Before The Times of India (TOI) broke the story, a series of crucial developments had already unfolded. By March 15, Chief Justice of Delhi High Court (CJ, Delhi HC) Justice D.K. Upadhyaya already had instructions from (CJI) Justice Sanjiv Khanna on what other details they needed. The following is established on the basis of Justice Upadhyaya’s report:

On March 16, Justice Upadhyaya met the CJI and reported the happenings reported to him. On March 17, Justice Upadhyaya met Justice Yashwant Varma and showed him the photos and videos of the purported cash, at which point Justice Varma expressed concerns that he was being targeted in a conspiracy.

On the morning of March 20, Justice Upadhyaya sent the images and videos to Justice Khanna. That same evening, Justice Upadhyaya was notified about the proposal to repatriate Justice Varma back to the Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court. Justice Upadhyaya endorsed the proposal, stating that it was in the interests of justice. It was only after these internal developments that the TOI publicly reported the story.

The Supreme Court on March 22 announced a three-member Committee comprising of judges from various High Courts that would conduct an inquiry into this incident. On March 24, the Collegium’s resolution to repatriate Justice Varma to Allahabad High Court was published.

This article is not to address judicial corruption, a well-documented issue with established theories on solutions(see here, here and here)—awaiting only implementation. Instead, it highlights how the outrage over the Justice Yashwant Varma fiasco is part of an ongoing erosion of judicial credibility, a concern rooted in legitimate issues. From appointing openly communal individuals as judges to failing to act against sitting judges who make communal remarks, the judiciary’s credibility and public trust have been in steady decline. Yet, the higher judiciary appears to be missing opportunities to restore it.

This article argues that the collegium’s resolutions must be more transparent and informative and striving for this transparency would be a crucial first step in rebuilding trust in the higher judiciary.

The issue: Context

The Collegium is one of the most powerful bodies in India today. Despite having no constitutional mention or statutory status, its power is such that it decides who gets to be a judge in India’s High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Collegium is not answerable to the executive or the legislature— a feature that it draws from one of the core principles of the Indian Constitution—independence of the judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the country and four of the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court—a system in place since 1998.

The NJAC challenge and calls for transparency

In 2014, the NDA government enacted the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 to replace the collegium system. A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association & Anr. vs. Union of India ([2015] 13 SCR 1) declared the NJAC as unconstitutional with one judge—Justice Chelameswar dissenting.  Both the majority and dissenting opinions expressed the need for greater transparency in the process of judicial appointments.

After the judgement, and once he became a senior judge qualified to be in the collegium, it was reported that Justice Chelameswar refused to attend the collegium meetings since it was an opaque process. In 2017, to resolve the deadlock, the Collegium started to make public its resolutions during the tenure of CJI (as he was then) Dipak Misra.

While that process enabled the resolutions to be published, in December 2022, in the case of Anjali Bhardwaj v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India, (RTI Cell), (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1698), the Supreme Court held that held that unless any Collegium discussion culminates into a final decision, the discussion shall not be disclosed to public.

A study in 2022 stated that the collegium systematically failed to disclose critical information essential to an enhanced understanding of its functioning. The study stated that an overwhelming majority of its decisions are not reasoned and that the resolutions fail to provide a meaningful understanding of the considerations, based on which candidates are selected or rejected.

Except for a brief, considerable change during CJI (as he was then) DY Chandrachud’s tenure, the study’s findings hold true.

Collegium communications: A formality within a formality

Currently, the Supreme Court of India publishes Collegium resolutions on its website, offering a glimpse into its decision-making process, including, transfers and appointments of judges to higher judiciary. However, these resolutions often feel like a mere formality—followed more out of precedent than a genuine commitment to transparency. Why?

On March 24, the Supreme Court collegium’s statement was released on the repatriation of Justice Yashwant Varma to Allahabad High Court. It reads as follows:

“The Supreme Court Collegium in its meetings held on March 20 and 24, 2025 has recommended repatriation of Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge, High Court of Delhi, to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.”

If we did not have the Times of India story and had this resolution come out without the nation ever having the knowledge of the alleged cash, the public would have not known what had happened.

More broadly, when judges are transferred, the reasons are often unclear. Whether it is due to seniority, the interests of justice, or a particular skill being required elsewhere, there is little transparency in the decision-making process.

For instance, let us take the example of Justice Arindam Sinha on whose transfer the resolution was notified on the same day Justice Yashwant Varma’s transfer was notified, with similar resolution.

In May 2021, while serving as a judge at the Calcutta High Court, Justice Arindam Sinha strongly objected to the division bench led by Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal treating a transfer petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Narada scam case as a writ petition. He had also opposed the bench’s decision to stay the bail granted to four Trinamool Congress (TMC) leaders and its move to constitute a larger bench due to divergent opinions between the two judges. Later in September 2021 he was transferred to the Orissa High Court, and now he has been transferred again. We do not know why, in both cases.

Judicial transfers are a natural process, but what prompted this judge’s transfer to that particular court remains unknown. Justice Arindam Sinha’s transfers could well be routine, day-to-day adjustments, but the point to note here is that in the absence of official reasoning, the public is left to speculate.

If someone wants to rule out a few possibilities, they will likely have to track Justice Sinha’s seniority and see whether his transfer aligns with the seniority list. However, the Supreme Court is not bound to follow strict seniority in judicial transfers, and decisions can be made based on other considerations such as administrative requirements, institutional interests, or other factors.

A choice exercised at will

This nonchalant formality is not the case with all collegium resolutions. Some are more detailed; some are just a press note.

For example, in the resolution dated March 6, 2025 to appoint Justice Joymalya Bagchi as the judge of the Supreme Court, the SC has put out a two-page resolution. The resolution talks about the factors that have been taken into consideration, while appointing Justice Bagchi who stands at No.11 in the All-India Seniority list of judges, like the fact that Calcutta is represented by only one judge in the SC.

Has it always been like this?

Yes, but also no. During Chief Justice of India (as he was then) Justice DY Chandrachud’s tenure as CJI [9 November 2022 to 10 November 2024], the collegium resolutions were way more detailed.

For example, take the last collegium resolution during the tenure of Justice Chandrachud as CJI—a resolution regarding appointment of advocates as judges of the Bombay High Court. The resolution had details on consultation with judges over the candidacy, government inputs, professional experience and credentials, experience of those who were appointed. This was not some ideal-comprehensive format but was surely a different way than it had been done before.

However, as soon as Justice Chandrachud retired, the collegium resolutions more or less went back to being as they were, simple communiques of a very powerful body that, to this day answers effectively to no one. We do not know why. No one asked and no one cared to clarify.

Why is it necessary that collegium process is more transparently communicated?

Judicial independence stands as a fundamental pillar of any robust democracy, safeguarding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is administered impartially. Given the collegium system’s origin, the procedures and accountability mechanisms of the Collegium are not as firmly established as those of bodies with a clear constitutional or legislative basis, making it inherently susceptible to questions regarding legitimacy and openness.

The lack of transparency was one of the primary reasons for which Justice Chelameswar authored his powerful dissent in the NJAC case. Due to the Justice Varma incident, there is a renewed push by the ruling establishment for judicial reforms and a relook at the NJAC (See here and here).

The release of more detailed Collegium resolutions holds significant potential to address the criticisms levelled against the system’s opacity. Including the specific reasons for recommending a particular candidate, such as their demonstrated expertise in a specific area of law, notable judgments they have delivered, or their contributions to legal scholarship, would provide a much clearer understanding of the basis upon which the Collegium makes its selections. Explicitly stating the criteria that the Collegium considered for each appointment, going beyond generic terms like “merit and integrity,” would also enhance transparency and allow for public evaluation of whether these criteria are applied consistently across different appointments. While a verbatim transcript of the Collegium’s deliberations might indeed compromise the confidentiality necessary for frank discussions, providing a summary of the key perspectives considered and the rationale behind the final decision could offer valuable insights into the decision-making process. Furthermore, explaining the reasons for not recommending certain candidates (without necessarily disclosing their names if privacy is a concern) could help address concerns about fairness and potential biases within the selection process. In the context of judicial transfers, providing specific reasons beyond the vague “better administration of justice” would help dispel speculation and potential accusations of transfers being punitive in nature.

By moving beyond simply announcing decisions to providing clear explanations for the rationale behind them, more detailed resolutions would foster greater public understanding and potentially increase trust in the judicial appointment process. The fact that collegium resolutions were often detailed during Justice Chandrachud’s tenure suggests that the Collegium possesses the capacity to provide more comprehensive information and might be amenable to revisiting this approach. However, it should not come from a CJI’s prerogative since it can be discontinued by the next one. It must come from a set of rules which the Court as a whole writes for itself and follows.

For example, some have commended the CJI’s decision to put in public some material (albeit redacted to an extent) related to Justice Yashwant Varma’s case. However, the important point here would be to remember that instances of corruption have continued to persist and will do so, in the future. In that case, while commending the act of being transparent, the Supreme Court should also be called upon to arrive at a set procedure in these kinds of cases and make it transparent, if and when they arise in future.

Transparency inherently acts as a form of accountability, incentivising the Collegium to be more meticulous and reasoned in its decision-making process, knowing that their rationale will be made public and subject to scrutiny. Given that the judiciary often emphasises the importance of transparency for other institutions, a perceived lack of it within their own appointment process can be viewed as inconsistent, potentially undermining their moral authority in advocating for openness elsewhere. Public perception of fairness and integrity is paramount for the judiciary’s effectiveness.

Writing better collegium resolutions will not solve the issues with Collegium. They can only be solved by establishing an independent and transparent appointing body which is answerable to the people. While that might take time, this is within the powers of the Collegium and it should not let go off an opportunity to show that it too, can reform itself.

Why should they change now?

Simply put, the changes have to be made to make an effort at rebuilding the eroding public trust in the judiciary. Yes, people are scared of courts. No one wants a contempt order targeting them. However, is fear the tool with which the higher judiciary can sustain its stature in the Indian political scheme? Is it sustainable? It is not.

Sooner or later (now that it is already too late, therefore soon), someone—like George Carlin once did—will stand up and say, “They’ve got the judges in their back pockets,” referring to how the closed door appointment systems and judicial corruption serve the rich and powerful. And when that happens, it would be too late to initiate a contempt proceeding against whoever says it.

Conclusion

While more detailed Collegium resolutions represent a significant step forward, relying solely on them might not be sufficient to achieve full transparency within the system. Even with increased detail, resolutions may not fully capture the nuances of the discussions and considerations within the Collegium or any informal consultations that might occur. The interpretation of broad criteria such as “merit” and “integrity” can still remain somewhat subjective, even if elaborated upon in the resolutions. The possibility of the Collegium tailoring the reasons provided in the resolutions to rationalize decisions already made cannot be entirely discounted. Furthermore, resolutions primarily focus on the final recommendations and might not provide insights into the initial stages of identifying potential candidates or the role played by High Court Collegiums in the overall process.

To further enhance accountability and openness, several other measures could be considered. Establishing clearer and more objective criteria for evaluating candidates, and making these criteria publicly available, would be a crucial step.

The judiciary has long defended itself from the executive wanting to control it. People of India supported the judiciary after they saw how it supported them from its decisions on Right to Education to its exceptional integrity in handling high profile matters involving influential politicians. It is this support that has given the higher judiciary its glorious decades. If the institution ignores the clear warning signs and resists reform, it risks losing its independence to an encroaching executive.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

A Judiciary Made to Measure

Move towards Judicial transparency, Orissa HC evaluates own performance, lists challenges

The post Potential of reasoned Collegium resolutions as a starting point for transparency in the Indian higher judiciary appeared first on SabrangIndia.

To sum up on how CPI(M) evolved it’s understanding about Modi regime which became an effective tool in the hands of Fascistic RSS let us look at the following. This characterisation of the Modi regime based on the party’s public statements, party documents, and broader political strategy:

1. Economic policy critique: Neo-Liberalism vs. Crony Capitalism

• Early Characterisation (2014-2019): Initially, the CPI (M) described the Modi regime as an extension of neo-liberal economic policies that favoured corporate interests over the working class and peasantry. It criticised the government for pursuing privatisation, deregulation, and policies like the National Monetisation Pipeline, which it saw as selling public assets to big business. The emphasis was on the regime’s alignment with global capitalism and its betrayal of the poor.

Further, the CPI (M) characterised the regime as a dangerous blend of neo-liberal economic policies and Hindutva-driven communalism accusing Modi of serving corporate interests—particularly those of crony capitalists—while simultaneously promoting a divisive Hindu nationalist agenda rooted in the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJP’s ideological parent.

Since the 22nd Congress of the Party, this “corporate-communal nexus” was seen as a defining feature, with policies like tax concessions for the wealthy, loan write-offs for big businesses, and the dismantling of labour protections viewed as evidence of a pro-corporate tilt. At the same time, the CPI (M) highlighted incidents like the Gujarat riots of 2002 (under Modi’s watch as Chief Minister) and subsequent communal polarisation as proof of his regime’s anti-minority stance. The CPI(M) also framed Modi’s governance as a betrayal of his 2014 election promises, such as job creation and economic “good times” (achche din). The documents pointed to rising unemployment, agrarian distress, and uncontrolled food prices as failures that disproportionately harmed the working class and peasantry—core constituencies in their ideology.

• Later Emphasis (2019 onwards): While the neo-liberal critique persists, the CPI (M) has increasingly highlighted “crony capitalism” as a defining feature of Modi’s rule. It points to specific instances—like tax concessions for billionaires, loan write-offs for corporate allies, and the concentration of wealth among a tiny elite—as evidence of a regime that serves a select group of capitalists tied to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This shift reflects a growing focus on inequality data (e.g., the top 1% owning 40% of wealth) and a more populist framing to mobilise public discontent.

2. Authoritarianism: from subversion of institutions to full-blown fascism

• Initial Framing (2014-2019): In Modi’s first term, the CPI (M) characterised the regime as authoritarian, pointing to the subversion of democratic institutions like Parliament, the judiciary, and the media. It cited examples such as the refusal to engage with Opposition parties, the misuse of agencies like the Enforcement Directorate, and the suppression of dissent (e.g., arrests of activists). In the document the Party released before 2019 general elections titled ‘In Defence of Secular Democratic Constitution’, the Party gave call to defeat the BJP from centre and considered this goal as part of its larger agenda towards advancing peoples struggles to establish People’s Democracy.
• Escalation (Post-2019): After Modi’s re-election and events like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests –2019-2020-and the 2024 temple inauguration in Ayodhya, the CPI (M) has intensified its rhetoric, at times aligning with broader Left voices that label the regime as “fascist” or “Indian fascism.” While not always using the term explicitly, the party describes a “communal-corporate nexus” and an “authoritarian-repressive regime” that merges state power with Hindutva ideology, drawing parallels to historical fascism tailored to Indian conditions. Almost all the resolutions adopted by CPI (M) Central Committee have thereafter categorised the BJP regime as the one advancing the RSS’s fascist agenda.

In sharp focus, after Modi’s re-election in 2019, the CPI(M)’s characterisation evolved to place greater emphasis on the regime’s authoritarian tendencies and its perceived threat to India’s secular democratic framework. While the corporate-communal critique remained, the party increasingly highlighted the subversion of democratic institutions—such as the misuse of central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation against Opposition leaders, the weakening of parliamentary norms, and the erosion of federalism.[1] The CPI (M) described Modi’s leadership as displaying “contempt for parliamentary norms” and fostering an “authoritarian-repressive regime.” This shift marked a broader framing of Modi as not just an economic or communal threat, but a systemic danger to the Constitution and India’s pluralistic identity.

3. Communalism: Hindutva as a tool vs. state-sponsored majoritarianism

• Early Perspective (2014-2019): The CPI (M) initially framed Modi’s communal agenda as a political tool of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP to consolidate power through Hindu majoritarianism. Armed with the 22nd Congress Political Resolution and Political Tactical line the party evolved it’s assessment of the BJP central government with its ideological moorings in the RSS. The CPI (M) has therefore portrayed communalism under Modi as a state-sponsored project, exemplified by the Ayodhya temple event in January 2024, which it called a “death knell of secularism.” The party argued that the regime has moved beyond using Hindutva as a mere electoral strategy to embedding it into governance, violating constitutional principles for example the explicit separation of religion and state.

4. Electoral and tactical shifts: BJP as the main enemy vs. broader Opposition unity

• Consistent position: Throughout Modi’s tenure, the CPI (M) has identified the BJP as the primary political enemy due to its communal and neo-liberal character. It has called for mass struggles to resist these policies, emphasising the Left’s role as the most consistent opponent.
• Tactical variation: However, the CPI (M)’s approach to opposing Modi has varied. In 2014-2019, it focused on independent Left mobilisation, wary of alliances with “neo-liberal” parties like Congress. In its election review of the 2019 general elections CPI (M) without mincing words took the Congress to task for its unwillingness to come up with broader Opposition unity. Subsequently, after the Covid lockdown and the BJP-led government using the lockdown to advance its political goals compelled all Opposition parties to coordination on public issues. This coordination gradually expanded into political actions and culminated in the formation of INDIA block as the Opposition’s unified attempts to unseat the BJP from the centre.

Post-2019, with the formation of the INDIA bloc (a coalition of Opposition parties), the CPI(M) has softened its stance, advocating for a broader unity to defeat the BJP electorally, even while maintaining its critique of Congress’s historical role with regards to neo-liberalism. This reflects a pragmatic shift in characterising Modi as a threat requiring a wider resistance, not just a Left-led one.

5. Response to specific events: Reactive vs. strategic framing

• Reactive Critique: At times, the CPI (M)’s characterization has been event-driven. For instance, it condemned Modi’s handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots (pre-2014) as evidence of his complicity in violence, and later the 2021 oxygen shortage denial as proof of callousness and authoritarian denialism.
• Strategic Framing: Over time, the party has woven these incidents into a broader narrative of a “post-truth” regime that manipulates facts, undermines democracy, and prioritises Hindutva and corporate interests over people’s lives. This shift shows a move from piecemeal criticism to a cohesive ideological attack.

Post-2024 Election: weakened but unchanged in essence

The 2024 Lok Sabha election results, where the BJP lost its outright majority and formed a coalition government under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), prompted a subtle adjustment in the CPI (M)’s rhetoric. They hailed the outcome as a “setback” for Modi’s “image of invincibility” and a public rejection of his authoritarian-communal agenda. However, the party maintained that the core character of the regime remained unchanged. They argued that despite coalition constraints, Modi’s economic policies would continue to favour  big corporations (e.g., through privatisation initiatives like the National Monetisation Pipeline), and his communal politics would persist, as evidenced by ongoing attacks on minorities in the BJP-ruled states.

The CPI(M) also noted that while Constitutional changes (like those undermining secularism or federalism) might be harder to push through due to the lack of a BJP majority, the regime’s “thrust” toward neo-liberalism and authoritarianism would see “no qualitative change.”

Ideological consistency vs. tactical nuances

Throughout these phases, the CPI (M)’s Marxist lens has remained consistent—viewing the Modi regime as a tool of the bourgeoisie, allied with imperialism and monopoly capital, while exploiting communal divisions to maintain power.

However, tactical differences emerge in how they prioritise these elements. Early on, economic critiques dominated, aligning with their class-based analysis. Later, the focus on authoritarianism and constitutional defence reflected a broader alliance-building strategy within the INDIA bloc, where the CPI (M) sought to unite secular and democratic forces against the BJP. Post-2024, their characterisation balances cautious optimism about electoral setbacks with a warning against underestimating Modi’s resilience.

Key differences over time

Thus, the CPI (M) emphasised Modi’s pro-corporate policies (e.g., labour reforms, tax cuts) as the primary betrayal. Over time, this expanded to include a stronger focus on democratic erosion, reflecting the regime’s growing consolidation of power.

2. Communalism as strategy vs. systemic feature: Early critiques framed communalism as a political tactic to distract from economic failures. Later, it was portrayed as an intrinsic feature of Modi’s governance, tied to a broader Hindutva state-building project.
3. Invincibility vs. vulnerability: Pre-2024, Modi was depicted as an unassailable figure backed by money and media. Post-2024, the CPI (M) highlighted his vulnerability, though without softening their overall condemnation.

Conclusion

The CPI (M)’s characterisation of the Modi regime has evolved from a focus on neo-liberal economics and institutional subversion to a more layered critique that integrates crony capitalism, state-sponsored communalism, and fascist tendencies. While the core Marxist analysis—viewing the state as serving ruling-class interests—remains unchanged, the party has adapted its rhetoric and tactics to address the regime’s growing consolidation of power and the shifting political landscape. These differences reflect both an escalation in the perceived threat posed by Modi and a strategic response to rally the wider Opposition, all while staying rooted in its ideological opposition to capitalism and communalism.

The author, Y Venugopal Reddy, is cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad and had contributed a series of articles in the run up to 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) at Hyderabad; the concluding part of this series will appear tomorrow)

[1] The regime’s pursuit of Hindutva politics intensified in this period, with policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 and the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir 9August 2019), both seen as assaults on secularism and minority rights.

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

Part 1 and 2 can be read here

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 1

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 2

Related:

Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India

CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces

Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today

The post Evolution of the Left [CPI (M)] approach towards Hindutva politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 3 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yechury’s approach of boldly confronting contemporary political reality and strengthening the Party was persistent and he started working out an alternative political tactical line in the place of isolationist one.

Way back in 2016 itself the former general secretary of the party who still holds strings of the organisation in his own, unique way wrote an opinion piece in Indian Express concluding that, “The threat that is sweeping through India today is one of authoritarianism, not fascism, he argued. Nor are the conditions present for a fascist regime to be established, even though a ‘determined effort is being made to reorder society and polity on Hindutva lines”

This enables us to understand that immediately after taking over the reins of the Party at the 21^st Congress, against all odds, Yechury started working on this hypothesis, What is Hindu Rashtra, and his opinion piece in Asian Age on the 10^th anniversary of Babri demolition wherein he called the demolition the beginning of fascism in India. Accordingly in the Polit Bureau meeting that was held in October 2017 he proposed an alternative line which was shot down by a majority in the Polit Bureau, then.

With unwavering commitment, however, he pursued the same with the Central Committee that was held in January 2018 where the Draft Political Resolution was adopted. In that meeting he could persuade the central committee to follow the Party Constitution which permitted him to present an alternative political tactical line backed a by minority in the Central Committee. After the January Central Committee meeting, the Tripura election results were out where the Party got routed shockingly at the hands of BJP. This helped Yechury to firm up this commitment about the need for an alternative political tactical line.

Hence, by the time the party assembled itself for the 22^nd Congress to finalise the prospective Political Tactical Line (PTL), there was a buzz in the air that in that, at the conference Yechury, would be asked to resign as general secretary. Several leaders like P Madhu, the than Andhra Pradesh secretary of the Party openly campaigned advancing this sectarian line handed down by BV Raghavulu and others that the PTL has already been settled and the question before the 22^nd Congress was merely to elect a leader (probably like BV Raghavulu, in his opinion) to steel the Party along those lines. The present day secretary of the Andhra Pradesh CPI-M unit, V Srinivasa Rao also publicly told a gathering at Bhimavaram that if Sitaram Yechury was not willing to follow the principle of democratic centralism (which implied an agreement with the sectarian political tactical line backed by the majority in the Central Committee) he would have to step down as general secretary. These narrations are but the symptoms of the malaise. If one gets into details and narrates all part of the criticism(s) against Yechury such as being a ‘Congress agent’, the list will be unbelievably long!

To come back to the main thrust of this article, the draft political resolution then summed up the three years of BJP rule, “2.78 The BJP has consolidated its political position. Under the Modi Government, there has been an intensification of the neo-liberal capitalist exploitation of the people; the secular-democratic framework of the Constitution is being eroded with the pursuit of the Hindutva agenda; and the BJP-led government has bound India closer to the imperialist strategy of the United States. All this marks the onset of an authoritarian-communal regime.” It accordingly called for “2.81 The Party should step up its intervention to advance the struggles of various sections of the working people against the economic burdens being imposed upon them. Combining these struggles against the impact of the neo-liberal policies with the struggles against the communal agenda is the way to advance the struggle against the BJP-RSS combine. The struggles against the neo-liberal 40 policies, Hindutva communalism and authoritarianism, are all inextricably interlinked.”

Having said that much, the draft political resolution stopped at the gates, when it came to the question of dealing the elephant with the elephant in the room, the looming Congress question. This confusion is well articulated in the draft, “2.90: Our tactical approach should be to cooperate with the Congress and other secular opposition parties in parliament on agreed issues. Outside parliament, we should cooperate with all secular opposition forces for a broad mobilisation of people against the communal threat. We should foster joint actions of class and mass organisations, in such a manner that can draw in the masses following the Congress and other bourgeois parties.” This paragraph reads close to the para 2.89 wherein it states, “2.89 The Party will cooperate with INDIA bloc parties in Parliament and, on agreed issues outside Parliament. The Party will join hands with all secular democratic forces on issues of authoritarian onslaughts against democracy, the use of draconian laws to suppress dissent and the opposition to efforts to subvert the Constitution and the institutions of the State.”

If we read through these paragraphs carefully and analytically, one can decipher that Prakash Karat was sticking to his original understanding formulated way back in 2016, in the recent opinion piece in Indian Express. This is why those who are willing to fight against the fascist RSS and its political offshoot which acquired fascistic characteristics being in power are so worried.

The 22^nd Congress stands as one of the milestones in the long journey of Communist movement in India. This can only be compared to that of the one in 1964 where a threadbare discussion took place about characterising the Indian bourgeoisie state.

The open and fierce discourse witnessed then at the conference split vertically. The minority who backed the Yechury’s alternative tactical line inched ahead, day by day, with more and more delegates are realising what lay ahead for them. Some delegates among those who participated in the discussion –like the ones from Punjab– encountered Prakash Karat on the dais itself by asking him, “When would you agree with the fact that India is on the tenterhooks of fascism? After our cadre and Party passes through gas chambers?” Even after being stung by such penchant criticism, Prakash stick to his line by advocating and repeating his way of thinking, the line. To put it simply, a party that has come to power through Constitutional means cannot not undermine the same.

Against this, the minority resolution presented by the then General  Secretary, Sitaram Yechury, batted for all-out war against BJP and RSS by joining hands with all secular forces including the Congress. Amidst the heated debate, perhaps for the first time in the history of CPI (M), delegates demanded a secret ballot on the Political Resolution. The situation reached a head where it was clear that if, such a secret ballot was allowed, the majority line proposed by Prakash Karat and others, was set to be defeated. Realising the intensity and sense of the house, the majority came down to a kind a battered down position and accepted partially the tactical line advocated by Sitaram Yechury. They agreed that defeating the BJP and ousting the government from the Centre was key.

Given the importance of the line then adopted, and this interpretation (by the writer) is a means to help readers understand the CPI(M) through its own documents. I am, therefore giving below the full text of a significant portion from the CPI-M’s 22^nd Congress Party documents (on the political line):

“Political Line

2.116 (i) Given the experience of the nearly four years rule of the Modi Government it is imperative to defeat the BJP government in order to isolate the Hindutva communal forces and reverse the anti-people economic policies.

(ii) Thus, the main task is to defeat the BJP and its allies by rallying all the secular and democratic forces.

(iii) But this has to be done without having a political alliance with the Congress Party.

(iv) However, there can be an understanding with all secular opposition parties including the Congress in parliament on agreed issues. Outside parliament, we should cooperate with all secular opposition forces for a broad mobilization of people against communalism. We should foster joint actions of class and mass organisations, in such a manner that can draw in the masses following the Congress and other bourgeois parties.

(v) The Party will fight against the neo-liberal policies being pursued by the BJP government at the Centre and by the various state governments including those run by the regional parties. The Party will strive to develop united and sustained actions on the issues of people’s livelihood and against the onslaught of the economic policies.

(vi) Joint platforms for mass movements and united struggles at all levels must be built up. Resistance to the anti-people policies should be intensified. The united actions of the class and mass organisations must seek to draw in the masses following the bourgeois parties.

(vii) Given the serious challenge posed by the Hindutva forces both inside and outside the government it is essential to build platforms for the widest mobilisation of all secular and democratic forces. The emphasis should be on building unity of people to fight the communal forces at the grassroots. These are not to be seen as political or electoral alliances. Similarly, broad unity to fight against the authoritarian attacks on democratic rights should be forged.
(viii) The Party will give priority to developing and building the independent strength of the Party. It will work to broaden and strengthen Left unity.

(ix) All Left and democratic forces should be brought together on a concrete programme to conduct united struggles and joint movements through which the Left and democratic front can emerge. In states, the various Left and democratic forces should be rallied to form a platform around a concrete programme. At the national level, the Left and democratic alternative should be projected in our political campaigns and to rally all those forces who can find a place in the Left and democratic front.

(x) Appropriate electoral tactics to maximize the pooling of the anti-BJP votes should be adopted based on the above political line of the Party.

This understanding is further cemented by the CPI-M’s resolution on Election Tactics which was adopted in October 2018 in face of impending general elections 2019. The Party then agreed, “There cannot be an all India alliance to fight the BJP. We have to therefore work out state-wise election tactics based on the overall electoral tactical line. We should rally (the) secular and democratic forces in the different states so that the widest (possible) forces can be mobilised to defeat the BJP and its allies.” At the same time, it also emphatically stated that the Party should strive for understanding with non-Congress secular regional parties.

The formation of the Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) should and K Chandrasekhar Rao aiming to be key player in the post 2019 general election scenario, and Pinarayi Vijayan attending the public meeting on the occasion of BRS formation should be seen in the light of the above resolution. Finally the Federal Front fell flat in the face of the mounting BJP challenge and subsequently the BJP returned to power with enhanced strength.

Though Sitaram Yechury, given the historical background of regional parties, aware that the Federal Front was not going to materialise as such, much like a teacher guiding students based on their errors/mistakes, patiently waited for the consequences of the post 2019 general elections, the unraveling of the true face of BJP government and its parent organization the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), given the power strings it holds on the Union Government.

The tactical and organisational maneuver adopted by the CPI (M) in the post 2019 general elections scenario will be discussed in third part of this series.

(The author, Y Venugopal Reddy, is cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad and had contributed a series of articles in the run up to 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) at Hyderabad)

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

Read Part 1 here

Related:

Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India

CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces

Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today

The post Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 2 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The untimely demise of Sitaram Yechury, the General Secretary, CPI (M), a personable and astute leader also considered to be an ace tactician, less of a pragmatist, more of an orthodox Leninist,  of the  Communist Party of India (Marxist), has created a huge vacuum. Yechury contributed significantly to the understanding of Hindutva politics in India.

This article is an attempt to chart out the contribution of Sitaram Yechury to comprehend the contemporary political reality in order to realise the goals of the Left in India, which is the apparent purpose of the conduct of these such a Conference.

The Political Resolution is an important document in the history of all Communist Parties which sets out their international outlook, assesses certain core ingredients of the country’s politics and sets out a road map for action.

The Political Resolution adopted by the CPI (M) at its 21^st Congress is such an important document The question of resurgence of Hindutva politics was finally acknowledged by the CPI (M) only at its 21^st Congress wherein the Party, in the opening remarks of the resolution observed, “The advent of the BJP government represents the consolidation of the rightward shift in Indian politics. It welds together the neo-liberal thrust and the Hindutva drive with a pro-imperialist orientation. Already, the impact can be seen in the nakedly pro-big business policies which will further deepen social inequalities and intensify the exploitation of the working people. This combined with the offensive of the Hindutva forces poses new and serious challenges to our aim of changing the correlation of class forces in favour of the working people.” Further the 21^st Congress categorically declined any kind of electoral understanding with secular parties as it declared, “(Para) 2.71: The Party will give primary attention to developing and building the independent strength of the Party. At the same time, the Party will strive to develop united actions on people’s issues, defence of national sovereignty, states rights and against imperialism with other democratic forces and non-Congress secular parties. Joint platforms for mass movements and united struggles are necessary if the Party is to expand its independent strength. The united actions of the class and mass organisations will seek to draw in the masses following the Congress, the BJP and the other bourgeois parties.” (emphasis is mine)

In consonance with this finding, one would have expect the Party which developed this tactical line under the leadership of ace tactician Prakash Karat to come up with a concrete tactical approach. The tactical line adopted by the 21^st Congress was detailed from Paras 2.68 to 2.72. A bare analytical reading of the same reveals the confusion within the leadership of the Party.

Going by the tactical line adopted at 21^st Congress it appears that the first and foremost task of the CPI (M) is to defeat the BJP and its Hindutva politics. Accordingly it was held that, “(Para) 2.68: The Party has to fight against the BJP and Modi government’s policies. This is the main task at hand. This requires a concerted opposition to the Modi government’s economic policies and its Hindutva oriented social, educational and cultural policies. The Party has to conduct a political-ideological struggle against the BJP-RSS combine. However, the fight against communalism cannot be conducted in isolation. It has to be integrated with the struggle against (the) neo-liberal policies and in defence of people’s livelihood(s).”

The above enunciation reveals that the Party had yet to make up its mind to defeat the BJP and remove that party from the seat of power, at any cost. It was merely confined to fight against the BJP’s policies by opposing the Modi governments economic and Hindutva oriented social education and cultural policies. Though it called for a bold initiative to take on the politics of the landed (land-lord) bourgeoisie parties, nothing concrete had been chalked out at least to strengthen the historical bases of the Party such as West Bengal, the then undivided Andhra Pradesh and Assam. The strengthening of the party was primarily seen through the lens of the Party in power in West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala. Once the Party lost its core base Bengal, a question that was posed was about the very survival of Left politics in India.

Subsequent developments however and the policy orientations of the BJP lead by Modi which had bulldozed the foundations of parliamentary democracy caused a serious re-think within a section of the Party. Adhering to the call given by the 21^st Congress to devise a bold initiative the then General Secretary conceptualised a broader alliance of secular forces including Congress, proposed an alliance in the wake of the collusion (unspoken alliance) between the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and BJP. This strategy was agreed upon after detailed discussions and arriving at a majority within the Bengal State Committee of the Party. Accordingly there was an alliance with the Congress in terms of seat adjustments in the 2016 assembly elections. However, given electoral arithmetic (s) and mutual suspicions that developed between the core constituencies of both parties, this alliance tottered.

Surprisingly — and to the astonishment of all Indians aspiring to an alternative politics — the Polit Bureau followed by the Central Committee, both, heavily weighed down in favor of a sectarian approach, resolved that the Party in West Bengal had violated the Party’s understanding. Thereafter it was decided –by the Central Committee –to convey this (report) to CPI-M cadres across the country. With undue haste, almost a kind of one-upmanship, the Party ignored the fact that the very same leadership has scripted the Paragraph 2.288 of the Political Resolution, wherein it had been stated, that, “(Para) 2.88: The struggle for building Left and democratic unity will proceed differently in different states. Various types of Left and democratic combinations will emerge in the states and they will contribute to the building of the Left and democratic front at the all India level. The focus of all the tactics adopted by the Party should be for the realisation of a strong Left and democratic front.” Thus the Central Committee Resolution which castigated the West Bengal State Committee for its electoral understanding with the Congress, was itself, in a way, clearly against its own Political Resolution adopted at the 21^st Party Congress of the CPI-M at Visakapatnam.

Despite having such a solid tactical footing, the then General Secretary, without confrontation, allowed the resolution to be passed adhering to the principle of democratic centralism. This is another instances where the top leadership of the Communist movement in India, often, does not read, its own document and adopts a less rigorous approach.

Despite such a retreat, Sitaram Yechury gradually educated his party’s Central Committee towards the need of not merely battling against Hindutva politics, but also towards a clear-cut strategy to unseat Hindutva forces from the seat of power. Towards this end, he took inspiration from the amended Party Programme. The Party Program, amended at the CPI (M)’s 2000 Special Conference categorically stated, at Para 7.14 that “(Para)7.14: Reactionary and counter-revolutionary trends have existed even after Independence. They make use of the backwardness of the people based on the immense influence of a feudal ideology. In recent decades, making use of the growing discontent against the Congress leading to its steady decline, they are making serious efforts to fill the void left by the Congress Party. The Bharatiya Janata Party is a reactionary party with a divisive and communal platform, the reactionary content of which is based on hatred against other religions, intolerance and ultra-nationalist chauvinism. The BJP is no ordinary bourgeois party as the fascistic Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh guides and dominates it. When the BJP is in power, the RSS gets access to the instruments of State power and the State machinery. (The) Hindutva ideology promotes revivalism and rejects the composite culture of India with the objective of establishing a Hindu Rashtra. The spread of such a communal outlook leads to the growth of minority fundamentalism. This has serious consequences for the secular basis of the polity and poses a serious danger to the Left and democratic movement. Besides, a substantial section of big business and landlords, imperialism headed by the USA, is lending all-out support to the BJP”. (emphasis is mine).

The portion of the paragraph emphasised here had a direct reference to the 21^st Congress resolution wherein it called for, “(Para) 2.83:  There has to be a bold initiative to take on the politics and ideology of the bourgeois-landlord parties and to counter them with the CPI (M)’s political line and the Left and democratic programme. The Party must intervene and take up struggles on social issues.” Finally, sectarianism won and the West Bengal committee got castigated for its alleged violations. Being a leader who follows the core organisational principle of democratic centralism which says minority has to follow the majority decision, Sitaram agreed to follow the majority decision of the 2016, sometime in August that year.

This was the time when the Party castigated its own elected General Secretary to be an ‘agent of Congress’ whereas this electoral understanding with Congress revived the Save Democracy theme which had been coined by the then Party State Secretary, Bimon Basu. The 2016 Bengal elections were a watershed as they were in 2011. The 2011 elections focused only on defeat of the Left Front government by an electoral alliance sans a goal and ideology whereas the 2016 electoral understanding of 2016 focused on the Save Democracy theme in the wake of an onslaught by the a authoritarian regime in the state supported by a more authoritarian regime in center.

(In the second Part, the author, Y Venugopal Reddy, a cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad, will deal with the evolution of the Party’s approach towards BJP’s Hindutva politics by examining its discourse towards 22^nd Conference of the Party)

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

Part 2 and 3 can be read here

Evolution of the Left [CPI (M)] approach towards Hindutva politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 3

The post Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 1 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

1. The Constitution of Pakistan forbids its citizens from taking part in the religious occasions of others.

2.19 per cent of children, mainly girls, remain out of schools.

3. Single National Curriculum promotes intolerance and religious extremism.

4. Clerics are authorised to censor educational content.

5. Recitation of the Quran was mandated during school assembly.

Dr. Willy Fautré, Director of Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF), a non-governmental organisation in special status with ECOSOC, criticised the national education policy of Pakistan and pointed out its flaws, which resulted in intolerance, religious extremism and creating an atmosphere of hatred against other religions.

In a written statement submitted to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, and read out at a side event, the organisation also pointed out the provisions of the Pakistan’s Constitution and its much-disputed Single National Curriculum launched in 2021 responsible for religious intolerance and religious extremism as government schools are not secular and inclusive. The side event was held on 26 March, room 25 Palaise the Nations. Titled Human Rights in Pakistan:  Education under siege, ideology, intolerance, and the erosion of Human Rights in Pakistan, its organisers were major NGOs like CAP and HRWF.

The statement by The Coordination des Association et des Particuliers pour la Liberte de Conscience, says:

“Constitution of Pakistan states in Article 22 that ‘No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive instruction, or take part in any religious ceremony, or attend religious worship, if such instruction, ceremony, or worship relates to a religion other than its own.’

Therefore, Article 22 of the Constitution of Pakistan promotes non-respect of religions among the students. Human rights organisations have criticised this policy.

Citing the statistics of the Pakistan Institution of Education, the organisation said that 73 per cent of educational institutions in Pakistan are government schools, while 14 per cent are religious schools or madrasas. Such a large number of madrasas presenting an exclusivist interpretation of Islam and non-respect for other religions have contributed to an atmosphere of religious extremism and intolerance in the country.

The organisation also points out the flaws in the SNC launched by the Pakistan government. It says:

“In August 2021, the Pakistan government launched the much-disputed Single National Curriculum (SNC) for government schools, claiming that this initiative would reduce educational disparities. However, the human rights defenders criticised the SNC for its lack of inclusivity and its over-emphasis on Islamic religious content at the expense of religious minorities. In fact, school curricula and textbooks promote intolerance towards minorities and depict women in a way that is non-inclusive and is not compatible with international human rights standards.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan expressed deep concerns about the government perpetuating a singular view of religion in educational institutions through SN, depriving young students of the right to a secular education.”

The Coordination des Association et des Particuliers pour la Liberte se Conscience feels that the SNC is an attempt to Islamise the entire Pakistani society, putting the religious minorities in jeopardy. It says:

“The SNC has also been criticised as an Islamisation program under which all facets of Pakistan’s core educational curriculum were infused with religious content, aligning with the ideological bent of the existing Sunni Muslim orthodoxy. (Source: Wasim Hameed, “Minorities in Single National Curriculum”. 4, The Nation, 9 July 2021.)

According to a 73-page Report of the Salluv ECPM Foundation 5, “Pakistan, Education System, Curriculum and EU Funding” financed by the European Parliament and published in 2024, “a study by The Current revealed that Muslim religious ideas or texts were present in 7.7 per cent of the SNC’s mathematics, social studies, science, general knowledge, English, and Urdu books. Additionally, 7.47 per cent of books have references to Islam, while 0.27 per cent mention other religions in all non-religious books.”

The organisation also pointed out an act of the Punjab Assembly passed in 2022, which authorised the clerics to censor educational content and its resolution mandating the recitation of the Quran during the school assembly. Such acts and resolutions were not compatible with international human rights standards.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution VS Creationism

One major drawback of Pakistan’s education system is that it is influenced by conservative clerics who lack a scientific spirit and therefore oppose scientific theories and ideas. For example, clerics have opposed the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in Pakistan because they think that the theory is against Islamic law. In October 2023, clerics of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa forced a college professor named Sher Ali to publicly renounce teaching Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

Earlier in May 2022, his car was attacked with a magnetic bomb, leaving him in his wheelchair for months. The professor was also made to make the statement that “According to Shariah, the woman’s intelligence is inferior to that of a man. I consider this the final word on this issue and believe that women should be covered from head to toe while venturing out. Women can only go out if it is needed or necessary”.

The organisation, therefore, feels that the education system of Pakistan not only promotes hatred against minorities but also is a hindrance in the development of scientific temperament among the students.

Controversial and Inequitable Image and Girls in the Curriculum of Public Schools

The organisation also found that the SNC textbooks are full of content that presents women as inferior to men as approximately 60 per cent of SNC books included images of males, whereas females accounted for only 39 per cent.

Moreover, portrayal of female characters is one-dimensional in terms of their appearances, character traits and hobbies. They are mostly portrayed as wearing hijab or headscarf, while most men are depicted wearing western attire, with only 20 percent wearing traditional Islamic clothing. With regard to occupations, male textbook characters are often portrayed as doctors, lawyers and soldiers, while female textbook characters are mostly portrayed as domestic help, housewives or caregivers.

The European Union Funding in the Dock: Misuse of Taxpayers ‘ money of the 27 EU member states

The NGO further says that the EU funds for Pakistan’s education projects have been misused. According to the 2024 Report of Sallux/ ECPM “Pakistan, Education System, Curriculum and EU Funding”, the EU directly invested 94 million euros in education projects in Pakistan between 2016-2024.

The report contains over 40 pages of excerpts and pictures from textbooks showing that the views expressed in the official curriculum in Pakistan are not compatible with EU values as expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Such an amount of concrete evidence cannot be ignored.

The NGO, therefore, draws the conclusion that beyond the incompatibility of the SNC and the UN standards, the pressure of many extremist clerics and fanaticized crowds can easily kill any reform attempt as long as perpetrators of intellectual terrorism, violence and hate crimes remain unpunished and can continue terrorising 2.1 million teachers in Pakistan.

In view of the present scenario of education and its consequent fallout on the human rights situation in the country, the Co-ordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour le Liberte de Conscience has made the following recommendations to the United Nations:

1. The United Nations should urge the authorities of Pakistan to make the SNC compatible with the UN international human rights standards.

2. The UN should effectively protect its 2.1 million teachers against threats and aggression perpetrated by Islamic extremists and prosecute the latter ones.

Article was first published on newageislam.com

The post Pakistan’s education policy blatantly anti-minority, anti-women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The common tone suggested that there is a desperate need to restore, improve, and expand the BEST bus service now seriously threatened by government neglect. The BEST bus service is a low hanging fruit, it requires little investment, it should be supported, it carries millions of people said Rahul Kadri.

The topic was Who is the City for. Very relevant and seldom is this crucial question raised, addressed. The obvious answer is the government needs to give top priority to common people but that is exactly what the authorities are not doing.

The very first question raised by a student after the panel discussion, was from Nikhil Padhan, a fourth year student, pointed to the car centric urban planning which needs to change the general tone I have been hearing at several such meetings is that people are really frustrated by the authorities’ pro-builder, anti-people policies.

All these voices yesterday were independent, genuine. A general complaint I heard was ‘we do not even have proper space to walk’ and cross the road and here we are bombarded by talk of fancy projects which have at best limited use for the common man.

The coastal road, as Rahul Kadri pointed out, serves only a few thousand motorists even as basic problems of millions remain ‘unattended.’ And the programme ended with a vigorous rendering of Maharashtra Geet in Marathi Garja Maharashtra Majha.

The gathering was not politically motivated at all. It began on a very traditional note with Saraswati Wandan. The invocation to the goddess of learning, Ya Kundendu Tushaar, stressing the importance of knowledge and the need to remove ignorance.

Since the programme was organised by the Constitutional Law Society of the college and public transport figured prominently in the discussion, I must mention that justice Hemant Gokhale, travelled by a local train to Vasai recently to felicitate social worker Manvel Tascano on his completing 75 years. Mr Gokhale had appeared as a lawyer years earlier for Tascano in cases pertaining to the green Vasai campaign and other issues.

It is best to make optimum use of public transport if we take it at least during off peak hours, when there is little rush.

(The author is a Mumbaikar and formerly senior journalist in The Times of India; this piece of writing is from the author’s Meta FB post)

The post Who is Mumbai for? Students and Mumbaikars ponder the question appeared first on SabrangIndia.

• At the age of 26 a youth from the poorest landless community took it upon himself to do the impossible task of breaking a huge mountain to the extent of carving out a life-saving path that thousands of villagers needed urgently.
• He toiled tirelessly for 22 years, yes 22 (1960-82), no less, and finally succeeded in his objective.
• Acclaim followed, but instead of just basking in glory he undertook an 800 km journey on foot to Delhi to mobilise efforts for resolving various problems of his village ad nearby areas.

This brief summary of the work of Dashrath Manjhi, also called the Mountain Man, may give an indication of his deep determination and social commitment which won admiration at the highest levels in India, but by itself this does not do full justice to the nobility of his ideas and life, as this writer discovered during a recent visit to his village and work-area in Gaya district of Bihar.

I located elderly persons who had known him and seen him at work, and the picture that emerged from these discussions is that he was a follower of Sant Kabir, the bhakti movement’s famous poet-saint of medieval times, who has remained one of the strongest and most revered voices since then of spirituality based on justice, truth, non-violence, being helpful to others and leading a simple and pious life free from all hypocrisy and falsehoods. Sant Kabir remained true to his principles, convictions and truth in the middle of many difficulties, attacks and threats. His poetry and teachings inspire his followers to continue their noble work even in the middle of other people discouraging or even ridiculing them, and to maintain the steadfastness and continuity of their work and mission in the middle of all the ups and downs.

All this this can be seen in the life and work of Dashrath Manjhi. Born in 1934, he lived in Gehlaur village of Mohra block. As Satyanarain, who had known Dashrath well, told me–Dashrath was very polite to others but at times when needed he could tell some bitter truths of life without being rude. People from the manjhi community to when I spoke, said that whenever they went to mountains they found him at work just carrying some sattu in his jhola (bag), a legume based powder which could give some energy and coolness when taken mixed with water, something he would have really needed while working in the mountains here which can become very hot in the summer.

In 1960 Dashrath had gone to work on the mountain and his wife Phalguni Devi injured herself badly while carrying food and water for him. Looking at her injuries, he took a pledge to create a path in the mountain that may become a life-saver for many people. This would give a safe path to everyone going to the other side, and in addition would bring much closer the health, educational and other facilities of the nearest town to the people on this side of the mountain (the distance could come down from about 55 km to just about 15 km or so).

Contrary to some publicised accounts, several villagers told me that Phalguni Devi did not die from these injuries but instead continued to be very helpful to her husband and the pledge he had taken. She died some years later.

Using the simplest tools like hammer and chisel, Dashrath embarked on his great journey that was to be completed in 22 years. Initially people ridiculed him and some even called him ‘mad’ to take up such a huge task and to work so devotedly for this. Undaunted, Dashrath continued this work on regular, daily basis.

Here we must not forget that he came from the poorest community, called mahadalit in Bihar, and had to also earn his livelihood to support his four member family (which included a son and a daughter).

Initially most villagers had ridiculed or neglected Dashrath, but once his work of a few years started showing some signs of leading to success, some villagers also started lending a helping hand now and then.

Finally in 1982 Dashrath succeeded in creating a path which was wide enough for a bullock-cart to pass. Later the government helped to widen this and build a proper road.

Dashrath now decided to go and meet big government officials in Delhi to take up several development works much needed by his village and neighbouring communities. Education and health were emphasized by him.

However as he could not buy a rail ticket he was asked to get down from the train after covering a short distance. He now decided to walk to Delhi along the railway track, hoping that this would perhaps draw even more attention to his objectives of promoting development work in his village and neighbouring villages.

An elderly farmer of a neighbouring village told me that Dashrath had managed to meet the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi and had shared with him a press clipping of this.

Later Dashrath also went to meet the Chief Minister of Bihar Mr. Nitish Kumar who gave him a lot of respect.

However at the time of his increasing fame, Dashrath retained his simplicity. A local teacher Virendra Paswan told me that when he was in a train word spread that Dashrath Manjhi is in the same coach and there was a rush of people just to catch a glimpse of Dashrath. However, Paswan said, even at that time Dashrath was wearing dress made from a jute sack, as he often did earlier too.

In 2007 Dashrath was admitted to AIIMS hospital in Delhi where he breathed his last on August 17. A memorial as well as gates were constructed in his village in his honour.

At the same time, however, the people of the Manjhi community and other landless and poorest Dalit community members continue to live in this village in great poverty and several of them told me that even their housing situation is precarious. The government   needs to do much more to help them with a sense of urgency.

Meanwhile the SBI Foundation has taken up an admirable initiative called SAMMAAN with implementation assistance of Sahbhagi Shikshan Kendra to honour the memory of Dashrath Manjhi in the form of many-sided efforts in his village to improve education, health, infrastructure and livelihoods that have been widely appreciated here.

The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071.       

The post Mountain Man Dasrath Manjhi: A Kabir panthi from the MahaDalit community who toiled for 22 years to make the impossible possible appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A film that holds up a mirror

Director Sandhya Suri, speaking to The Guardian, expressed her deep disappointment and frustration with the CBFC’s decision, calling it both “surprising and heart-breaking.” She pointed out that Santosh does not introduce new or unheard-of themes in Indian cinema—misogyny, caste-based violence, and police brutality have been explored before. However, the film’s raw and unflinching approach to these issues, particularly the intersection of caste and gender violence, appears to have made it a target.

The CBFC demanded extensive and widespread cuts that would have rendered the film incomprehensible. Suri explained that she had attempted to navigate the censorship process to ensure the film’s Indian release but found the demands too severe. “It was just too difficult to make those cuts and have a film that still made sense, let alone stayed true to its vision,” she said while speaking to The Guardian. This reflects a troubling trend where artistic expression is curbed when it critiques systemic issues, particularly those involving state institutions and caste oppression.

Santosh follows a young widow who joins the police force and investigates the murder of a Dalit girl, confronting the deep-seated biases within the police system. The film does not glorify violence or sensationalise its themes; instead, it holds up a mirror to the harsh realities of policing in India. This realistic depiction, however, seems to be what makes it “too dangerous” for Indian audiences in the eyes of the CBFC.

The selective policing of cinema

The timing of the CBFC’s decision is particularly alarming. India’s cultural sphere is increasingly policed, with politically sensitive films often facing severe pushback. Filmmakers have been subjected to hate campaigns, police cases, and even pre-emptive censorship by streaming platforms. The suppression of Santosh is part of this larger trend, where narratives that expose systemic issues—particularly caste and gender-based oppression—are stifled under the pretext of maintaining public harmony.

Meanwhile, films that align with ultra nationalist narratives receive not just clearance but state-backed promotions. On the same day Santosh faced rejection, the Parliament is set to host a special screening of Chhaava, a film that delves into the life of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and other key ministers will attend the screening, demonstrating the state’s endorsement of historical narratives that serve its ideological positioning.

This brazen double standard is not new. The Kashmir Files, a film widely criticised for its Islamophobic propaganda, was not only approved but personally endorsed by the Prime Minister and made tax-free in multiple BJP-ruled states. At government-organised screenings, officials and ministers publicly praised its narrative, weaponising cinema to push a divisive political agenda. Similarly, The Kerala Story, which fabricated and exaggerated figures on religious conversions to stoke anti-Muslim paranoia, received aggressive state backing, with leaders openly promoting it as “eye-opening” despite fact-checkers exposing its falsehoods.

Beyond mere approval, the state has actively turned these films into ideological instruments, using public resources and platforms to amplify their reach. Theatres were pressured to increase screenings, school and college students were urged to watch. Meanwhile, independent and critical films face endless scrutiny, unreasonable censorship demands, and outright bans, ensuring that only narratives serving the ruling dispensation’s interests dominate public discourse.

This isn’t just about film censorship—it’s about manufacturing consent. While Santosh and other politically inconvenient films are silenced, those that reinforce majoritarian victimhood, vilify minorities, and sanitise state violence are rewarded.

Notably, Chhaava has already been referenced in recent political discourse, particularly by Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who linked the film to the recent Nagpur violence. The said communal clash erupted on March 17 after right-wing groups, including the VHP and Bajrang Dal, called for the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb—a demand seemingly re-fuelled by the film’s narrative. The state’s willingness to amplify such sentiments while silencing a film that critiques police violence and caste oppression exposes the glaring hypocrisy in India’s censorship policies.

The real threat to public discourse

The CBFC’s actions reveal an unsettling reality: films that challenge power structures and expose systemic failures are deemed threats, while those that reinforce dominant historical and ideological narratives are promoted. If Santosh had glorified police violence rather than critiquing it, or if it had focused on a sanitised version of reality, it would likely have faced no resistance. Instead, it’s honest and necessary portrayal of caste-based and gender violence has led to its suppression.

Suri, while acknowledging that she had anticipated challenges in securing an Indian release, remains committed to making the film accessible to Indian audiences. “It was vitally important for me that the very people affected by these issues were able to see it,” she said, reflecting on how the 2012 Nirbhaya case had initially inspired the film. However, with no appeals process available within the CBFC, the only recourse is legal action—a costly and time-consuming battle.

Santosh represents everything that the ruling party fears; that’s why they banned this film. https://t.co/9l5mUzmq6F pic.twitter.com/FqfjMfgJpC

— Nakshatra (@ghalibkakhayal) March 27, 2025

A disturbing pattern

The double standard is glaring. While Santosh is barred from Indian screens, Chhaava receives a state-endorsed platform. The former critiques state institutions and highlights marginalised voices; the latter reinforces a narrative that conveniently aligns with contemporary right-wing politics. The choice of which stories are allowed to be told—and which are deemed too “controversial”—reflects the increasingly constrained space for critical discourse in Indian cinema.

This is not just about one film. The suppression of Santosh signals a larger, more disturbing pattern: the systematic silencing of voices that challenge power while elevating narratives that serve ideological interests. If Indian cinema is to remain a space for artistic expression and social critique, these barriers to free expression must be challenged. Otherwise, India’s cultural landscape will continue to be shaped not by its artists, but by censors who fear the truth.

Related:

Fiction as history and history honestly portrayed: a tale of two films and a documentary

Congress Radio, the power of revolutionary change: Lessons from ‘Ae Watan Mere Watan’, the film

Films building up  a majoritarian narrative: Swatantraveer Savarkar

Déjà vu, a film that depicts the chilling effects of corporate-contract farming, resonates with Indian farmer’s protests

The post India’s Censorship Hypocrisy: Ban on Santosh and promotion of Chhaava appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What happens when home is not just a place, but a feeling slipping through your fingers? This is a novel that asks not only where we come from, but where we go when the world fractures around us.

“The Hybrid Wanderers“ by Ashok Kaul is a novel that paints a portrait of Kashmir’s fractured society, set against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. Through its three central characters—a Kashmiri Muslim (Shafi) who left for the USA in the 1970s, his Kashmiri Pandit friend (Sudhir) who settled in America, and a young Maulvi (Shadab) whose enigmatic presence leaves an indelible mark—the book explores themes of migration, cultural erosion, and the search for identity. In their intersecting stories, the soul of Kashmir, torn and tested, finds its reflection.

Ashok Kaul retired as a Sociology Professor from Banaras Hindu University. Kaul left Kashmir in the 1970s for higher education in Varanasi. His family endured the painful displacement faced by Kashmiri Pandits during the 1980s militancy, a tragedy that informs the novel’s exploration of loss and alienation. Kaul’s narrative reflects both the syncretic culture of Kashmir and the disruption brought by decades of violence and political upheaval.

The novel delves into three distinct phases in Kashmir’s history: the post-independence era, militancy years, and post-COVID times. The post-independence era, marked by shared existence between Kashmiri Muslims and Pandits, draws inspiration from the teachings of Lal Ded and Nund Rishi. These 14th-century mystics, representing Kashmiri Shaivism and Sufism respectively, shaped a syncretic culture that valued coexistence and mutual respect. Shafi’s return to Kashmir is driven by a desire to rediscover the remnants of this harmonious past.

The militancy years depict the deterioration of societal values as violence and political unrest tore through the valley. The rise of militancy, fueled by support from Pakistan and local elites, promised prosperity but ultimately led to disarray. The Kashmiri Muslims who embraced militant activities found themselves grappling with drug addiction and shattered family dynamics.

Meanwhile, the forced migration of Kashmiri Pandits disrupted the cultural and social fabric of the valley. Sudhir’s character symbolizes the displaced Pandit community, whose economic success abroad contrasts with their loss of rootedness and traditions.

The post-COVID phase captures the economic and demographic shifts in Kashmir, with an influx of migrant laborers from states like Bihar and West Bengal. Shadab Maulvi emerges as a figure of hope, admired by Kashmiri elites and migrant workers. However, his mysterious disappearance leaves unanswered questions about the changing dynamics of the region. The novel highlights the tension between the local population and migrants, reflecting the broader challenges of migration and identity.

Kaul’s writing combines sociological analysis with fiction, which makes the book insightful but demanding. The characters’ lengthy, jargon-filled monologues may resonate more with Sociology students than with casual readers. While the book provides valuable commentary on cultural and social shifts, it avoids critically examining contentious issues like the abrogation of Article 370. This lack of political depth may disappoint readers seeking a more nuanced perspective.

Despite its limitations, The Hybrid Wanderers is a timely exploration of migration, cultural identities, and societal divides. The novel serves as a reminder that the persecution and displacement of communities, whether Kashmiri Pandits or Muslims elsewhere in India, come at a cost to everyone. It cautions against the dangers of complacency in the face of injustice, urging readers to reflect on the shared losses that emerge from fractured societies.

Courtesy: The Aidem

The post Syncretic Dreams, Shattered Realities: Kashmir in “The Hybrid Wanderers” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Outside the auditorium, a long queue assembled in the lobby of the O’Brien Science Building. Most of them were Indian students. Eventually, I began conversing with the person ahead of me and we found seats together. He was in his late twenties, doing his masters, and had previously worked at a large e-commerce MNC (multi-national company) before moving to Ireland. I asked him why he was attending today’s talk by the foreign minister. He said that he was a big admirer of Dr. S. Jaishankar and his work, as well as ‘other leaders’ like him.

According to him, Dr. Jaishankar was a ‘smart’ and ‘bold’ person who cared for the country’s interests and how Indians were represented abroad. Challenging his point, I brought up the recent deportations of illegal Indian immigrants from the United States and the minister’s tepid response to the matter. He replied saying the immigrants had committed a crime by being in the States illegally and therefore it was right they were sent back. ‘In chains?’ I added. No, he said. ‘That went too far. But America will be America.’

As for those ‘other leaders’ he said, ‘the thing I like about this government is that they put the country first. The country comes first and then everything else.’ I found this interesting. By putting the country first, he was referring to the government’s unwavering focus on growth and development. I said that not all Indians saw this growth. In fact, most Indians still suffered gruelling poverty, malnutrition, and unemployment. Becoming aware of my political outlook and wanting to avoid further argument, he finally said, ‘everyone has their opinions. And everyone’s opinion matters.’

Meanwhile, the auditorium filled to its capacity. The students were visibly excited to see the Foreign Minister. Observing them, I became aware of the possibility that many students here may share my friend’s views. Since coming to Ireland, I’ve had mixed feelings encountering large groups of Indians. Many of them expect you to speak in Hindi, even in a foreign land, which as a South Indian I am not eager to oblige. Then there’s a cautionary feeling; one that comes with being a minority in India. I first gauge the political leanings of the people I interact with, some of whom under the guise of being ‘non-political’, defer in favour of the ruling party.

Here in Ireland, I am far away from the religious violence at home. Yet I find it strange carrying on conversations with supporters of the ruling party, pretending their views shouldn’t affect the pleasure of their company.

Why beat around the bush? I thought. I asked him frankly what he thought about the divisive politics of the government — the remaking of India as a Hindu nation, and the rise of hate speech and violence against Christians and Muslims. In response, he said that every government had its own variety of politics. Hindu-Muslim was just the ruling party’s version of it. In the end it was about winning elections, in other words — power. I was oddly relieved to hear this answer. It seemed analysed from a neutral but nevertheless, ruthlessly pragmatic standpoint.

‘But,’ he continued. ‘There must be a balance of power. Hindus have nowhere else to go in this world. What if something were to happen to us? There must be mutual respect. We respect all religions. But they should also respect us.’ By ‘they’ he meant Muslims, whom he perceived as a looming threat to the existence of Hindus.

I asked, in a country of 1.4 billion, where the majority was Hindu, Hinduism being the third largest religion in the world after Christianity and Islam, how were Muslims in India a threat to Hindus? Who lived in the constant fear of having their houses demolished, or being lynched by a mob driving home from work? In Ireland, a homicide makes it to the front page of every major publication in the country. In India, crimes against Muslim Indians and Dalits are hardly ever reported. With first-hand experience, we both laughed at the irony of this reality. In Ireland people were valued as human beings.

Most of all, I wanted to tell my friend that as a Christian I no longer felt safe in India, neither did I feel I belonged. That I was tired of being called a rice bag, a cultural traitor, with an insane desire to go around evangelizing and converting people. That it had become difficult seeing churches attacked and burnt, and parishioners beat up during our festivals. That I had grown up with Muslims, and watching their mere existence demonised with repeated calls for their slaughter was painful. That if it was Muslims bearing the maximum brunt of hatred now, it would be the Christians next. That his reasons for leaving the country and mine were very different. That I worried about my family and felt guilty I had left them behind. Did he know that feeling?

He seemed to agree with everything I was saying, yet there was something immutable in his stance. Who was I anyway, to come one day and challenge his views? Like he said, all opinions were personal and had no bearing on the other. But his opinion did matter. We were sitting in a foreign country where I considered myself safe. Because I didn’t feel safe in India, and that was directly because of his opinion and a good number of Indians who shared it.

To diffuse the tension, he laughed and said that he personally did not believe in religious discrimination, and had close Muslim and Christian friends. He apologetically repeated his first point, ‘people do anything for power. At the end the day, the powerful man rules. It’s sad, but it is the way it is.’

Forty-five minutes late, Dr. Jaishankar arrived dressed in a grey suit and tie, green for the occasion. Walking down the aisle, he was received with thumping applause. The meeting was attended by Irish and Indian ambassadors Kevin Kelly and Akhilesh Mishra as well as higher-ups and academics from UCD. The title of his lecture was ‘India’s View of the World’; an interesting topic in a time afflicted with polarisation, several major conflicts, and rising inequality. Yet apart from mentioning the developed world’s failure to meet SDGs (sustainable developmental goals), and vaguely reaffirming India’s neutrality on the Russia-Ukraine war, Dr. Jaishankar said little about what India thought of the world.

The talk seemed more about presenting India as a global superpower — robust growth, soon to be third largest economy, increasing number of airports, digitalised economy, and technological adeptness, were points he stressed on. Similarly, talk of global workplaces and collaboration in highly niche sectors like AI, drone manufacture, datacentres, and space exploration delivered in a ‘you need us more than we need you’ tone, took up most of the lecture.

Even the Q&A seemed curated with pre-selected questions to bolster this progressive and dominating image of the country.

The students were not disappointed. Every attempt at humour in the minister’s measured manner was met with laughter and delight. Every word clung to with rapt attention. My new friend laughed especially hard and clapped the loudest at the end of the talk. Looking around the audience, projecting my nausea for Dr. Jaishankar’s undeserved adulation, I realised a lot of the students were just happy to see someone in their corner. An hour before, while I waited in the queue outside the auditorium, I remembered being struck by the attire of the students around me. Most Indian students wear very basic winter jackets here. They come in dull colours, are of flimsy material, rarely fit, and are worn for the sake of warmth rather than style.

It’s not easy for Indian students studying abroad. Unlike the diversity focused college brochures, the study abroad experience for Indians is usually a lonely one, where students find themselves struggling to integrate into a new culture. They pay extraordinarily high fees (on loan) in a highly disparate currency, work stressful part-time jobs, and are for the most part broke the entire time. Their courses are chosen not out of passion, but to match the country’s Critical Skills List for the prospect of securing relevant jobs and permanent residence. They endure years of hardship to achieve one objective — making it, in a developed nation. In such conditions, symbolic gestures such as Dr. Jaishankar’s visit don’t go unappreciated.

Students cheered when Dr. Jaishankar called for a friendly visa-policy in the EU, and considered increasing shorter flights from Delhi to Dublin. These things matter to students. Hate politics, massive inequality, and upheaval of constitutional institutions back home aren’t relevant to their aspirations. If they manage to secure high-paying jobs and pay off their loans, then for all purposes, real or inflated, the government has done its work. Effectively, the government’s politics are benign and can be overlooked as long as growth, or at least the illusion of it, continued. It is selfish, wilfully ignorant, and prejudiced, but it works.

For the Indian diaspora there is another level of complexity, which is an internal feeling of cultural and racial insecurity. Indians want to be seen at par with everyone else. They wish to shed the timid, shy, thickly accented, English fumbling, and impoverished image the world has of them. Hence, the obsession with representation.

It was enough that Dr. Jaishankar was a high ranking minister, a charming man in a suite who spoke with erudition and was highly educated (He is an author of several books and has a Ph.D in International Relations). He deserved adulation not because of what he said or did, but because of what he represented to us on that stage. Speaking in front of Irish officials and university authorities, he represented what Indians could be — powerful and respected.

The BJP’s idea of development and progress is the same — symbolic gestures that indulge the aspirations and deep insecurities of the Indian psyche. The Vande Bharat train, grand airports, the perfunctory language of globalism, high growth, data, drones, and AI, are developmentally symbolic efforts to make India worthy of itself in the Western gaze. India’s view of the world is really India’s view of itself. To the Indian student subsisting on supermarket bought sandwiches and renting a dingy room in the suburbs, the narrative of the unstoppable Indian is something to draw hope and inspiration from. It validates their struggle.

The humiliating spectacle of Indian citizens handcuffed, shackled at their feet and dragged through a runway, and the governments’ failure to address it, is a case for cosmic irony. What can India say against ill-treatment of Indians overseas when it has itself become a model for far-right nationalism under the Hindutva project? Disdain for DEI policies in American Companies (which affect Ireland as well), curtailing H1Bs, and the ‘Normalise Indian hate’ climate currently unfolding in the Trumpian dystopia hurts Indians abroad. India has lost its moral ground in voicing out against racism because of what it does to its own, because nationalism is based on the consolidation of identities and suppression of all others. As countries progress toward the right and ire against immigrants rises, India shouldn’t be surprised when it points the finger and finds three pointing back — Muslim, Dalit, and Christian.

I don’t think my friend hated minorities. But the privilege of not being at the receiving end, occupied in his own aspirational struggle led him to have a certain blindness. In this case, we’ll call it prejudice. It doesn’t occur to him that Indians do well regardless of the hype of supremacy, because we are a brilliant people, and succeed wherever we go.

(The author is a student at the University College Dublin-UCD)

Related:

Why is the Govt of India silent on the spurt of attacks on Muslims, Adivasis?

Targeted attacks continue as Bajrang Dal’s disturbing trend of violence against Muslims goes unchecked

Multiple incidents of Muslims being targeted by extremist reported, attacks included hate speech and discrimination

The post The paradox of nationalism & Indian representation abroad: S. Jaishankar’s visit to my university appeared first on SabrangIndia.