Mumbai, on March 26, 2026.

According to CJP, the speech promoted communal hostility, issued direct threats of violence, and attempted to alienate Muslims by declaring India a “Hindu Rashtra” and describing the locality as belonging exclusively to “saffron-clad” Hindus.

CJP stated in the complaint that Rane used references to “Pakistan” as a dog-whistle against Muslims and openly threatened those opposing Hindutva ideology.

The complaint reproduces the following portions of the speech:

“Perhaps some people here in Malvani have forgotten that this is our Hindu Rashtra, this is not someone’s Pakistan. If anyone tries to remove that saffron flag, we will not let their cylinder come up again. If anyone again looks at our saffron flag with dirty eyes, then their eyes will be taken out and played with like marbles.”

CJP alleged that these remarks amounted to open threats of violence and intimidation. The complaint further stated that Rane specifically directed slogans toward a mosque in the locality, thereby attempting to provoke confrontation and disturb communal harmony. The reproduced statement reads:

“That voice must reach the big mosque.”

According to CJP, such statements sought to intimidate the Muslim community and portray them as outsiders within the constitutional framework of India. The complaint also alleged that Rane invoked the authority of a “government with a Hindutva ideology” to suggest political backing for aggressive communal mobilisation.

A copy of complaint dated April 28, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Hari Mishra in West Bengal over hate speech during election campaign in Nadia

In a complaint dated May 6, 2026 addressed to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police in Nadia district, West Bengal, CJP sought registration of an FIR under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against BJP leader Hari Mishra for a speech delivered during an election campaign in Kalyani, Nadia district, on April 23, 2026. CJP stated in the complaint that Mishra spread anti-Muslim conspiracy theories and falsely claimed that Hindu festivals could not be celebrated in Muslim-majority areas.

The complaint reproduces portions of the speech including:

“In any area where the Muslim population is above 30-35%, Saraswati Puja will not happen. In places like Malda and Murshidabad… you first have to take permission from the nearest mosque. A situation worse than Bangladesh is going to happen on the soil of West Bengal.”

CJP further alleged that Mishra falsely claimed that the Constitution of India did not function in parts of West Bengal. The reproduced transcript includes:

“The Constitution of India does not work in many parts of Malda and Murshidabad. In about 25-30% of the areas in Malda and Murshidabad, the Constitution, rules, laws, and regulations of India do not apply.”

The complaint also referred to statements linking demographic change with political exclusion: “The day Muslims reach above 40-45%, not a single Hindu MP, MLA, counselor, or chairman will remain in West Bengal.”

According to CJP, these remarks sought to portray Muslims as a threat to democratic institutions and communal coexistence and were intended to create fear and polarisation during the election period.

A copy of complaint dated May 6, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Harshu Thakur in Junnar, Pune over speech delivered at Virat Hindu Sammelan

In a separate complaint dated May 6, 2026, addressed to the Additional Director General (Law & Order), Maharashtra, the Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Junnar Division, CJP sought registration of an FIR against Harshu Thakur over a speech delivered at the Virat Hindu Sammelan held in Junnar, Pune district, on April 19, 2026. CJP stated in the complaint that Thakur spread anti-Muslim rhetoric through references to “Forest Jihad,” “Love Jihad,” and “Land Jihad,” while also making statements encouraging militarised responses and targeting Islamic institutions and burial practices.

The complaint reproduces the following statements:

“Wherever there is open land, there are graves. If you start funding madrasas, then only terrorists will be produced there. Mulla-Maulvis give them training on how to trap girls in ‘Love Jihad’ and how to carry out ‘Land Jihad’. They are taught how to make bombs.”

CJP further highlighted remarks targeting Muslim men and encouraging women to arm themselves:

“All these ‘Abduls’ are the same. Every Hindu woman just needs to be given a weapon.”

The complaint also alleged that Thakur attempted to frame Muslims as inherently violent while encouraging religious segregation and hostility.

A copy of complaint dated May 6, 2026 can be accessed here

Judicial precedents on which CJP relied upon

In the complaints submitted before police authorities in Maharashtra and West Bengal, CJP also relied upon multiple judicial precedents of the Supreme Court concerning hate speech, communal targeting, and the constitutional obligation of authorities to act against inflammatory rhetoric. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Firoz Iqbal Khan vs Union of India [W.P. (Civ.) No. 956 of 2020], CJP highlighted the Court’s observations that “the edifice of a democratic society committed to the rule of law under a regime of constitutional rights, values and duties is founded on the co-existence of communities. India is a melting pot of civilisations, cultures, religions and languages. Any attempt to vilify a religious community must be viewed with grave disfavour by this Court as the custodian of constitutional values.”

CJP stated that the speeches delivered by Nitesh Rane, Hari Mishra, and Harshu Thakur collectively portrayed Muslims as conspirators, outsiders, extremists, and demographic threats, thereby directly undermining constitutional values of equality, fraternity, and peaceful coexistence. The complaints further referred to Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India [AIR 2014 SC 1591], where the Supreme Court observed that “hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership to a group,” and warned that such speech can lay the groundwork for discrimination, ostracism, violence, and even genocide. CJP stated that the repeated references to “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” “Forest Jihad,” “Corporate Jihad,” alleged demographic conspiracies, and calls for economic boycott sought to institutionalise fear and hostility against Muslims and therefore warranted immediate criminal action.

The complaints additionally cited the Supreme Court’s order dated April 28, 2023 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 943 of 2021], wherein all States and Union Territories were directed to register suo moto FIRs against hate speech irrespective of religion whenever offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 505 IPC and related provisions are attracted.

Provisions related to hate speech under BNS, 2023

CJP further stated that the speeches attract multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, particularly Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 352 and 353. According to the complaints, the repeated targeting of Muslim religious institutions, educational spaces, and social identity through references such as “green snakes,” “Forest Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and allegations that madrasas produce “only terrorists” amounted to promoting enmity between religious groups and acts prejudicial to communal harmony under Section 196 BNS.

CJP stated that the speeches also made imputations against the constitutional allegiance of an entire community by portraying Muslims and Islamic institutions as threats to the State, thereby attracting Section 197 BNS. The complaints further alleged that mocking Dargahs, Mazars, burial practices, Islamic scholars, and Muslim religious practices constituted deliberate insults to religion and religious beliefs under Sections 299 and 302 BNS.

CJP additionally argued that the repeated calls for mobilisation, warnings regarding demographic change, threats of violence, references to arming civilians, and calls for economic boycott amounted to intentional provocation intended to breach public peace under Section 352 BNS and dissemination of false information likely to create fear and communal unrest under Section 353 BNS.

The complaints maintained that the speeches delivered across Mumbai, Pune, and Nadia reflected a continuing pattern of inflammatory communal rhetoric aimed at deepening religious polarisation and normalising hostility against Muslims, thereby necessitating immediate registration of FIRs and preventive intervention by the concerned police authorities in compliance with constitutional obligations and Supreme Court directives.

Maharashtra DGP circulars cited by CJP

CJP also referred to circulars issued by the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, in February and April 2023 concerning preventive and penal action against hate speech.

According to the complaint, Circular No. DGP 20/Petition No.940/2022/54.2023 dated February 2, 2023 highlighted the Supreme Court’s order dated January 13, 2023 directing police authorities to take suo motu action whenever speeches attract offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 IPC.

The circular had directed all Unit Commanders to follow the Supreme Court order and entails “measures to be taken to maintain law and order due to agitations, morchas, speeches etc.”

It gives detailed instructions on what steps are to be taken when any morchas are to be held:

“2. All the Unit Commanders should hold a meeting with the concerned organisers before such a morcha and fix the route of the morcha with appropriate terms and condition. A combined meeting of all social groups should be taken to convey clearly to all that they should maintain peace and keep law and order during the morcha. Preventive action against Anti-social elements should be taken. Those elements who help in maintaining peace and harmony should be encouraged. Audio Video recording of the morcha should be done. Police Head Quarters should ensure adequate supply of equipment’s, like Lathi, Helmets, etc. to police men deployed for morcha bandobast. If any law-and-order situation arises, offences should be registered immediately and arrest should be made. Intelligence machinery should be activated to collect advance information about morcha, agitation and efforts should be made to pre-empt any communal incidents.”

Supreme Court directions on preventing/prosecuting hate speakers

CJP further referred to multiple Supreme Court orders concerning hate speech and preventive policing. According to the complaints, on February 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued directions regarding a proposed event by Sakal Hindu Samaj in Mumbai and directed that if permission was granted for the event, it would be subject to the condition that no hate speech would be delivered.

The court also outlined directives with respect to taking preventive action in such cases:

“We also direct that the Officer(s), in case, permission is granted and, in case, the occasion arises for invoking the power under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Officer(s) concerned to invoke the said power and to act as per the mandate of Section 151 of the Cr.P.C.” 

Even in 2024 itself, while on January 17, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta had expressed their anguish at the petitioners being forced to approach the Supreme Court multiple times against individuals and organisations even after there being guidelines for tacking and taking action against hate speeches. During the said hearing, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police at Yavatmal, Maharashtra and Raipur, Chhattisgarh to take ‘appropriate steps’ to ensure that no incitement to hate speech occurs at the rallies scheduled in the said districts in the coming few days of January.

The said order was passed following the concerns raised by the petitioners over delivery of potential hate speeches at rallies planned by Hindu Janjagruti Samiti and Bharatiya Janata Party Legislator T Raja Singh in the month of January.

CJP stated that the court had outlined directives with respect to taking preventive action in such cases:

“We would require the authorities to be conscious that no incitement to violence and hate speech are permissible. The concerned District Magistrates and Superintendent of Police of Yavatmal, Maharashtra and Raipur, Chhattisgarh will take necessary steps, as may be required. If necessary and deemed appropriate, police/administration will install CCTV Cameras having recording facility, so as to ensure identification of the perpetrators in the event of any violence/hate speech.”

Background: Profile of Nitesh Rane and previous complaints filed by CJP

CJP stated in its complaints that the speeches delivered in Chandivali and Malad Malvani were not isolated incidents but formed part of a continuing pattern of inflammatory speeches allegedly delivered by Nitesh Rane across Maharashtra. According to CJP, the organisation had previously filed complaints dated March 7, March 18, and March 28, 2025 concerning speeches delivered by Rane in Sindhudurg, Pune, and Ratnagiri districts.

The complaints related to events including:

• “Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan” in Kundal on February 8, 2025
• “Shivjanmostav” event in Sawantwadi on February 19, 2025
• Public felicitation programme at Nanijdham, Ratnagiri on February 20, 2025
• Religious gathering in Wagholi, Pune on February 5, 2025

CJP stated that across these events, Rane repeatedly invoked terms such as “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad,” portrayed Muslims as a collective threat, and made statements capable of inciting hostility, fear, and social boycott against the Muslim community. The complaints further stated that such rhetoric, particularly when delivered by a sitting Cabinet Minister, was inflammatory, unsupported by evidence, and violative of constitutional protections.

FIRs and ongoing legal scrutiny against Nitesh Rane

Under the judicial oversight of the Bombay High Court in Aftab Siddique & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (2024), multiple FIRs have already been registered against Nitesh Rane in connection with alleged hate speech cases. CJP reproduced details of these FIRs in its complaints and stated that they reflected a continuing pattern of communal speeches delivered by Rane in different parts of Maharashtra.

Mankhurd Police Station (C.R. No. 152/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane under Sections 153A, 503, 504 and 505 IPC. According to the complaint, this case originated from speeches perceived as threatening to the Muslim community and capable of inciting public disorder.

Ghatkopar Police Station (C.R. No. 521/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane and Subhash Ahir under Sections 153A, 504, 506 and 188 IPC in connection with inflammatory speeches delivered in Mumbai suburbs.

Kashimira Police Station (C.R. No. 259/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane and Geeta Jain in relation to the Mira-Bhayander incidents under Sections 153A, 153B, 143, 504 and 506 IPC along with Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Malwani Police Station (C.R. No. 298/2024)

Originally registered against Bhagwan Thakur, with Nitesh Rane later added as an accused under Sections 153A, 504 and 506 IPC in relation to speeches targeting specific religious communities.

CJP further pointed out that Nitesh Rane’s October 2024 election affidavit reportedly disclosed 38 FIRs registered against him, including 20 cases relating specifically to allegations of hate speech.

Related

Free and Fair Elections: CJP’s 2025 fight against hate and voter intimidation

CJP’s 2025 intervention against ‘Digital Hate’: Holding television news channels accountable before the NBDSA

Law as Resistance: A year of CJP’s interventions against a rising tide of hate

The post CJP files complaint against BJP MLA & Minister Nitesh Rane and right-wing leaders over alleged hate speeches in Maharashtra and West Bengal appeared first on SabrangIndia.