Addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner and copied to the Chief Electoral Officer, Assam, the memorandum documents a disturbing pattern of unauthorised deletions, fabricated objections, false declarations of death, and misuse of statutory forms, allegedly targeting legitimate voters across multiple districts of the State. Along with CJP, Assam Majuri Sramik Union, Banchana Birdodhi Mancha and Forum for Social Harmony are also the signatories to this memorandum.

Dead voters filing objections, living voters declared dead

Among the most alarming allegations are instances where “dead persons” are shown as having filed objections against living voters, as well as complaints branding living electors as deceased. The memorandum flags this as a grave subversion of electoral procedures, calling for immediate scrutiny of how such objections were accepted during the SR process.

In several cases, voters who never changed residence were issued objections falsely claiming that they had shifted addresses. A separate annexure, the groups state, lists such affected voters.

A single woman, 64 objections — all denied

The memorandum details a striking case from Goalpara town, where a woman named Naba Bala Ray from Jyotinagar, Krishnai, was shown to have filed 64 objections against voters. When the affected voters approached her, she categorically denied filing any objections. While she later withdrew some complaints in Assamese, the memorandum notes a glaring inconsistency: her signatures also appeared on Form 7 complaints in English, which she claimed she could not write or understand.

CJP annexed these complaints as evidence of forgery and fabrication within the objection process.

Man objects to himself — and 133 others

In another extraordinary instance from Shribhumi district (formerly Karimganj), a man named Salim Ahmed was shown as having filed objections against himself and 133 other voters, alleging they were not genuine electors. According to the memorandum, Ahmed told the Booth Level Officer that he never filed any such objection, pointing to what the groups describe as a “fully fabricated” complaint attributed to him without consent or knowledge.

BJP leaders accused of unauthorised access to election data

Beyond individual cases, the memorandum raises grave institutional concerns. It alleges that office-bearers of the Bharatiya Janata Party, including district-level leaders and ST Morcha functionaries, unauthorisedly entered the office of the Co-District Commissioner, Boko-Chhaygaon, and accessed official documents and the Election Commission’s electronic database.

Such actions, if proven, would amount to a serious breach of electoral neutrality and administrative safeguards, the groups warn.

Migrant workers disproportionately affected

The memorandum also flags how migrant labourers from Assam were particularly vulnerable during the SR process. Voters who had temporarily left the State for work during verification reportedly returned to find fresh objections raised against their names, effectively penalising economic migration and seasonal labour mobility.

Allegations of partisan signalling from political executive

Calling for institutional impartiality, CJP and other groups cite alleged interference in the Boko-Chhaygaon constituency and refer to statements attributed to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, which they characterise as “blatantly partisan” and inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of a neutral electoral process.

Demands to the Election Commission

The memorandum places eight specific demands before the ECI, including:

• Withdrawal of objections where the original complainant is absent during hearings
• Investigation and penal action for false Form 7 complaints
• Action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against false declarants
• Compensation for victims subjected to mental, physical, or financial harassment
• Extension of timelines for claims and publication of the final electoral roll

At its core, the memorandum urges the Election Commission to restore procedural integrity and ensure that Assam’s electoral rolls are prepared “free and fair, in the interests of democracy”.

Why was this memorandum submitted?

Coming amid heightened national scrutiny of electoral processes, the allegations — if substantiated — point not merely to clerical lapses but to a structural vulnerability in voter list revision mechanisms, particularly in politically sensitive regions. The memorandum underscores that electoral rolls are not administrative lists but constitutional instruments, foundational to the exercise of universal adult franchise.

The Election Commission has not yet responded to the memorandum.

The complete memorandum may be read below.

Detailed report may be read here.

Related:

Supreme Court defers hearing in batch of petitions, led by CJP, challenging state Anti-Conversion laws; interim relief applications pending since April 2025

CJP flags Zee News broadcast ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulanas’ for communal framing before NBDSA

A voter list exercise under scrutiny: Assam’s Special Revision of electoral rolls, allegations of targeted harassment and misuse of Form-7

The case of “pushback” of Doyjan Bibi and the quiet normalisation of undocumented deportations

The post Assam’s Electoral Rolls in Crisis: CJP flags structural manipulation in Summary Revision appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What followed has only deepened that concern. Across campuses, students protesting the Supreme Court stay on UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 have faced intimidation, surveillance, violence, and criminal process. Instead of debate, there has been policing. Instead of institutional introspection, securitisation. And instead of engagement with the substance of caste discrimination, there has been an aggressive narrowing of what may even be spoken.

Together, these developments mark a dangerous convergence: the criminalisation of speech, the judicial suspension of equity safeguards, and the shrinking of democratic space within institutions meant to nurture critical thought.

देशभर में यूजीसी एक्ट के समर्थन में बहुजन छात्रों के प्रदर्शन हो रहे हैं, लेकिन मुख्यधारा का मीडिया चुप है। pic.twitter.com/Nqdq8CpJhd

— Hansraj Meena (@HansrajMeena) February 4, 2026

A judicial stay that did not calm campuses—but exposed a fault line

The immediate trigger for nationwide student mobilisation was the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the UGC Equity Regulations 2026, observing that the framework appeared “too sweeping” and required closer scrutiny. The stay was framed as a neutral act of caution. On campuses, it was experienced as something else entirely: a sudden withdrawal of long-awaited recognition.

As reported by India Today, students argued that the regulations were halted before they could even be tested. No implementation, no data, no demonstrated misuse—only a speculative fear that accountability mechanisms might be abused. The contrast was striking. In a legal system where far-reaching executive actions are often allowed to operate while constitutional challenges remain pending for years, a framework designed to protect marginalised students was frozen at inception.

The context matters. The 2026 regulations did not emerge in a vacuum. They were the product of years of litigation, including the long-pending petition filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both of whom died by suicide after alleged caste-based harassment. Over time, the Supreme Court itself sought reports, monitored compliance, and pressed for reform. A Parliamentary Standing Committee reviewed the draft regulations in late 2025, recommending substantive changes—many of which were incorporated.

Yet, at the very first hearing after notification, the framework was stayed.

For students already navigating hostile campuses, the implication was stark: caste discrimination may be acknowledged rhetorically, but meaningful institutional safeguards remain deeply contested.

Campuses Respond: Different languages, the same demand for justice

The response to the stay has varied across universities, shaped by institutional histories and student politics. But taken together, protests at JNU, BHU, and Delhi University reveal a shared insistence that equity cannot remain a matter of administrative goodwill.

JNU: The defence of ideological space

At Jawaharlal Nehru University, students organised torchlight processions demanding immediate implementation of the regulations and renewed calls for a statutory Rohith Act—a central anti-discrimination law for higher education.

Placards and slogans opposing Brahmanism and Manusmriti dominated the march. Defending the language used, JNUSU representatives told PTI that the slogans were ideological critiques, not attacks on any caste group—an important distinction grounded in established free-speech jurisprudence. Political critique, even when sharp or unsettling, lies at the heart of constitutional democracy.

Student leaders also raised a pointed question: why was extraordinary urgency shown in staying these regulations when countless cases involving civil liberties remain pending for years? The warning from the campus was clear—if justice is indefinitely deferred within universities, it will not remain confined there.

UGC गाइडलाइन के समर्थन में जेएनयू स्टूडेंट्स का मार्च#JNU #UGCRegulations2026 pic.twitter.com/S9tlsULus0

— Dalit Dastak | दलित दस्तक (@DalitDastak) February 4, 2026

BHU: Evidence, reports, and institutional failure

At Banaras Hindu University, the protest took a different form. Hundreds of SC, ST, and OBC students marched carrying letters, official reports, and citations, demanding Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, transparency in grievance redressal, and public disclosure of compliance.

As reported by India Today, students cited the Thorat Committee Report (2007) and the IIT Delhi study (2019), both of which document systemic discrimination and its links to mental health crises, dropouts, and suicides. The emphasis here was not symbolic resistance but institutional accountability.

A heavy police presence and alert proctorial boards accompanied the march—an unsettling reminder of how quickly claims of discrimination are met with securitisation rather than reform.

Delhi University: From regulation to law

At Delhi University, Left-backed student groups led an “Equity March” through North Campus, framing the issue as a legislative and constitutional question. According to The Times of India, speakers argued that without statutory backing, grievance mechanisms remain fragile, easily diluted, and subject to withdrawal.

The demand for the Rohith Act surfaced repeatedly—reflecting a growing consensus that enforceable rights, not discretionary guidelines, are essential to address structural caste discrimination.

Violence, policing, and the price of naming caste

Even as students mobilised, reports of violence and intimidation surfaced from multiple campuses. As per reports, a BHU student allegedly being beaten by upper-caste peers for sharing a poster supporting the UGC protests in a WhatsApp group. At Allahabad University, students discussing equity regulations were reportedly attacked, with allegations pointing to ABVP-linked groups.

Most chilling was the Allahabad University episode itself: students allegedly assaulted, and one student arrested or warned for speech alone. If the use of the word “Brahminism”—a staple of academic critique—can invite police action, the boundary between maintaining order and enforcing ideological conformity has all but vanished.

For many protesters, these incidents crystallised the argument for equity regulations: without enforceable safeguards, marginalised students are left vulnerable not just to bureaucratic neglect, but to physical and legal harm.

चप्पा चप्पा गूंज उठेगा , जय भीम के नारों से pic.twitter.com/5eb3H59nXr

— Dr. Om Sudha (@dromsudhaa) February 4, 2026

This is shocking and absolutely unacceptable in university campuses. Students who were peacefully discussing equity regulations in University of Allahabad were reportedly beaten up by Brahmanical forces of ABVP. This is exactly why we need equity regulations. The safety of… pic.twitter.com/beFHX0xoSh

— Rehna Raveendran (@Rehna_AntiCaste) February 4, 2026

A BHU student was brutally beaten by upper-caste students simply for sharing a poster about the UGC protest in a WhatsApp group.

To stop this kind of hooliganism and violence on campuses, strong and enforceable UGC regulations are absolutely necessary.
pic.twitter.com/vUKPXjAjm1

— Harshita Narayani (@DearAspirant) February 4, 2026

Faculty Unease and the Limits of the Framework

Faculty responses have complicated the picture rather than resolved it. The JNUTA noted that the regulations fail to address the deep-rooted and systemic nature of discrimination. At protest gatherings, faculty speakers acknowledged these limitations—pointing to the absence of punitive provisions, excessive power vested in principals, and the exclusion of elite institutions like IITs and IIMs.

Yet the consensus among many educators was striking: even an imperfect framework represented a rare institutional acknowledgment that caste discrimination exists on campuses. To halt it before implementation was not correction—it was erasure.

Media silence, political quiet, and democratic erosion

A recurring concern across protests has been the muted response of large sections of the mainstream media and the conspicuous absence of sustained parliamentary debate. Students questioned how a nationwide mobilisation demanding discrimination-free campuses could unfold without political engagement at the highest levels.

When speech is criminalised, safeguards are stayed, and violence is normalised or ignored, trust in democratic institutions begins to fracture—not through apathy, but through lived experience.

देशभर में यूजीसी एक्ट के समर्थन में बहुजन छात्रों के प्रदर्शन हो रहे हैं, लेकिन मुख्यधारा का मीडिया चुप है। pic.twitter.com/Nqdq8CpJhd

— Hansraj Meena (@HansrajMeena) February 4, 2026

More Than a Regulation: A test of university democracy

As highlighted by the incidents above, the battle over the UGC Equity Regulations has outgrown the regulations themselves. It has become a test of whether universities will remain spaces of critique or instruments of control; whether caste can be named without punishment; and whether equality will be treated as a constitutional obligation or an administrative inconvenience.

When students are arrested for words, protections are suspended before they are tried, and dissent is met with force rather than reason, the crisis is no longer confined to campuses. It speaks to the health of the republic itself.

The question now confronting India’s universities is no longer about guidelines or committees. It is about whether democracy—messy, uncomfortable, and argumentative—still has a place in the classroom.

.Related:

Hate Speech Before the Supreme Court: From judicial activism to institutional closure

When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention

Another Campus, Another Death: Student suicides continue unabated across India

My birth is my fatal accident, remembering Rohith Vemula’s last letter

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

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

The post Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Is this euphoria justified when we look at the interests of Indian farmers and workers? Seen together with a much criticised 2026 Union Budget by Farmers Unions and organisations. India is likely to witness more rounds of nationwide protests.

One,details of the agreement are not yet available. It is only when the full scope and details of the trade deal are available, one can make a proper assessment.

However, the announcement made by the US President Donald Trump on his
social media accounts indicate that Indian goods imports will face a 18 per cent tariff, while India reduces tariffs and non-tariff barriers on US goods to zero.

What does this one-sided deal mean? Eliminating tariffs will or may result in the flooding the country with US goods which will adversely affect industries and workers’ livelihoods. Removal of non-tariff barriers would mean eliminating subsidies and other measures, which protect and support Indian farmers.

Moreover. Trump has claimed that India has agreed to stop buying Russian oil and committed to buy $500 billion worth of US energy, technology and farm products. This, if true, shows up the highly unequal nature of the trade deal with India in a subordinate position, circumscribing its sovereignty.

Farmers unions, analysts and experts are now demanding that the government place the full trade agreement in the Parliament and in the public domain, so that there is a thorough discussion. Any harmful provisions must be rescinded to protect the interests of Indian industry, agriculture and working people.

Sharp Criticism of 2026 Union Budget, Agriculture Finds No Presence in the Union Budget by the All India Kisan Sanghatana (AIKS). Questioning the absence of any proposals for loan waivers and sharply criticising the reduction in fertilizer subsidy by Rs.15679 crores, the AIKS has called upon farmers to burn copies of the anti-farmer, anti-federal budget on February 3 across the country*

In a press note issued, AIKS states that, the Union Budget 2026-27 fails yet again to present any commitment towards the strategic regeneration of agriculture- the most crucial livelihood sector for the Indian people. Agriculture was largely ignored by the Finance Minister in her budget speech, small and marginal farmers were mentioned just once, while there was a conspicuous absence of any mention of rural labour. The budgetary figures echo this neglect.

According to the Economic Survey presented this week by the Union government, the average growth rate of agriculture in 2025 saw a fall. The growth rate registered in the previous quarter was 3.5 per cent, against the decadal average growth rate of 4.45 per cent.

Crop production witnessed the most drastic fall. Given this context of stagnation in the agriculture sector, it was expected that the Union Budget 2026-27 will deliver some relief and momentum. However, the Budget disappoints once again.

The total budget allocated to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare at about 1.40 Lakh Cr., is just a 5.3 per cent increase in nominal terms from the Revised Estimate 2025-26. Accounting for inflation, this implies that the real allocation to agriculture has not seen any substantial growth.

The Economic Survey also recognised that the yield rates of various crops including cereals, maize, soybean, and pulses continue to trail behind the global averages, making Indian production uneconomic.

However, according to the AIKS. The Budget fails in terms of providing any additional support to boost agriculture research and development.

Despite the Finance Minister mentioning enhancing agriculture productivity as a kartavya, the budgetary allocation to the Department of Agricultural Research and Education has been reduced from 10281 crores Revised Estimate (RE) 2025-26 to 9967 crores (BE 2026-27).

The rhetoric on investing in cash crops continued even in this year’s budget. The speech underlined a focus on coconut, cocoa, cashew, nuts, and sandalwood. However, in reality, missions such as Cotton Technology Mission, Mission on Pulses, Hybrid Seeds, and Makhana Board, introduced in the past, find no mention in the budgetary figures.

Talking of relief to farmers, the budget presents no remarkable proposal. The subsidy on fertilizers has seen a reduction from 186460 crores (RE 2025-26) to 170781 crores (BE 2025-26). Food subsidy has also seen a reduction from the revised estimates of previous year.

There was no mention of the MGNREGS scheme or even the newly passed VB-GRamG scheme in the budget speech, which indicates the total dismissal of the significance of rural employment.

VB-GRamG scheme has been allocated 95692 crores; however, this allocation is subject to the clause of 40 per cent mandatory state funding. 60 percent of the allocated budget under VBGRamG is 57,415 crores, which is drastically less than the 88000 crores allocated to MGNREGS under RE 2025-26. This means for the new scheme to function at the previous level, State governments have to bear the burden of 38,277 crores!

As per the economic review 2025-26, the number of states with surplus has been reduced from 19 in 2018-19 to 11 in 2023-24. The states are demanding 50% share of the divisible pool but the 16th Finance Commission has proposed 41% only. The state governments without financial autonomy will not be able to find adequate funds to support the employment guarantee scheme and even the average 47 days of employment under MGNREGS will not be available for the rural people this year under VB GRAMG Act. It is a gross assault on the rural workers and peasants as well as violation of the federal rights. This is not acceptable to the peasantry.

AIKS: The only major announcement concerning rural employment was the Mahatma Gandhi Gram Swaraj Yojana, promoting village industries; however, no significant financial allocations were made.

Among the Agriculture and Allied sectors, the only significant budgetary allocation has been made under Animal Husbandry and Dairying, from 5303 crores (RE 2025-26) to 6135 crores (BE 2026-27). However, here again the thrust has been on expansion of credit-infused veterinary hospitals, breeding in the private sector and garnering foreign investments.

The AIKS has called upon the farmers, rural workers and the people at large to strongly protest against the anti-farmer, anti-worker, anti-federal budget by burning copies in villages and tehsils on February 3, 2026 or any subsequent day. AIKS also appeals to all to ensure the General Strike on February 12 will be a great success and will reflect the anger against the anti-people Union Budget 2026-27.

Related:

As heat waves intensify in India, some inspiring examples of how small budget efforts conserve water, big time

ASHA Union Demands Hike in NHM Funds in Union Budget 2025, Social Security Benefits

Thousands of NREGA workers urge Modi to resume work in West Bengal, contribute to State Budget

The post Indian Agriculture: Between the 2026 Union budget & US-India trade deal, a huge setback for Indian farmers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The chief minister had held a meeting with the CEC today in Delhi over the issue of deleted names from draft electoral rolls during ongoing special intensive revision (SIR). She was accompanied by Trinamool Congress MPs and 12 voters from West Bengal – five of whom were declared dead and had their names deleted from the rolls. The delegation, including Banerjee, wore black shawls on as a mark of protest.

In November, she had asked the CEC to halt the SIR in the poll-bound state, claiming that the BLOs had not been provided adequate training, support or time.

“I have been involved in Delhi’s politics for a long period of time…But I have never seen such an Election Commissioner. He is extremely arrogant. He is a great liar. I said that I respect your chair. I said that no chair is permanent for anyone. One day, you too will have to go. Don’t create this precedent,” she said, addressing the media after the meeting.

She claimed that the EC was using artificial intelligence (AI) to remove names from the list and that was the reason behind the discrepancies. She also claimed that “only Bengalis” were being targeted.

Here are five things she said while speaking to the media:

1. ‘Why Bengalis?’

“Why are only Bengalis being targeted? In a democracy, elections are a festival,” Banerjee asked, claiming that 58 lakh voters had been removed from the rolls without being given a chance to defend themselves.

She further questioned why the SIR exercise was not being conducted in BJP-ruled states and was limited to opposition-ruled West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. She said her party did not oppose SIR in principle, but it should not have been carried out in the hurried manner as it is being conducted.

“SIR didn’t happen in Assam since there is a BJP government. You didn’t carry out SIR in the north-eastern states. SIR happened in Bengal, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. In BJP-ruled states, you will get the time to put everyone’s name on the voter list,” she said, alleging more mismatches and mismapping in the opposition states.

2. ‘Using AI’

The chief minister alleged that it was not the EC handling the revision but BJP IT cell, who were “using AI” to delete names from the rolls.

“Who is doing this using AI? It is nobody from the EC. It is being done by the BJP IT cell. Even when a murderer doesn’t get a lawyer and pleads to the judiciary to defend himself, he is allowed to do so. But, you removed 58 lakh voters in the very beginning through Seema Khanna (EC’s IT expert) and the use of AI,” she said.

She highlighted that in several cases of deleted names, the issue was that the English surname did not match with the Bengali surname.

“I write Mamata Banerjee in English. However, in Bengali, I write Mamata Bandhopadhyay. Chatterjee in English is Chattopadhyay in Bengali. In this way, it [the ECI] has removed all the names that it could not understand [as being the same],” she said.

“It is fine that duplicate voters have been removed. We also highlighted duplicate cases last year. That should have been rectified, and the names of genuine voters should have stayed,” she said.

3. Minorities affected, elderly hassled; BLOs died

She added that this was affecting women who have changed their surname after marriage, the young generation and minorities, including Muslims, SCs and STs.

Banerjee questioned why the documents listed for verification were not being allowed for SIR in Bengal. “In every state, domicile certificates, land certificates, Aadhaar cards, land records, and matriculation certificates are allowed. None of these documents are recognised in Bengal for the SIR process. People in Bengal are carrying trunks full of documents, yet they are put into the ‘not found’ category in terms of evidence,” she said.

She also raised the issue of elderly harassment, pointing out that the elderly people were “being taken to the hearing venue in ambulances”, “made to wait futilely for 8-10 hours before they are sent back”.

She also pointed out that institutional delivery was rare earlier that many people are unable to retrieve their parent’s birth certificates, etc.

“Ask your PM if he has his parents’ birth certificates. Could Atal ji have been able to provide his birth certificate had he been alive today? Ask Advani ji if he can provide the dates of birth of his parents,” she said, calling the SIR process “totally undemocratic and unparliamentary”

Raising the issue of BLO suicides, the chief minister claimed that the BLOs died as they were “threatened and terrified” by the officers.

Banerjee has previously also criticised the situation in which BLOs across West Bengal were reportedly working. Many have alleged they are being forced to distribute hundreds of forms daily, then digitally upload them despite repeated server failures and poor technical infrastructure.

4. ‘Will face consequences like Dhankhar’

Banerjee told the media that she told CEC Kumar that he will “also face consequences like Dhankhar”, for “working at the behest of the BJP”.

Notably, before becoming the vice president, Jagdeep Dhankhar, as West Bengal’s governor, was often embroiled in public spats with Banerjee and the TMC.

“You are not doing inclusion; you are doing deletion. After removing 58 lakh voters, you have planned to remove another 1.4 crore voters. That means you have put 2 crore voters under the mismatch and mismap category,” she alleged.

5.’Boycotting CEC, not elections’

The chief minister said that the party has “boycotted” Kumar because he “insulted and humiliated” them. She also alleged that the CEC did not respond to her letters, and also went against the Supreme Court judgement.

However, she said she will not “commit the mistake” of boycotting the elections.

“We will not boycott the elections. We will not commit this mistake. We will fight and win. They have captured our administration for the last six months. They are not letting us do any work. It’s just like President’s Rule. Bengal is being targeted. Till he [the CEC] is sitting on that chair, he is going to be a threat to the country.”

“My allegation is against only one person. I respect the chair. I said that I have faith in him, and that is why we came. But he is not ready to listen. He does whatever the BJP instructs him to do.”

Courtesy: The Wire

The post Five Things Mamata Banerjee Said After Meeting CEC Over SIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Page 6 of the Delhi edition of the Express, a blink-and-miss single column had the headline: “MEA dismisses Epstein email with PM reference as ‘trashy rumination’”.

The report below said: “The Ministry of External Affairs on Saturday rejected any suggestion of impropriety after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name surfaced in a reference contained in newly-released US Justice Department files linked to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.”

Although I described the Express as an “early bird” in uploading its E-paper, I was a Late Latif as I was on a train the previous day and I could not access any news because of the patchy data link. When I woke up on Sunday, I had only a vague idea that Prime Minister Modi had been allegedly named.

I was expecting The Indian Express to share with me — a paid subscriber like many others — information on the issue. But try as I might, I could not spot anywhere in the Express report what the email said about Modi. The Express used coded phrases such as “reference” and “claims” without explaining what they were.

A little later, The Times of India dropped. The story was tucked away in one of the Siberian pages but with no enlightenment on what exactly the email allegedly said.

Then it was Mathrubhumi’s turn, which, mercifully, mentioned the details but added at the end that the BJP had alleged that the mail had been “edited”. That landed me in a quandary: if the email is edited as the BJP has claimed, how can I rely on the details the paper mentioned?

An option then was to check what the government is saying. I went to the External Affairs ministry site and saw its statement: “We have seen reports of an email message from the so-called Epstein files that has a reference to the Prime Minister and his visit to Israel. Beyond the fact of the Prime Minister’s official visit to Israel in July 2017, the rest of the allusions in the email are little more than trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal, which deserve to be dismissed with the utmost contempt.” (For the kind attention of the Express reporter and desk: the MEA says “trashy ruminations” but your headline and copy say “rumination” unless the ministry said so first and made it plural later.)

The ministry’s statement was colourful but did not offer any insight into what the email said. Back to square one.

Surfing the E-papers of The Indian Express and The Times of India (both are behind paywalls), I learnt about the alleged sex life and medical history of Bill Gates and the dexterity of Prince Andrew on all fours on the floor but I still could not figure out what the email said about my Prime Minister. NDTV did not hold back in its headline: “Ex-Prince Andrew Seen On All Fours Over Woman In Fresh Epstein File Images”.

Then The Hindu came through, and it had the quote that matched what Mathrubhumi said. A while later, The Telegraph also reported the quote that matched what The Hindu reported.

For the record, on July 6, 2017, Epstein allegedly sent an email to a contact in Qatar describing Modi’s recent visit to Israel. Reproduced verbatim from the website of the US Department of Justice, Epstein’s alleged email reads: “The Indian Prime minisiter modi took advice. and danced and sang in israel for the benefit of the US president. they had met a few weeks ago.. IT WORKED.!”

Is this how Indian citizens are expected to find out information about their Prime Minister?

Below is a quick wrap-up of how some newspapers covered the issue and my thoughts as a former editor. (I have kept out party mouthpieces.) The phrase “Journalism of cower-age” is not my coinage. The credit goes to a clever social media user.

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

Edition: Delhi

PM-Epstein report: Page 6

Size: Single column

Position: Middle of the page

Relative prominence: Smallest single column on the page

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? No. The report mentions “a reference” and “certain claims” but does not share with the reader what the “reference” or “certain claims” are.

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? No. The same day’s World page (Page 12) has a big splash on the latest Epstein “document dump”, full with pictures and other details. The alleged sex life of Bill Gates is given pride of place in the roster. The after-party that Mira Nair (the headline helpfully gives the detail that she is the “mother of NYC mayor Mamdani” as if he decides which party his mother attends) allegedly went to has a separate story on the page.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 9/10

THE TIMES OF INDIA

Edition: Delhi

Page number: 18

Size: Single column

Position: Top of page

Relative prominence: Top but small single column

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? No. The report mentions “a reference” to Modi and his visit to Israel, under the headline, “Govt trashes ‘Epstein files’ email on Modi”. How The Times of India missed a chance to say “Govt trashes ‘trashy’ Epstein ’email’ is a mystery.”

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? Ha, ha, ha. Not at all. The Times of India has a Page 1 bylined article, datelined Washington, on the Epstein files but the report focuses on Gates and others (under the headline, “New Epstein files claim Bill Gates caught STD from ‘Russian girls’,” and studiously avoids Modi. The same article continues (again bylined) as the lead story in the Global page (Page number 26) under the headline “Epstein emails have 100s of references to Trump, likely to shake up US politics”. Evidently, the Indian newspaper is more worried about US domestic politics. The paper has a chart on Gates, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Steve Tisch but not on the purported content of the email referring to “modi”. The paper lists the granular references against “political and business elites” in spite of mentioning in the very first paragraph of the Page 1 report that some of the references are “lurid and unsubstantiated”.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 9.5/10

THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: 0 (Could not readily find the report but I did not check the sports page)

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? No. The same day’s World page (Page 9) has the following as the main headline: “Epstein’s partner presented girl to Trump, newly-released files reveal”. Gates gets top billing here too.

TELLING CLUE: The newspaper has a very important piece of news on Page 8: “Newspaper reading made mandatory for students in 800 skill centres in UP”. The eagerness to protect students from the “trashy rumination by a convicted criminal” (the Indian foreign ministry’s description of the alleged Epstein entry on the PM) must have made the newspaper drop the report. If so, a question pops up: shouldn’t the students be protected from such details as “Epstein’s partner presented girl to Trump”?

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 10/10

THE TELEGRAPH

Edition: Calcutta

PM-Epstein report: Page 2

Size: Three columns

Position: Second deck

Relative prominence: Prominent but for some reason, the alleged sex life of Bill Gates is given top-of-the-page play than the purported reference to the PM, Trump and Israel.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. The report quotes verbatim from the purported Epstein file, under the headline “Centre rubbishes Modi mention in mail”.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 5/10

THE HINDU

Edition: Delhi

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Long double column

Position: Below the fold

Relative prominence: Prominent but shoved down the page

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. The Hindu has carried the longest and fairly comprehensive report on the issue, compared with the other newspapers I saw.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 4.5/10

MALAYALA MANORAMA

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Three columns

Position: Top of the page

Relative prominence: Prominent but light font headline, blue background and colourful standalone picture below overshadow the report. But the newspaper is the only one I saw that says in the headline the news first and then the reaction: “Epstein file has a Modi reference; Centre dismissive”.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. It is mentioned clearly

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 6/10

MATHRUBHUMI

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Five columns

Position: Below the fold

Relative prominence: Somewhat prominent because of the double-deck headline in red.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes, it is mentioned clearly. But the headline is a bit confusing. The headline says “Epstein files: Centre denies allegation that Modi’s name is mentioned”. As far as I can understand from the statement of the external affairs ministry, it has not explicitly denied that Modi is mentioned in the email (neither has it confirmed but chooses the double-edged phrase “so-called Epstein files”. What the ministry has denied is the veracity of parts of the claims in the email, as far as I can understand.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 6.5/10

WHAT AN EDITOR SHOULD DO (According to me)

To be sure, Epstein is a jerk whose claims should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. But a newspaper cannot dismiss any information without trying to verify it.

A newspaper’s principal role is to inform its readers. An editor has the final say on which news to carry and where to carry it but they have no business spiking any information concerning the Prime Minister or any elected representative or public figure if it involves public interest.

If an editor is not sure of the authenticity and is unable to verify it, they should see if the information is free of filthy language and indecent comments. If so, the editor should share it with the reader with an admission that the authenticity could not be verified. Even if the information has bad language, it should either be paraphrased or the nature of the information made clear and then published if it involves public interest. India’s foreign policy definitely involves public interest. Also, if the information turns out to be false later, it can be displayed prominently. Public figures always get a second chance. In any case, the newspaper is not levelling the allegation but merely reporting what has been released in another country under intense public pressure, survivor advocacy and binding legislation.

As a measure of extreme caution, the editor can get the information vetted to see if some of the specifics could be verified. From Epstein’s mail, the first question that pops up is: did Modi visit Israel around the time the purported email was said to have been sent? In short, did Modi visit Israel around July 6, 2017? Yes, Modi did visit Israel from July 4 to 6, 2017. This is what the Ministry of External Affairs had said on July 05, 2017: “Marking the 25th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India visited Israel from 4-6 July 2017 at the invitation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. This historic first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel solidified the enduring friendship between their peoples and raised the bilateral relationship to that of a strategic partnership.”

Second question: After referring to Modi and the US President, the purported email says “they had met a few weeks ago”. Did Modi and Trump meet a few weeks before? Yes. On June 21, 2017, Brookings, the US-based think tank, had announced: “Three years into his term, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit two countries with which India has close partnerships. He will return to Washington on June 25-26, this time for his inaugural meeting with President Trump. Following that, he will travel to Israel on July 5-6 for the first-ever visit by an Indian premier. For Israel, the growing relationship with India is part of a wide-ranging effort to deepen its relationship with major Asian powers including India, China, and Japan. On June 21, The India Project and the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings hosted an event, with one panel each focused on India’s relationship with the United States and Israel.” In focus during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the U.S. was his establishment of a personal equation with U.S. President Donald Trump, the Hindu Net desk reported on June 27, 2017.

Third and million-dollar question: Did Modi dance and sing in Israel? We don’t know. We don’t even know if the email writer used the phrase figuratively or literally. What we know is that Modi and Netanyahu hit it off very well. This is what NDTV reported — rich in details of statecraft — on July 6, 2017: “Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu today took a stroll on the beach, their natural warmth and chemistry on full display. The two prime ministers hitched up their trousers and waded barefoot into the surf together at Olga beach in northern Israel. They had gone to the beach to see a demonstration of a mobile water desalination unit. Later, they drove together in the mobile water desalination unit — which looked like a dune buggy – and were seen sipping samples of water from wine glasses, even raising a toast.” Most readers are certain to remember the beach pictures so vividly described in the NDTV report. (This was five years before the Adanis gained control of NDTV.)

With the information available so far and the subsequent as well as persistent claims by Trump and the silence by Modi, an editor has only one option: the information must be published but without being judgemental and without casting aspersions on the Prime Minister or how his foreign policy is conducted. The responsibility of the media to inform the public assumes paramount importance here. Besides, withholding information can sometimes harm the person or organisation a newspaper could be seeking to protect. In the absence of clarity, readers may speculate and imagine the worst possible scenarios that are far more damaging than what may have actually taken place. Maximum transparency possible, provided the information does not affect public order or harm national security and is within the limits of decency, is always the best policy.

Then the editor faces a big question: Should the purported claims of a beast like Epstein be published? The answer does not lie in the character of Epstein but in the question why Epstein mentioned Modi. Then other purported mails come into play, including those involving Anil Ambani. Then comes the very BIG question: Were the Indians dealing with Epstein even after his atrocities were known? The Wire reports: “The most significant communications occurred in May 2019 – barely six weeks before Epstein’s arrest on federal charges of trafficking underage girls – as India’s general election results were being counted.” Considering these details, my answer is: Yes, the purported contents of the email must be published.

The next question is how to play it. Almost every newspaper, except a party mouthpiece, I saw wrote the story as a denial. None of the reports began with the news: that the Prime Minister’s name figured in the purported mail and what the mail said. Most news reports chose to begin with the denial, regardless of the fact that they had not reported the email content earlier. Some editors try to justify this by saying TV has already shown the news and the print wants to take it forward. Then why do reports on the speeches of Modi and Amit Shah attacking the Opposition (which are shown ad nauseam on TV) begin with the same attack in the newspapers the next day and not with the Opposition’s reaction? The uniform manner in which most newspapers have begun the story with the external affairs ministry’s denial raises the question whether it was choreographed or whether the default response from the media now is to highlight the official response.

Of course, Epstein was among the worst scum on earth, whose utterances have no ring of credibility — a factor that must have influenced the decision of the editors who decided to bury the news. But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too. Why, then, did some of these newspapers publish Epstein’s claims against Gates and others in detail and prominently in spite of them issuing denials? Why didn’t these newspapers begin the story with Gates’s denial, instead of Epstein’s lurid claims?

Of course, editors can and should decide what they should highlight in a story. The Wire led with the Ambani angle, which is of far greater significance and which ties into the Modi reference. In a brilliant report by Devirupa Mitra and with the headline “Epstein Messages Reveal Anil Ambani Using Sex Offender’s Access to Pitch Modi’s Agenda With Trump”, The Wire nails it. The Wire also reported that “Newly released email exchanges between Bharatiya Janata Party leader Hardeep Puri and Jeffrey Epstein – though confined to business networking and investment discussions – cast doubt on the BJP’s earlier claim that Puri’s appearance in a message from Epstein amounted to little more than casual “name-dropping”. I could not readily see this information in the legacy newspapers I buy. AND THE WIRE IS FREE, UNLIKE THE LUMBERING LEGACY GIANTS WHO CHARGE MONEY BUT WITHHOLDS INFORMATION OR UNDERPLAYS IT. The point is: highlight what you want but do not begin with a denial and do report the full information as long as it is printable.

On the question of placement in newspapers, was this not a blind Page 1 report? How am I affected if “Bill Gates caught STD” or not? Should I not be bothered more about India’s foreign policy than Gates’s alleged medical affliction? Let alone Page 1, the Modi reference report has not made the main slot even in inside pages in the English legacy newspapers I buy. Hindustan Times has a Page 1 mention in a small box at the bottom of the page but that too focuses on the government denial.

The British press can be accused of many things. But when it comes to accountability, the British papers sometimes do what needs to be done. I leave you with the front pages of three “quality”, not tabloid, British newspapers although the revelations involving the former prince are not comparable with the entries linked to Indians so far.

Author’s Note: Epstein’s alleged email has spelling mistakes and, like many rich people, he did not believe in capital letters. I have reproduced the quote exactly as it appears on the US DoJ site.

About Author

Senior Journalist, Former Editor The Telegraph

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post When Some Titans Of Indian Media Crawled On All Fours, Like Ex-Prince Andrew, To Cover Up Or Bury The Indian Links in Epstein Files appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His tragic death has been widely mourned but it should also lead to soul searching beyond improving VIP travel modes. They get all the attention, they choose to spend huge amounts chartering aircraft even when there is no urgency for travel, they build airports in their areas leaving State bus transport in a shambles, the bus stations are dirty, basic amenities are lacking.

Similar neglect of a train travel long distance as well travel in urban areas. In Mumbai 3,000 people fall from overcrowded trains each year, three days before Ajit Pawar’s death, a college lecturer was murdered in a local train in Mumbai due to tension caused by overcrowding.

On roads in the country over 100,000 are killed in crashes, many more are injured every year and the numbers keep rising. But there is little media attention, little discussion on TV channels which spend hours on deaths of people like Ajit Pawar or when there was the Indigo air disruption. Far more disruption is caused to millions on a daily basis to ordinary people which never gets the focus.

Our ecosystem now exists largely to serve political, corporate and VVIP clients — an ecosystem where aircraft are booked at short notice, routes change rapidly and operators compete to provide speed and reliability. This demand structure means aircraft are often flying multiple sectors in a single day, crews are working tight rotations, and planning windows are compressed. While none of this automatically implies unsafe operations, it creates an environment where margins are thinner and the system relies heavily on strict procedural discipline to compensate for Even during investigations into the Baramati crash, VSR aircraft were used to ferry politicians for funeral-related travel, underscoring the company’s continued role in high-profile political transport, points out Shreedhar Rathi, aviation writer.

Santosh Desai said in response to the Indigo, disruption, mismanagement. When airports were being built and modernised in the 1990s and 2000s, railway stations were also there, also serving millions. The choice to pour resources into airport infrastructure while leaving railway infrastructure as it was did not arise from abstract economic reasoning. It reflected a clear judgment about whose comfort mattered, whose complaints would be heard and which spaces needed to perform India’s modernity to the world.

Even when stations are redesigned, the aesthetic choices tell their own story. They gain glass facades, retail units and food courts. They are remade to resemble consumption spaces rather than transportation hubs.

What is being modernised is not only travel but the traveller. The aim is to turn them into a new category of person, someone who buys a latte, a fancy coffee cup, rather than someone who sits on a platform eating from a tiffin. It is a prefab vision of modernity often unconcerned with what railway users actually need.

When passengers complained that airports looked like railway stations, they were not merely pointing out operational failures. They were confronting the fear of category collapse, the discovery that their status as air travellers rested on fragile foundations and that a system breakdown could render them ordinary again. They had paid for elevation but found themselves in conditions they recognised from the category they believed they had left behind. Without the confirming architecture, they became just people in a crowded building, shouting to be heard.

When IndiGo flight cancellations caused massive chaos, newsrooms called in panels to discuss the ‘crisis’. But delays on trains, including the Rajdhani whose fares now match those of a budget flight, feels ‘normal’. Over 23 million people take trains every day, which is 51 times the number of air passengers, and an estimated 20% of long-distance trains experience delays of several hours.

Passengers inconvenienced by the flight crisis were described as the ‘stranded middle class’, officially numbering 4.5 lakh daily flyers according to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. But what about the beedi-roller in Bihar rushing to a clinic or the daily wage worker from Patna standing for 12 hours in a general compartment? As the sociologist, Ashis Nandy, points out in The Intimate Enemy, the post-colonial elite’s sense of time favours the clock of capital over the rhythms of the struggling classes. This makes waiting seem like a normal part of life for the impoverished.

daily wage worker from Patna standing for 12 hours in a general compartment, pointed out Ankita Jain in an article in the Telegraph earlier this month.

Ajit was also known as Ajitdada

The original Dada in Maharashtra’s politics was Vasantdada Patil, former chief minister, whose government was toppled by Mr Sharad Pawar through defections and alliances in 1978.  SP (Sharad Pawar) was then a young man, I was recently looking at all the names in his ministry, all are gone, he remains but clearly now he has really aged.

Vasantdada came to acquire the respectful way of address (Vasantdada) through love: he was a freedom fighter, knew difficult days, there were times when he travelled second class by train to attend Congress meetings.

Sharad Pawar never acquired the title dada, he remained Sharad Pawar in the media, at best during personal meetings people would call him, saheb, Sharad rao, sir etc. He never instilled fear.

Ajitdada grew in entirely different circumstances, he acquired power at a very young age becoming a minister in SP’s ministry when I met him a few times, never later. His becoming a dada is relatively a later phenomenon.

Politics has changed so much in the last few weeks. I saw Supriya Sule in a jovial mood at the inauguration of the golden jubilee of Stree Mukti Sanghatana at Y.B. Chavan Centre last month.

She cracked jokes about there being both Pawar and Shinde in her family, her mother is originally a Shinde (the daughter of cricketer Sadu Shinde.). She was referring to the two deputy c.ms, Pawar and Shinde. She said people should not draw any conclusions from what she was saying.

Subsequently there were reports that she may be drafted into the ministry at the Centre following the alliance with the AP (Ajit Pawar) faction.

Sanjay Raut of the Uddhav Sena made a valid point in a news conference that top ministers should not exert too much, should not travel too much by air, they should leave decisions to other leaders, they themselves need not campaign in every lower level election. All this was taking toll of their health.

After all these years in the profession, I get a feeling that journalists can be too liberal in their understanding of politicians, even naïve. They get easily carried away with all the hospitality they enjoy, they must realise that the politician treats you well because you have clout, you are from the media. They may give you a scoop, but in that also they have a motive, else they would just keep their mouth shut. The question is how the politician treats common people, that is the real test.

These journalists praise some politicians for working hard, the question is working hard for whom? They are busy enriching themselves, average politicians with some standing now have assets running into crores of rupees.

If the politicians were so competent, why are their constituencies getting, worse, unliveable?

(The author is a senior journalist and commentator; the present text is from his post on Facebook on January 31, 2026 that may be read here)

Related:

Catch people’s attention on pollution narrative: “Switching to public transport can lower your heart attack risk by 10%.”

Government and automobile lobby are in a cosy affair while public transport is treated like filth

The post Ajit Pawar’s death and the deprivation of everyday connectivity & transport appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per Bar & Bench, the order was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing a batch of three writ petitions challenging the 2026 Regulations. Though interim in nature, the order is notable both for the breadth of constitutional concerns flagged by the Court and for the decision to suspend a regulatory framework expressly designed to address caste-based discrimination in higher education.

What follows is not merely a recounting of the proceedings, but a critical examination of why a stay was granted, whether settled principles governing interim interference were adhered to, and how the Court’s reasoning engages—sometimes uneasily—with the constitutional understanding of caste, equality, and structural disadvantage.

Background: From the 2019 PIL to the 2026 Regulations

The 2026 Regulations were framed pursuant to proceedings in a 2019 writ petition filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both of whom reportedly died by suicide after facing sustained caste-based discrimination within their educational institutions. According to LiveLaw, the PIL sought the creation of a robust institutional mechanism to address caste discrimination on campuses, contending that existing safeguards—particularly the 2012 UGC Regulations—had proved insufficient.

The petition may be read here.

Over the years, the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasised the need for a stronger, more effective framework, even inviting stakeholder suggestions while the draft regulations were under consideration. After this consultative process, the UGC notified the 2026 Regulations in January 2026, expressly superseding the 2012 framework.

A close reading of the orders passed in that matter reveals a judicial trajectory that sits in visible tension with the later decision to place the 2026 Regulations in abeyance.

1. January 3, 2025: Court acknowledges systemic failure and demands data, enforcement, and redesign

In its order dated January 3, 2025, the Court expressly recognised that adjudication could not proceed without assessing how universities had implemented the 2012 Equal Opportunity Cell Regulations, and whether those mechanisms had actually worked in practice.

The order may be read below:

Crucially, the Bench:

• directed the UGC to collate nationwide data on Equal Opportunity Cells,
• sought disclosure of complaints received and Action Taken Reports, and
• required the UGC to place its newly formulated draft regulations on record.

This was not a neutral procedural step. It reflected a judicial acknowledgment that formal regulatory existence had not translated into substantive protection for marginalised students. The Court was, at this stage, explicitly concerned with implementation failure, not over breadth or misuse.

2. April 24, 2025: The Court permits notification — and treats the Regulations as additive, not suspect

By April 24, 2025, the Court went further. While disposing of an application seeking to restrain the notification of the draft regulations, the Bench refused to halt the regulatory process. Instead, it clarified that the UGC was free to notify the regulations and that they would operate in addition to the recommendations of the National Task Force constituted in Amit Kumar v. Union of India.

The order may be read below.

Two aspects of this order matter for present purposes:

First, the Court expressly noted that the steps taken by the UGC pursuant to the Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula petition were “in the right direction,” signalling judicial approval of a stronger, institutionalised framework to address discrimination, harassment, and mental health crises in universities.

Second, the Court treated the regulations as iterative and corrigible—open to additions, deletions, and refinement based on stakeholder input and the Task Force’s findings. There was no suggestion that the very idea of a caste-conscious equity framework was constitutionally suspect.

3. September 15, 2025: Court endorses a robust, explicitly caste-conscious regulatory vision

The September 15, 2025 order is perhaps the clearest articulation of what the Court itself considered necessary to remedy caste-based discrimination in higher education.

The order may be read below.

After recording detailed submissions by senior counsel Indira Jaising, the Court flagged — without rejection — a set of far-reaching structural safeguards, including:

• a clear prohibition on all known forms of discrimination,
• an express ban on segregation based on rank or performance,
• grievance redressal bodies with mandatory representation from SC/ST/OBC communities,
• personal liability of institutional heads for negligence,
• caste-sensitive mental health counselling,
• NAAC-linked audits and social data collection, and
• withdrawal of grants for non-compliance.

What is striking is that many of these proposals go well beyond the minimal guarantees under the 2012 framework. The Court did not characterise them as excessive, divisive, or constitutionally dubious. Instead, it treated them as necessary correctives to entrenched structural discrimination.

The contradiction: Seen in this light, the later stay of the 2026 Regulations marks a sharp doctrinal and institutional turn.

In the Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula petitiom, the Court:

• acknowledged caste-based discrimination as systemic and institutional,
• accepted that neutrality and general anti-ragging norms were inadequate,
• encouraged regulatory expansion and refinement, and
• emphasised accountability, representation, and enforceability.

Yet, in staying the 2026 Regulations, the Court shifted focus to concerns of vagueness, misuse, and over breadth—without explaining why these concerns could not be addressed through interpretation, amendment, or guidelines, the very tools it had earlier endorsed.

This creates a deeper constitutional unease: how does one reconcile a jurisprudence that recognises caste as a structural axis of harm with an interim order that treats caste-specific regulation as inherently suspect? The stay order appears to privilege abstract equality concerns over the lived realities that animated the original petition — the deaths of students failed by institutional indifference.

The Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula proceedings were premised on the understanding that caste discrimination in universities is not episodic, but embedded in evaluation systems, hostel allocation, disciplinary processes, and grievance mechanisms. The Court’s own directions repeatedly moved towards differentiated, targeted protections.

Against that record, the suspension of the 2026 Regulations risks flattening constitutional analysis into a question of formal symmetry—treating all students as equally situated—precisely the approach that the Court itself had earlier found wanting.

It is against this backdrop—of Court-monitored reform aimed at addressing demonstrable institutional failures—that the interim stay assumes particular significance.

The Present Proceedings: What transpired before the Court

The challenge to the Regulations came by way of three writ petitions, filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan. The principal target of challenge was Regulation 3(1)(c), which defines “caste-based discrimination” as discrimination on the basis of caste against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.

According to LiveLaw, the petitioners contended that:

• The definition is restrictive and exclusionary, as it does not recognise caste-based discrimination against persons belonging to non-reserved or “general” categories;
• This exclusion renders such persons remediless, even if subjected to caste-linked harassment or institutional bias;
• The provision violates Article 14 by creating an unreasonable classification lacking a rational nexus with the stated objective of promoting equity.

From the outset, the Bench subjected the Regulations to close scrutiny. Three issues dominated the hearing:

1. The dual definitions of “discrimination” (Regulation 3(1)(e)) and “caste-based discrimination” (Regulation 3(1)(c));
2. The omission of ragging from the 2026 Regulations, despite its inclusion in the 2012 framework; and
3. The use of the term “segregation” in Regulation 7(d), particularly in relation to hostels, classrooms, and mentorship groups.

The Court repeatedly remarked that the Regulations appeared vague, capable of misuse, and potentially productive of social division rather than cohesion.

The Interim Order: What the Court did

By its interim order dated January 29, 2026, the Supreme Court:

• Issued notice to the Union of India and the UGC, returnable on March 19, 2026;
• Directed that the 2026 Regulations be kept in abeyance; and
• Exercising powers under Article 142, ordered that the UGC Regulations of 2012 would continue to operate in the meantime.

As per Bar&Bench, the Court framed four substantial questions of law, broadly concerning:

• The rationality and necessity of defining “caste-based discrimination” separately;
• The impact of the Regulations on sub-classifications within backward classes;
• Whether “segregation” envisaged under the Regulations violates constitutional equality and fraternity; and
• Whether the omission of ragging constitutes a regressive and unconstitutional legislative choice.

While these questions undoubtedly merit careful adjudication, the grant of an interim stay itself demands closer scrutiny.

Why was a stay granted — and was it justified?

Ordinarily, courts exercise considerable restraint while staying statutory or delegated legislation, especially when such legislation is aimed at addressing systemic discrimination. The established standard requires a strong prima facie case, demonstrable irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring suspension.

In the present case, the Court relied primarily on:

• Ambiguity in drafting,
• Possibility of misuse, and
• The perceived exclusion of general category individuals from the definition of caste-based discrimination.

However, ambiguity and potential misuse have traditionally been treated as grounds for interpretation, not suspension, particularly in the context of welfare or protective legislation. The order does not demonstrate how the continued operation of the Regulations would cause irreversible harm sufficient to justify a blanket stay. Notably absent is any engagement with the harm caused by suspending a framework designed to respond to caste-based exclusion—an exclusion that is neither hypothetical nor speculative.

The Court’s reliance on the revival of the 2012 Regulations as a safeguard also assumes that the earlier framework was adequate, despite the fact that the 2019 PIL itself was premised on its failure to prevent institutional discrimination.

The Conceptual Problem: What is “caste-based discrimination”?

At the heart of the Court’s concern lies an unresolved conceptual question: is caste-based discrimination symmetrical?

The petitioners — and, to some extent, the Court — appear to approach caste as a neutral identity marker, capable of disadvantaging any individual depending on circumstances. This framing overlooks the constitutional understanding of caste as a structural system of hierarchy, not merely a personal attribute.

Indian constitutional jurisprudence has consistently recognised that caste-based discrimination is not simply discrimination involving caste, but discrimination arising from historical, social, and economic subordination of specific communities. To ask why upper-caste individuals are not explicitly protected under a provision addressing caste-based discrimination is to ignore this asymmetry.

Importantly, the Regulations already define “discrimination” broadly and in caste-neutral terms. Any harassment, humiliation, or unfair treatment faced by individuals from non-reserved categories is squarely covered under this definition. The absence of a separate label of “caste-based discrimination” for such individuals does not render them remediless.

The Court’s concern, therefore, risks collapsing the distinction between structural oppression and interpersonal conflict, treating unequal social realities as constitutionally equivalent.

The Slippery Comparison: “Upper castes” and de-notified or extremely backward communities

As noted by legal scholar Gautam Bhatia, one of the petitioners has argued that the impugned regulation suffers from a constitutional flaw comparable to the presumption underlying the colonial Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, which stigmatised entire communities as inherently criminal and was later repealed for violating principles of equality and constitutional morality. This submission, however, appears to rest on an analogy that implicitly places socially dominant or ‘upper’ caste groups on the same constitutional footing as communities that were historically criminalised and later de-notified.

De-notified tribes, in particular, have faced:

• Colonial-era criminalisation;
• Persistent social stigma;
• Economic exclusion; and
• Institutional invisibility even within reservation frameworks.

To suggest that excluding general category individuals from the definition of caste-based discrimination creates an equal protection problem risk flattening historical injustice into abstract formalism. Constitutional equality does not require identical treatment of groups situated in radically unequal positions. Indeed, such an approach may itself violate the principle of equality by treating unequal’s alike.

The Court’s rhetorical invocation of a “casteless society,” while normatively appealing, sits uneasily with judicial precedent cautioning that claims of castelessness often precede, rather than follow, the dismantling of caste hierarchies.

Vagueness, misuse, and the burden on protective legislation

The Court’s repeated emphasis on the “possibility of misuse” raises a familiar but contested trope in Indian constitutional adjudication. It is well settled that: The possibility of abuse of a law is no ground to strike it down.

This principle assumes even greater importance in the context of protective regulations, which have historically been diluted through misuse arguments advanced by socially dominant groups. The order does not explain why ordinary safeguards—such as inquiry mechanisms, appellate review, and judicial oversight—would be insufficient to address misuse on a case-by-case basis.

By foregrounding speculative misuse over structural exclusion, the order risks imposing a higher justificatory burden on equity-oriented regulations than on other forms of delegated legislation.

Ragging, non-regression, and judicial overcorrection

The Court’s concern regarding the omission of ragging from the 2026 Regulations is doctrinally significant, particularly in light of Justice Bagchi’s invocation of the principle of non-regression, as reported by LiveLaw. However, even assuming the omission is a serious flaw, it is not self-evident that the appropriate response was to stay the entire regulatory framework, rather than:

• Read the Regulations harmoniously with existing anti-ragging norms;
• Issue interpretative directions; or
• Direct limited corrective amendments.

The chosen course reflects a form of judicial overcorrection, where legitimate concerns about incompleteness lead to wholesale suspension.

Article 142 and the revival of the 2012 Regulations

The use of Article 142 to revive the 2012 Regulations raises further questions. While intended to prevent a regulatory vacuum, the move effectively substitutes judicial preference for executive policy, without a finding that the earlier framework better advances constitutional values.

This is particularly striking given that the 2026 Regulations were framed pursuant to Court-monitored proceedings and stakeholder consultations following the 2019 PIL. The revival thus appears less as a neutral stopgap and more as a normative rollback, albeit temporarily.

What the Supreme Court Directed in the Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula PIL — and why the stay order sits uneasily with it

The Supreme Court’s interim stay of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 must be read against the backdrop of the Court’s own continuing supervision in Abeda Salim Tadvi v. Union of India—the petition arising from the institutional failures that culminated in the deaths of Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula.

Conclusion: interim caution or substantive retreat?

The Supreme Court’s interim order undoubtedly reflects a desire to prevent social fragmentation and regulatory excess. Yet, in its emphasis on neutrality, symmetry, and speculative misuse, the Court risks diluting the constitutional logic of substantive equality that has long justified differentiated protections for caste-oppressed communities.

The deeper danger lies not merely in staying one set of regulations, but in the judicial reframing of caste-based discrimination as a universally symmetrical phenomenon, detached from history and structure. Whether this framing endures at the final stage will determine whether the Court’s intervention is remembered as a moment of careful constitutional recalibration—or as a cautious but consequential retreat from the promise of transformative equality.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

A Cultural Burden: The ascending hierarchy of caste warfare and the crisis of the Indian republic

Freedom Deferred: Caste, class and faith in India’s prisons

Everyday Atrocity: How Caste Violence Became India’s New Normal

Two Dalit and Tribal girls brutalised in Andhra Pradesh: Pattern of caste violence exposes deep-rooted injustice

Caste Cloud Over Ambedkar Jayanti: From campus censorship to temple exclusion

CJP Maharashtra: Surge in communal and caste-based violence with six incidents in January 2025

2024: Love Jihad as a socio-political tool: caste, endogamy, and Hindutva’s dominance over gender and social boundaries in India

The post The stay of UGC Equity Regulations, 2026: The interim order, the proceedings, and the constitutional questions raised appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Draft Electoral Roll, released on December 16, 2025, revealed the scale of the disruption as over 58.2 lakh names were deleted and more than 1 crore voters flagged for verification, including more than 31 lakh “unmapped” entries that do not link to the 2002 baseline. Citizens have been asked to justify age gaps, parental details, and other historical data, effectively shifting the burden of proof onto individuals and forcing them to produce decade-old documentation.

Challenged in the Supreme Court under Mostari Banu vs Election Commission of India [W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025], the process has been criticised as arbitrary, opaque, and burdensome. On January 19, 2026, the Court has already intervened, directing the ECI to ensure transparency: publish lists of excluded categories at local offices, allow authorised agents to submit documents on behalf of voters, and minimise travel and inconvenience.

Professor Amartya Sen: a noble laureate received SIR notice

One of the most discussed cases was the notice issued to the noble laureate Professor Amartya Sen at his Santiniketan residence in Bolpur. The official notice, written in Bengali, stated that “the age difference between you and your parents is less than 15 years, which is not generally expected and this needs to be clarified,” and directed him to appear for a hearing on January 16 at 12 PM at his Bolpur residence with the “original documents prescribed by the Election Commission of India.”

SIR Notice issued to Prof. Amartya Sen

For Sen, who is in his 90’s and globally recognised for his academic work, the matter drew immediate public attention. All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC) questioned the logic behind the notice to Amartya Sen.

On January 7, the party posted on X that “A Nobel laureate should be above any suspicion, right? But what if he’s a Bengali? Then he’ll be slapped with hearing notices as if he were some common criminal. Amartya Sen, whose ground-breaking works form the bedrock of modern economics, who has brought unparalleled glory to Bengal and the entire nation, and whose ideas are studied in universities across the world, has been issued a SIR hearing notice.”

TMC further added that “This is the cynical, shameful farce of @BJP4India and  @ECISVEEP‘s SIR process. They will drag our icons through the mud, tarnish our pride, and stoop to any low if it serves their Bangla-Birodhi agenda of division and degradation.”

Sen would not need to appear for the hearing: ECI

However, days later, the Election Commission clarified that the case involved minor spelling errors and that Sen would not need to appear for the hearing. Officials added that such discrepancies could be corrected locally by Booth Level Officers without summoning the voter and that the issue had “no bearing on eligibility”, as The Hindu reported.

Unjust to voters and unfair to Indian democracy: Amartya Sen

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has expressed concern over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, saying the exercise is “being done in a hurry” and risks becoming “unjust to voters” ahead of the state assembly elections. According to the Times of India, Sen said that while revising rolls can strengthen democracy, “a thorough review done carefully with adequate time can be a good democratic procedure, but this is not what is happening in West Bengal at this time.”

He added that the SIR gives “inadequate time” for citizens to submit documents and that this is “both unfair to the electorate and unfair to Indian democracy.” Recalling his own case, Sen noted he was questioned about his right to vote from Santiniketan and highlighted documentation challenges, saying, “Like many Indian citizens born in rural India, I do not have a birth certificate.” He warned the poor and underprivileged are most at risk of exclusion.

“Unjust to voters and unfair to Indian democracy.”

After the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Nobel Laureate and eminent public intellectual Amartya Sen has now condemned the SIR process, flagging the UNDUE HASTE with which it is being bulldozed, denying rightful voters the time and… pic.twitter.com/QfG2tMlkaZ

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) January 25, 2026

Admiral Arun Prakash: when the ECI summons a war hero

Former Navy Chief Admiral Arun Prakash, a 1971 war veteran and Vir Chakra recipient, received an SIR notice in Goa. His enumeration form did not include EPIC numbers, roll details, or constituency information, leaving him classified as “unmapped.”

The Election Commission said notices were system-generated and that the process applied uniformly to all citizens. Prakash’s case highlighted that even individuals with notable public service records are included in automated verification if documentation is incomplete.

The #ElectionCommissionofIndia has issued a notice to former chief of #navalstaff Admiral Arun Prakash, asking him to attend a meeting to establish his identity as part of the ongoing #SpecialIntensiveRevision (SIR) of #electoralrolls.
https://t.co/pywWO07xyc

— Deccan Herald (@DeccanHerald) January 12, 2026

SIR notice to Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami

Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami was also summoned for an SIR hearing in Kolkata’s Rashbehari constituency after officials flagged discrepancies in his voter enumeration form. At the time, Shami was in Rajkot representing Bengal in the Vijay Hazare Trophy, prompting him to seek a fresh date on account of his sporting commitments. The Election Commission of India rescheduled the hearing between January 9 and 11, with officials terming the process a “routine verification” necessitated because the form had been “incorrectly filled out.”

However, after appearing for the hearing, the India fast bowler said that, “I am a proud Indian and Bengal citizen. If called 10 times, I will come and prove my citizenship on every single occasion.”

#CricketWIthTOI | “I am a proud Indian and #Bengal citizen. If called 10 times, I will come and prove my citizenship on every single occasion,” said Indian fast bowler #MdShami, who has 462 wickets across formats, after appearing for an SIR hearing on Tuesday to protect his vote.… pic.twitter.com/94YsaMy4OR

— The Times Of India (@timesofindia) January 21, 2026

ECI targeting citizens of West Bengal through SIR: TMC

Moreover, on January 6, TMC general secretary Abhishek Banerjee accused the BJP-led Centre and the Election Commission of jointly “insulting the people of Bengal” and targeting the state ahead of the assembly elections.

Addressing a rally in Rampurhat, Banerjee claimed that Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen had been served an SIR hearing notice and urged party workers to “un-map the BJP from Bengal,” setting a target of winning 250 of the state’s 294 seats. “Many eminent people like actor Dev and cricketer Md Shami were also served notices,” he said, arguing that the exercise reflected a “Bangla-Birodhi” mindset.

Deepak Adhikari aka Dev

Actor and TMC Member of Parliament Deepak Adhikari, also known as Dev, received SIR notices for himself and his family members. TMC councillor Moushumi Das described the notices as unnecessary, noting that a three-term MP was being treated like any other citizen for verification purposes. TMC spokespersons also criticised the process as burdensome rather than corrective.

However, Dev did not make any public statement regarding the notice, as the Indian Express reported.

SIR Notice to Joy Goswami, a Sahitya Akademi Award recipient

Poet Joy Goswami, a Sahitya Akademi Award recipient, was unable to attend his SIR hearing on January 2 due to recent surgeries. His daughter, Devarti Goswami, confirmed that both she and her father had submitted their voter enumeration forms on time. Despite this, both were flagged as “unmapped” because their names did not appear in the 2002 voter rolls, as reported by the Times of India.

The Election Commission later contacted the Goswami family, stating that their case could be resolved without requiring the poet to appear in person. Reports from other districts noted that some elderly voters had experienced health problems while attending hearings.

Education minister Bratya Basu has strongly condemned the action and said that “This only goes on to expose BJP’s views of Bengal and its culture. Joy-da was recently hospitalised and I paid a visit to him there. If Joy Goswami can be called for a hearing, I fear Tagore too would have got call for a hearing had he been alive now. This call is an expression of the respect BJP has for Bengal and Bengalis. Joy-da is an Indian. He is a poet. He has migrated from Ranaghat to Kolkata some 40 years ago and has been a legitimate voter. I am not even talking about literary prowess. If BJP and EC can do this to Joy-da, any person can be called and told ‘ghus petiya’.”

West Bengal State Minister Shashi Panja receives SIR notice

West Bengal state minister Shashi Panja received an SIR notice despite her name appearing in the 2002 voter list. Panja said she had submitted all required documents but was still marked as “unmapped,” and described the process as “conducted in haste and without adequate preparation.”

According to the Telegraph India, Panja stated that she would attend the hearing like any other voter and did not request any special privileges as a minister. The Election Commission included her as part of the general process, which applied to all citizens flagged for verification.

Actor Anirban Bhattacharya

Actor Anirban Bhattacharya received a notice after his voter registration could not be linked to the 2002 rolls. Born in 1986, Bhattacharya currently lives in Kolkata but remains registered in Midnapore. His parents and grandparents were also absent from the 2002 voter list, complicating verification. His father passed away in mid-2025, adding to the challenge of retrospective documentation.

Under the pretext of SIR hearings, ECI is harassing ordinary people, and even eminent personalities of Bengal: Mamata Banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee criticised the SIR process, stating that Under the pretext of SIR hearings, the Commission is harassing ordinary people, and even eminent personalities of Bengal such as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, poet Joy Goswami, and actor Dev are facing the same ordeal.

In most cases, it is women whose names are being removed in greater numbers. Notices are being issued in the name of “logistical discrepancy” without providing complete information, TMC alleged.

Under the pretext of SIR hearings, the Commission is harassing ordinary people, and even eminent personalities of Bengal such as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, poet Joy Goswami, and actor Dev are facing the same ordeal.

In most cases, it is women whose names are being removed in… pic.twitter.com/NucTMvWICR

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) January 8, 2026

Related:

SIR 2025 in Bengal: 5 Key Takeaways That Strike at BJP’s ‘Infiltration’ Bogey

West Bengal Draft Electoral List: Over 58 lakh names deleted under SIR exercise, urban seats & Hindi speakers see higher voter deletions

ECI’s announced nationwide SIR, will cover 12 States and UTs with a reduced documentary burden

The post SIR Notices in Spotlight: from Amartya Sen, war vetereran Arun Prakash to Mohammed Shami summoned for SIR hearing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I. Mustafa Azemmouri and the Earliest Muslim Presence in America

One of the earliest known Muslims to set foot on what is now United States soil was Mustafa Azemmouri, known in Spanish records as Estebanico. Born in Morocco, Azemmouri was enslaved by Portuguese traders, sold in Spain, and forced to join the ill-fated Narváez expedition. In 1528, the expedition landed in present-day western Florida.¹ Unlike most of his European companions, Azemmouri survived years of shipwreck, starvation, and hostile terrain. He later emerged as an indispensable member of the expedition, traversing vast regions of what are now Arizona and New Mexico.² Contemporary accounts describe him as a gifted linguist, a master of sign language, a healer trusted by Indigenous communities, and a man skilled in navigation and the use of the astrolabe.³ His presence alone disrupts conventional timelines of American exploration, demonstrating that Muslims were present in North America nearly a century before permanent English settlement.

II. West Africa, Islam, and the Slave Trade

The majority of enslaved Africans transported to the Americas originated from West Africa—a region that, by the late medieval period, had undergone extensive Islamization. Understanding American Muslim heritage therefore requires engagement with the intellectual and institutional history of West Africa itself.

Mosques as Centers of Knowledge

In much of the contemporary Muslim world, mosques primarily function as spaces for ritual prayer and as intellectual echo chambers where inherited interpretations are repeated without sustained critical engagement. This represents a sharp departure from the mosque’s original civilizational role. In the premodern Muslim world, mosques were the nerve centers of intellectual life—universities in the fullest sense. Within mosque complexes, scholars debated theology, jurisprudence, philosophy, logic, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and the natural sciences. Fundamental cosmological questions—such as whether the universe was created in time or eternal—were openly contested.⁴ Instruction took place in open teaching circles (ḥalaqāt), where students were encouraged to question, challenge and refine ideas. Advanced students—what might today be called graduate scholars—then carried this knowledge across Africa, the Mediterranean, and beyond.

These mosque-based institutions created what has been described as “a civilization of international encyclopedic magnitude.” Harvard historian George Sarton famously observed that medieval Muslim civilization achieved a level of encyclopedic knowledge unmatched in its time, noting that: “Briefest enumeration of the Arabic contributions to knowledge would be too long to be inserted here…The creation of a new civilization of international and encyclopaedic magnitude within less than two centuries is something that we describe, but cannot explain…Indeed the superiority of Muslim culture, say in the eleventh century, was so great that we can understand their intellectual pride. It is easy to imagine their doctors speaking of western barbarians almost in the same spirit as ours do of the ‘Orientals.’ If there had been some ferocious eugenists among the Moslems the might have suggested some means breeding out all the western Christians and Greeks because of their hopeless backwardness.” 5

Timbuktu and Sankoré University in Colonial Times

One of the most striking embodiments of this tradition was the Sankoré Mosque and other mosques in Timbuktu. By the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Sankoré functioned as a fully developed university supported by charitable endowments. Thousands of students studied there, and its scholars attracted audiences from across North and West Africa.⁶ As documented in Tārīkh al-Sudān and modern scholarship by Ousmane Kane and Nehemia Levtzion, Timbuktu housed libraries, produced original scholarship, and operated within a vast transregional intellectual network.⁷ These institutions flourished centuries before any comparable centers of higher learning existed in colonial North America.

There were many other mosques across West Africa that functioned in similar ways as centers of higher learning. West Africa was therefore not “uncivilized” in the colonial era; it possessed highly developed educational institutions and scholarly networks that long predated—and in many cases surpassed—what existed in colonial North America.

III. Who Were the Enslaved Africans?

The transatlantic slave trade forcibly relocated not only agricultural laborers but also scholars, engineers, jurists, veterinarians, and pastoral experts from Muslim West Africa. Evidence from slave narratives, court records, and archival documents confirms the presence of enslaved Muslim intellectuals and learned elites in the Americas. Prominent examples include Ayuba Suleiman Diallo (Job ben Solomon), who came from a distinguished family of Islamic scholars in Senegambia, and Ibrahim Abd al-Rahman, a Fulbe nobleman and Islamic scholar from Futa Jallon (Guinea), captured in 1788—whose portrait is preserved in the Library of Congress.⁸ Drawing on demographic and cultural analysis, Michael A. Gomez estimates that approximately 50–55 percent of enslaved West Africans were Muslims, reflecting the religious composition of major source regions such as Senegambia and Futa Jallon.⁹ This figure may be conservative. As Daniel C. Littlefield and other historians note, colonial planters in the rice-producing Lowcountry of South Carolina and Georgia deliberately preferred captives from Gambia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and the broader Rice Coast due to their expertise in irrigation, dike construction, tidal rice cultivation, swamp ecology, cattle herding, and water management.¹⁰ Crucially, these regions—apart from Liberia—were overwhelmingly Muslim: The Gambia (~97%), Senegal (~95–97%), Guinea (~85%), and Sierra Leone (~77–78%), compared with Liberia (~12–13%). This demographic reality strengthens the likelihood that the proportion of Muslims among enslaved West Africans, particularly those assigned to plantation economies and cattle herding may have exceeded 55 percent during key periods.

IV. Agriculture, Rice Technology, and Early American Wealth

Between 1500 and 1800, agriculture formed the backbone of the American economy. European settlers, however, lacked expertise in tropical agriculture, irrigation engineering, and animal husbandry. These deficiencies were remedied through the forced labor and technical knowledge of West Africans. Rice Cultivation and Hydraulic Engineering Enslaved Africans introduced advanced rice-growing systems, including tidal rice fields, earthen dikes, and wooden rice trunks—hydraulic valves that regulated freshwater flow while preventing saltwater intrusion.¹⁰ These systems required sophisticated understanding of fluid dynamics, soil chemistry, and lunar tidal cycles. By the mid-eighteenth century, rice exports from South Carolina exceeded sixty million pounds annually, accounting for more than half of the colony’s export value and generating immense wealth.¹¹ Comparable hydraulic technologies had long existed across the Muslim world, as documented by Thomas Glick’s study of irrigation in medieval Valencia.¹²

V. Architecture, Veterinary Science, and Tabby Construction

In Georgia and Florida, many colonial structures were built using tabby—a durable composite of lime from burned oyster shells, sand, water, and ash. Scholars have traced tabby construction techniques to North and West African architectural traditions.¹³ On Sapelo Island, the enslaved Muslim Bilali Muhammad supervised construction using these methods yet received no legal recognition or credit for his expertise.¹⁴

VI. Cattle Herding and Animal Medicine

Pastoral societies of Muslim West Africa—including Tuareg-influenced regions linked to Timbuktu’s early history—possessed centuries of experience in cattle herding and veterinary science. Enslaved Africans were therefore deliberately selected for work as cowboys, cattle drivers, horse trainers, and dairy workers in South Carolina and Louisiana.¹⁵ Despite these contributions, an 1858 ruling by the U.S. Patent Office barred enslaved individuals from holding patents, ensuring that African intellectual property entered American development without attribution.¹⁶

VII. Muslims and the Founding of the United States

Muslims were not absent from early American political imagination. According to “The Papers of George Washington, Confederation Series, Vol. 1, p. 232,” “If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Muslims], Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.” There were two Muslim women at Mount Vernon of George Washington named Fathimier and Little Fathimier. Fathima. being the daughter of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). is popular name among Muslims. Thomas Jefferson, in explaining Virginia’s statute for religious freedom, explicitly affirmed protections for “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan [Muslim].”¹⁷ During the North Carolina ratifying convention, James Iredell acknowledged that Muslims could hold public office under the Constitution.¹⁸ Morocco became the first country to recognize the United States, maintaining diplomatic correspondence with George Washington. Jefferson later hosted an ifṭār dinner at the White House in 1808 for a Tunisian envoy, reflecting early American engagement with the Muslim world.¹⁹

VIII. Islam and the Abolition of Slavery

The Lincoln administration sought guidance from Tunisia, Muslim country, which abolished slavery in 1846—nearly two decades before the United States. The archives of Diplomatic correspondence records with the heading, “Papers presented to 39th Congress by President Lincoln,” has the reply the enquiry by Lincoln Administration on slavery. It states that the Tunisian ruler Ahmed Bey framing abolition as a moral imperative rooted in justice: “" Ahmed Bay Concluded: “It is my belief also that …There can be no permanent prosperity [for a nation] without justice, and justice results from freedom…since God has permitted you to enjoy full personal liberty and to manage your civil and political affairs yourselves, …it would not tarnish the luster of your crown to grant freedom to your slaves, … such civil rights are not to be denied to the humblest and meanest of your citizens.”²⁰

VIII. American Muslims in the Twenty-First Century

Today, American Muslims continue to shape national life. According to the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Muslims donate approximately $4.3 billion annually to charitable causes, with average household giving exceeding national norms.²¹ Muslims are disproportionately represented among physicians and dentists and contribute significantly to U.S. patent activity. American Muslims have also been recognized at the highest levels of scientific achievement, including Nobel Prizes awarded to Ahmed Zewail, Aziz Sancar, Moungi Bawendi, and Omar Yaghi.

Conclusion

Muslim presence in America predates the nation itself. More than half of enslaved West Africans were Muslims—educated, skilled, and embedded in sophisticated intellectual traditions. Their knowledge absorbed into America and generated early American wealth, shaped its infrastructure, and informed its moral discourse. Though their names were systematically erased, their legacy remains embedded in the foundations of the United States. American Muslim heritage is not peripheral to American history. It is constitutive of it.

…

FOOTNOTES

1. Andrés Reséndez, A Land So Strange: The Epic Journey of Cabeza de Vaca (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 34–36.
2. Ibid., 112–145.
3. Ibid., 178–181.
4. George Makdisi, The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981).
5. George Sarton, The History of Science and the New Humanism (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1956), 87–90.
6. Nehemia Levtzion, Ancient Ghana and Mali (London: Methuen, 1973), 137–145.
7. Al-Saʿdī, Tārīkh al-Sudān, trans. John O. Hunwick (London: Routledge, 2000); Ousmane Kane, Beyond Timbuktu: An Intellectual History of Muslim West Africa (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016).
8. Allan D. Austin, African Muslims in Antebellum America: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1997).
9. Michael A. Gomez, Black Crescent: The Experience and Legacy of African Muslims in the Americas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 62–70.
10. Daniel C. Littlefield, Rice and Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade in Colonial South Carolina (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981).
11. Ibid., 89–95.
12. Thomas F. Glick, Irrigation and Society in Medieval Valencia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970).
13. Littlefield, Rice and Slaves, 142–148.
14. Gomez, Black Crescent, 151–155.
15. Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, Africans in Colonial Louisiana: The Development of Afro-Creole Culture in the Eighteenth Century (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1992).
16. U.S. Patent Office, Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the Year 1858 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1859).
17. Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892), 1:66.
18. James Iredell, speech at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention, July 30, 1788.
19. White House Historical Association, “Thomas Jefferson’s Ramadan Dinner,” 2009.
20. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1865, pt. 3, doc. 318.
21. Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Amplifying Muslim American Generosity (2024).

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post American Muslim Heritage: Five Centuries of Muslim Life in America appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Who is Girish Mahajan? A seven times elected MLA from Jamner constituency im Jalgaon district amd guardian minister for Nashik. Mahajan also an entrenched member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and a close aide of chief minister Devendra Fadnavis courted criticism and controversy when he failed to mention Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar on his Republic Day address on Monday. January 26.

A woman officer of the Forest Department in uniform was vocal and emotional in her outspoken outburst. “I will not allow Dr Babasaheb’s legacy and contribution to be erased,” reported ABP Marathi and Economic Times. Social media too was flooded with messages castigating Mahajan and expressing support for Madhavi Jadhav. The minister reportedly made several references to personalities in his Republic Day address, including religious figures. However Dr Babasaheb who is venerated for his remarkable contribution on being an architect of the constitution was committed! The ideologues of the far Hindu right have been forever uncomfortable with this rich tradition that challenged caste hierarchy be ut Jyotiba Phule, Savitribai Phule or Ambedkar.

It was while the 77th Republic Day celebrations were being observed with enthusiasm across the country on Sunday, an incident in Nashik triggered political and administrative unrest after Maharashtra minister Girish Mahajan was accused of not mentioning Dr BR Ambedkar in his Republic Day address. The controversy unfolded during a Republic Day programme organised in Nashik when Madhavi Jadhav, a woman employee from the forest department, openly questioned Mahajan for omitting Ambedkar’s name in his speech. Following the confrontation, tension prevailed briefly at the venue, prompting police to take Jadhav into custody to restore order.

Girish Mahajan compelled to express regret

Speaking to the media after the incident, Girish Mahajan said the omission was unintentional and expressed regret over the matter. “It must have happened unintentionally. I had no such intention. I raised slogans like ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’, ‘Vande Mataram’ and ‘Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Ki Jai’. I had no intention of deliberately omitting any name,” Mahajan said. He added that such incidents do not usually occur during his speeches and expressed remorse over the controversy.

“Suspend Me, But I Won’t Apologise”

Clarifying her stand, Madhavi Jadhav maintained that she would not apologise for questioning the minister. She said Dr Ambedkar, as the architect of the Constitution, must be acknowledged on Republic Day. “The minister made a mistake. I will not apologise. The minister should take responsibility. If you want to suspend me, do it. I will not allow Babasaheb’s identity to be erased,” she said. Jadhav further stated that she was repeatedly waiting for Ambedkar’s name to be mentioned during the speech but it never came up, despite references to other leaders.

“The names of people who were not responsible for democracy and the Constitution were repeatedly mentioned. Then why was the name of the real creator of the Constitution missing?” she asked. She added that while she does not believe in the dates of August 15 or January 26, she firmly believes in democracy and constitutional values.

Related: 

Standing Truth on its Head: Ambedkar and BJP agenda

On his 135th birth anniversary, we ask, would Ambedkar be allowed free speech in India today?

Dr BR Ambedkar: How the ongoing tussle between the BJP and Congress is both limited & superficial

The post Republic Day 2026: Omission of Ambedkar in Girish Mahajan’s speech sparks outrage  appeared first on SabrangIndia.