Public servants and constitutional obligations 

Under the Indian Constitution, IAS officers are bound by principles of secularism and non-discriminatory governance. Articles 25-28 of the Constitution establish the framework of religious freedom, explicitly prohibiting the state from promoting or endorsing any particular faith. Additionally, the All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, specifically Rule 5(1), mandate that civil servants must maintain political and religious neutrality in official functions and refrain from activities that could be construed as aligning with any religious ideology. The question arises: Does this visit align with these constitutional mandates, or does it indicate a shift towards a religiously aligned bureaucracy?

Religious bureaucracy: A growing trend? 

1. Babri masjid demolition and civil servants’ involvement

This is not the first time such an event has occurred. Since the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992, there has been a visible shift in the engagement of public servants in religious affairs. A senior IAS officer from the 1992 batch recently admitted to celebrating the Babri Masjid demolition while undergoing training in Mussoorie. In her social media post, she justified the act, calling it a moment of “something powerful, something positive, something auspicious.” The revelation underscores a troubling history of bias within the bureaucracy and the risks of a majoritarian outlook creeping into civil services.

2. Lifting of the ban on civil servants in RSS

In 2023, the Central Government revoked a 58-year-old ban on civil servants participating in RSS activities, further eroding the secular principles of governance. Critics argue that the RSS ideology conflicts with constitutional morality, which emphasizes pluralism and inclusivity. This move has sparked significant debate on whether civil servants can maintain impartiality while being affiliated with an organization that has strong ideological leanings. The decision raises concerns about the politicization of the bureaucracy and its impact on the neutrality of administrative functions.

3. The Kerala WhatsApp group controversy

The Kerala government recently suspended two IAS officers, K. Gopalakrishnan and N. Prasanth, for misconduct related to a religion-based WhatsApp group. Gopalakrishnan allegedly created the group, named “Mallu Hindu Officers,” which included only Hindu officers, prompting objections for violating secular values. Following widespread criticism, the group was deleted, and Gopalakrishnan claimed his phone was hacked. Intelligence agencies raised concerns over this first instance of a religiously exclusive group among IAS officials. This incident follows another controversy involving IPS officer M.R. Ajith Kumar, who faced scrutiny for meeting RSS leaders without government approval. The Kerala government swiftly suspended the officers, reinforcing the principle that religion should not influence administrative duties.

4. The Tamil Nadu preaching controversy

Tamil Nadu IAS officer C. Umashankar, a 1990 batch officer, was prohibited by the state government from engaging in religious preaching. A Dalit Christian convert, he had been leading evangelical sessions, arguing that his fundamental rights under Article 25 of the Constitution allowed him to propagate his faith. The Tamil Nadu government, however, warned that this violated the All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, which require civil servants to remain neutral in religious matters. Former Cabinet Secretary T.S.R. Subramanian commented that civil servants cannot publicly profess religion and must either resign or abide by service rules.

Impact on governance and public perception 

The IAS probationers’ visit and other recent developments have broader implications for secular and non-discriminatory governance. If civil servants are trained in the management of Hindu temples, should similar training be extended to mosques, churches, and gurdwaras? These incidents raise concerns over bureaucratic alignment with religious institutions. The increasing alignment of bureaucracy with religious groups erodes constitutional democracy, which is based on pluralism and separation of powers. Minority communities may perceive bias in governance, weakening trust in an impartial administration.

The way forward 

While public servants must understand diverse cultural and religious contexts, their training and conduct should be neutral and inclusive, covering all major religious institutions. They must avoid direct participation in religious rituals and focus on administrative management rather than religious engagement. Adhering to strict secular principles is essential to prevent the politicisation of the bureaucracy. With secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution, ensuring that public servants uphold neutrality is crucial.

These recent developments, from WhatsApp group exclusivity to bureaucratic celebrations of Babri demolition and participation in religious management, raise critical questions on the evolving relationship between state and religion—questions that India must address to remain true to its constitutional ethos.

Related:

When the Supreme Court Firmly De-linked Religion from Politics

Behind the BJP’s move to lift the 58-year-old ban on the participation of central government officials in RSS activities

The post IAS officers’ religious role raises secular concerns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A humanitarian tragedy in the name of deportation

In a horrifying display of inhumanity, 104 Indian migrants were deported from the United States on a military aircraft with their hands and legs shackled throughout the 40-hour-long journey back to India.

The manner in which these individuals were treated, forced to remain in restraints even while eating has sparked widespread outrage, not just in India but across the global human rights community. The visuals of these migrants, including women, being led in chains onto a U.S. military aircraft highlight the sheer disregard for basic human dignity.

These deportations were carried out as part of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive crackdown on undocumented immigrants. The U.S. Border Patrol Chief even shared a video on social media boasting about the successful deportation of illegal aliens, a move that further inflamed tensions in India.

USBP and partners successfully returned illegal aliens to India, marking the farthest deportation flight yet using military transport. This mission underscores our commitment to enforcing immigration laws and ensuring swift removals.

If you cross illegally, you will be removed. pic.twitter.com/WW4OWYzWOf

— Chief Michael W. Banks (@USBPChief) February 5, 2025

While deportations are a sovereign right of any nation, their execution must comply with humanitarian standards. The blatant criminalisation of these migrants, who left India in search of a better future, reflects a dangerous trend of treating economic migrants as hardened criminals.

India’s legal recourse under international law and human rights violations

The forced deportation of Indian migrants under inhumane conditions raises serious concerns under international human rights law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), particularly Article 5, explicitly prohibits “torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by both India and the U.S., similarly prohibits such treatment under Article 7. The shackling of Indian deportees throughout their journey amounts to cruel and degrading treatment, which is in direct violation of these international norms (UDHR, ICCPR).

Additionally, the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), though not ratified by the U.S., establishes that no individual should be subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment, including during deportation. The treatment of Indian deportees also violates the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which prohibits arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, and inhumane deportation procedures.

Legal experts have pointed out that India has the right to lodge a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Committee over the manner in which its citizens were deported. International law allows a country to challenge the mistreatment of its nationals abroad, and given the clear violation of human rights in this case, India could formally seek redress through the UN system. However, the Modi government has taken no such action, further underscoring its failure to defend Indian citizens against inhumane treatment by foreign nations.

Colombia’s bold stand vs. India’s silence

If there was ever a moment that underscored the Modi government’s diplomatic weakness, it is this. Colombia, a much smaller country in terms of geopolitical influence, demonstrated how a nation should stand up for its citizens.

When the United States attempted to deport Colombian nationals under similar conditions, the South American nation took a firm stand: it refused to accept U.S. military flights carrying deportees.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro strongly condemned the treatment of his citizens and ensured their dignified return by dispatching a presidential plane to pick them up. In doing so, Colombia made it clear that it would not allow its nationals to be treated as criminals.

Contrast this with India, where Modi’s government has not even raised a strong diplomatic objection. While the Colombian government exerted its sovereignty and protected its people, India remained passive, allowing the United States to transport its nationals in degrading conditions (Economic Times).

Opposition’s criticism of Modi’s failure

As soon as the images of the shackled deportees surfaced, opposition parties in India staged dramatic protests. Congress MPs, including Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, appeared in Parliament wearing handcuffs to symbolize the shame and humiliation India suffered due to Modi’s inaction. Shashi Tharoor, a vocal critic of the government, stated that while India must accept its nationals back, it should never tolerate such degrading treatment by a foreign nation. Other opposition leaders, including Asaduddin Owaisi and Akhilesh Yadav, slammed the government for its failure to ensure dignified deportation.

“For 40 hours, we were handcuffed, our feet tied with chains and we were not allowed to move an inch from our seats. It was worse than hell”: Harvinder Singh

Prime Minister, listen to this man’s pain. Indians deserve Dignity and Humanity, NOT Handcuffs. pic.twitter.com/WUOwUrCvMB

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) February 6, 2025

Dr. Subramanian Swamy, former law minister also condemned Modi’s handling of the situation. Swamy pointed out that Modi’s foreign policy is more focused on personal optics and friendships with Western leaders than on protecting the dignity of Indian citizens abroad. He further stated that the government’s failure to act decisively will only embolden other nations to treat Indians with similar disregard.

Dr. Swamy tweeted: “Will Trump answer? Modi has no guts to demand an answer on the way they were sent back to India—like goats. Trump could have asked our Embassy in Washington to take back illegal Indian immigrants. Modi is a coward. He cannot even stand up to Maldives and Nepal, let alone China.”

In another tweet, he said: “The US govt led by Trump has been serially insulting India. Yet Modi is craving to go to the US and crawl before Trump. I demand Modi postpone his visit to the US in protest of the insults, otherwise Parliament should censure him for going against our nation’s interest.”

A ‘Vishwaguru’ that fails its own people

The Modi government has frequently claimed that India is a rising global power, a Vishwaguru that commands respect internationally. However, this incident proves otherwise. When a leader fails to ensure the basic dignity of their own citizens, all claims of global leadership ring hollow.

While Colombia and Brazil rejected inhumane deportation flights, India has remained silent and submissive. Modi’s government did not even issue a strong diplomatic protest, let alone demand an apology or a policy change from the U.S.

If Colombia, a nation with significantly fewer resources and influence than India, can ensure respect for its citizens, why can’t Modi? The answer is clear: under this government, nationalism is only a political slogan, not a principle applied in real-world diplomacy.

As deported Indians return home in chains, the question that haunts every citizen is this: Is this the global leadership Modi promised?

Related:

US Supreme Court ruling means immigrants can be detained indefinitely

US judge blocks Trump administration’s move to end ‘Dreamers’ program

The post Modi government silent as US deports Indians in chains appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Singh was accompanied by BJP’s northeast in-charge Sambit Patra, state party president A Sharda, and 19 MLAs. Patra remained in Imphal to assist in selecting Singh’s successor. His resignation came after a meeting with Union home minister Amit Shah in Delhi on Saturday, amid growing pressure from both BJP legislators and opposition parties. Reports suggested that several BJP MLAs had threatened to sit in the opposition during the no-confidence motion if Singh continued as chief minister.

Supreme Court intervention and allegations of instigating violence

Singh’s resignation followed a Supreme Court directive ordering a central forensic laboratory to investigate leaked audio recordings that purportedly feature the chief minister admitting to having instigated the ethnic violence in Manipur. These tapes, allegedly recorded by a whistle-blower, have been at the centre of fresh legal scrutiny. The Supreme Court, while refusing to draw immediate conclusions, has asked for a forensic report by March 25.

The opposition seized on this development to criticise both Singh and the BJP’s handling of the crisis. Congress leaders accused the BJP of acting only when political survival was at stake rather than addressing the root causes of the ethnic conflict. Senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi stated on X (formerly Twitter) that Singh had “instigated division in Manipur” while Prime Minister Narendra Modi allowed him to continue despite the violence and loss of life. Gandhi accused Modi of turning a blind eye to the suffering in Manipur, saying, “The people of Manipur now await a visit by our Frequent Flier PM who is off to France and the USA—he has neither found the time nor the inclination to visit Manipur in the past twenty months.”

Congress MP Udit Raj also criticised the delay in Singh’s removal. “When the Congress was demanding his removal at the right time, he was not removed. Now, after everything has been ruined, it makes no sense,” he said. Manipur Congress chief K Meghachandra Singh called the resignation a “belated decision” and argued that Singh’s failures had led to “anarchy and a crisis of governance” in the state.

The opposition also pointed to the BJP’s political compulsions as the primary reason behind Singh’s resignation. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh noted that the BJP removed Singh not out of concern for Manipur’s people but to avoid embarrassment in the assembly and prevent a government collapse. Meanwhile, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] issued statements condemning the BJP for allowing Singh to remain in power for so long.

Ethnic conflict, polarisation, and Singh’s role

The resignation also deepened divisions between the Meitei and Kuki communities, both of whom reacted differently to Singh’s exit. Singh, a Meitei leader, was criticised by Kuki groups for his alleged role in the ethnic violence that began on May 3, 2023, and led to over 250 deaths and the displacement of thousands. The Kuki-majority Indigenous Tribal Leaders Forum (ITLF), which had been demanding Singh’s resignation since the violence erupted, said his exit was long overdue. However, the ITLF reiterated that their agitation would continue unless the union government granted a separate administration for the Kuki community. ITLF spokesperson Ginza Vualzong stated, “We believe he knew he would be voted out in the no-confidence motion, and to save his face, he resigned.”

In contrast, Meitei nationalist groups lamented Singh’s resignation. Jeetendra Ningomba, former coordinator of the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (Cocomi), argued that Singh’s exit was ill-timed. “I don’t think it was the right moment for Singh to step down. His resignation will only strengthen Kuki separatist forces in Manipur,” he said.

BJP’s internal rebellion and legislative fallout

Singh’s position within the BJP had been eroding for months, with several MLAs distancing themselves from his leadership. The BJP holds 32 seats in the 59-member Manipur assembly, but it had been losing allies and internal support. Reports suggest that 5-10 BJP MLAs, including ministers, had resolved to switch to the opposition rather than continue backing Singh. Some of the BJP’s own Kuki MLAs, who had withdrawn support for Singh earlier, welcomed his exit. BJP MLA Paolienlal Haokip bluntly reacted to the news, saying, “Good riddance.”

Singh’s rigid stance on the conflict had also alienated the BJP’s partners within the North-East Democratic Alliance (NEDA). Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad Sangma’s National People’s Party (NPP) withdrew support for Singh’s government in November 2024, citing its “complete failure to restore normalcy.” Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma went further, declaring Singh a “liability” for both Manipur and the BJP, even suggesting that President’s Rule would be preferable.

With the loss of support from its allies and internal rebellion brewing, Singh’s resignation became inevitable. His departure averted what would have been a politically damaging no-confidence motion for the BJP government. Following Singh’s exit, Governor Bhalla issued a notification cancelling the budget session of the assembly.

Manipur’s uncertain future and lingering security concerns

Despite Singh’s resignation, tensions in Manipur remain high. On the night of his departure, unidentified gunmen raided an India Reserve Battalion (IRB) outpost in Thoubal district, looting several SLR and AK rifles. The attack underscored the fragile security situation in the state, where armed groups continue to operate amid the ethnic conflict.

The Supreme Court’s investigation into the leaked tapes adds another layer of uncertainty. If the tapes are authenticated, Singh could face legal consequences, further complicating Manipur’s political landscape. The opposition has vowed to continue pressing for accountability, with Congress leaders reiterating their demand for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into Singh’s alleged role in instigating violence. (Detailed report on Supreme Court’s proceedings may be read here)

While Singh’s resignation marks a turning point, it does not resolve the deep-rooted ethnic tensions and governance failures that have plagued Manipur. The BJP now faces the critical task of appointing a new chief minister who can navigate the complex political and ethnic landscape, restore stability, and prevent further deterioration of law and order. However, with unresolved demands from both the Meitei and Kuki communities and an emboldened opposition, Manipur’s political crisis is far from over.

Related:

2024: Peace, a distant dream for Manipur

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Fresh violence grips Manipur: Clashes in Jiribam and widespread protests after rape and brutal killings

“Leaked Intelligence report” on alleged Kuki militants entering Manipur from Myanmar sparks panic, later retracted by authorities

The post Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh resigns amid political turmoil and ethnic unrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Even ancient Indian history, a golden period for them, was manipulated to show the Aryans, their ancestors were the indigenous people of this land. Coming to the freedom movement they first focused on Nehru, the colossus who articulated and practiced secularism in India. He was aware that practicing secularism in India is not easy as large sections of Indian society are in the grip of blind religiosity. He was the one to see the threat of majortarian (Hindu) communalism and equated it to fascism. He said minority communalism was at worst separatist. His mentor Gandhi, though murdered by the one who was trained by RSS and was working for Hindu Mahasabha, could not be demonized easily. Gandhi’s place in the global arena and in the heart of Indian people was at its peak.

Now as the communal right wing feels it is on firm feet, its ideologues are beginning the exercise of over projecting some of his shortcomings and undermining his contribution to freedom. This 30^th January 2025 as the nation was paying tributes to the father of the nation many portals were relaying videos to propagate that Gandhi’s was just one of the efforts in India getting freedom. In various podcasts and social media channels they are propagating that Gandhi’s efforts had just a marginal effect on the British leaving India.

From the last few years glorification of Godse in the form of Twitter storms for ‘Mahatma Godse Amar Rahen’ (Long Live Godse) have been witnessed painfully. Ilk of Poonam Prasun Pandey have been enacting shooting of Gandhi’s effigy and then blood dripping from it have been a common site. Observing national mourning on 30^th January by siren being sounded at 11 AM on 30 January for two-minute silence has been muted. This year the Maharashtra state circular on two-minute silence at 11 AM, did not mention even the name of Gandhi.

As we observed the Gandhi Martyrdom Day on this 30^th January many of these irritants flashed to our minds. He was given the honorific Mahatma by none other than Guru Ravindra Nath Tagore. It is propagated that Gandhi-Congress ignored Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The fact is that Bose and Congress had some differences on strategy but the core agenda of freedom from British rule remained the same. It was Netaji who addressed Gandhi as ‘father of the Nation’. He also named one of his battalions of Azad Hind Fauz (Free India Army) as Gandhi battalion. It was Gandhi-Congress who fought the cases of prisoners of Fauz by forming a committee with top lawyers like Bhulabhai Desai, Kailashnath Katju and Jawaharlal Nehru.

Also, the propaganda that Gandhi did not do anything to save Bhagat Singh’s hanging is being instilled into the social common sense. They hide the fact that it was Gandhi who wrote to Lord Irwin to cancel Bhagat Singh’s hanging. Irwin showed his inability to accept this request as all British officers in Punjab had threatened to resign if Gandhi’s request was accepted. Most interestingly Bhagat Singh requests his father Kishan Singh to support ‘General’ of the Freedom movement (Gandhi), which his father did by working for Congress.

The attempt to undermine Gandhi comes in the form of nit-picking the three major movements which Gandhi launched. The non-cooperation movement of 1920 which was the first real attempt to involve the average people in the struggle against British, as per them was ineffective as it was withdrawn due to the Chauri Chaura incident, where the crowd had burnt to the police station killing many policemen. Also, they allege that Gandhi’s support for Khilafat was demoralizing, as it related to supporting the restoration of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Let’s remember it was this move which brought in Muslims in large numbers into the vortex of popular anti-British struggle. Also, Mappila (Moplah) rebellion is supposed to have been an aggressive move by Muslims against Hindus. The fact is this rebellion was a rebellion of poor Muslim farmers against Janmis (Landlords, who were mostly Hindus), and the British authorities were protecting the interests of landlords.

As far as Civil disobedience of 1930 the counter is that it just led to Gandhi–Irwin Pact. This pact was a major step in furtherance of the pressure by Indian freedom Struggle. The accusation is that the Salt March did not lead to abolition of the salt tax which it aimed at. The fact is people could produce salt after this, its illegality was lifted.

As far as the 1942 ‘Do or Die’, ‘British Quit India’, it is true that as Gandhi and the major leaders of Congress were arrested; the movement did take a violent turn. The point is, it created a huge awareness about getting freedom from the British, it came as a culmination of the long process of creating mass consciousness which began picking up after the 1920’s Non-Cooperation movement.

There is no denial that revolutionaries, Bhagat Singh and his likes, Subhash Bose’s Azad Hind Fauz and revolt of Naval ratings, were valuable add-ons to the whole process of rising consciousness among people towards longing for freedom and cementing the bonds of Indian-ness. Gandhi’s contribution is monumental as it created the fraternity, Indian-ness among the people. As Surendranath Bannerjee very aptly described it as “India: nation in the making”.

These were twin aspects of the freedom movement. One was to struggle against the British and two to ‘build a Nation: India’ through this. Gandhi understood that bringing people together is the core of the process of getting freedom. A Recent flourishing attempt by Right wing communalists totally ignores the process of people, masses waking up and constituting India, as a nation. This was the greatest endeavours for which Gandhi is really the ‘Father of the Nation’.

Also Read:

Between Hope and Despair: 75 Years of Indian Republic

When did India Get Independence?

Is Narayan Guru Part of Sanatan Dharma?

The post Attempts to Undermine Gandhi’s Contribution to Freedom Movement: Musings on Gandhi’s Martyrdom Day appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Baddi and Miskin, who are currently facing trial for their involvement in these targeted assassinations, later paid visits to the Siddharoodha Matha and Moorusavira Matha, reinforcing their alignment with right-wing religious factions. In a further sign of institutional complicity, banners hailing them as “Hindu tigers” were put up in parts of Hubballi, including near the Tulaja Bhavani temple, before temple authorities belatedly removed them.

A video of the celebration and felicitation may be viewed here:

This grotesque celebration of accused murderers is not an isolated incident. It reflects a broader and deeply troubling pattern within Hindutva extremist circles—one in which individuals who have committed or are accused of committing heinous crimes, including murder, rape, and lynching, are glorified as warriors of their cause rather than held accountable for their actions.

From killers to heroes

The public honouring of Baddi and Miskin comes just months after a similarly shocking episode in October 2024, when two other key accused in the Gauri Lankesh murder—Parashuram Waghmore and Manohar Yadave—were greeted as heroes upon their release from prison. After being granted bail by a Bengaluru sessions court on October 9, 2024, the two men were received in their hometown of Vijayapura with garlands, celebratory chants, and processions organised by the far-right group Sri Rama Sene.

At the centre of this spectacle was Umesh Vandal, a Sri Rama Sene leader who presided over the event as Waghmore and Yadave were draped in saffron shawls and welcomed like returning soldiers. The accused killers, far from showing remorse, went on to publicly pay homage to a statue of Shivaji, a move designed to project themselves as Hindutva warriors fighting a righteous battle. Videos of the event circulated widely on social media, triggering outrage among civil society groups, but drawing no meaningful condemnation from the political establishment.

Adding to the alarming trend, another accused in the Gauri Lankesh murder case, Shrikant Pangarkar, was inducted into the Shiv Sena faction led by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde on October 19, 2024. Pangarkar, a former Maharashtra corporator, had been arrested in 2018 for his role in the assassination conspiracy but was granted bail by the Karnataka High Court in September 2024. The Shiv Sena’s decision to welcome him into its ranks ahead of the Maharashtra assembly elections sparked public outrage, forcing CM Shinde to hurriedly declare the appointment “null and void”—a mere face-saving exercise rather than a principled stand against extremism.

The public felicitations of both the accused in the Bilkis Bano case and the Gauri Lankesh murder case reveal a disturbing pattern of glorifying individuals involved in heinous crimes, particularly those targeting women. In the Bilkis Bano case, the eleven convicts who were responsible for the gang rape and mass murder during the 2002 Gujarat riots were released early and celebrated by right-wing groups, sending a chilling message of impunity for sexual violence against women. Similarly, the accused in the brutal murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh, a prominent woman who fearlessly challenged the forces of Hindutva, were honoured in a manner that undermines the seriousness of the crime. Both cases highlight how violence against women—whether in the form of sexual assault or political assassination—has been co-opted by extremist factions to advance their divisive agendas, while the state’s failure to hold the perpetrators accountable sends a dangerous message about the erosion of justice and respect for women in India. The glorification of such criminals not only trivialises the suffering of the victims but also emboldens future acts of gender-based violence and political murder.

The Gauri Lankesh case: A murder that exposed a network of hate

The killing of journalist Gauri Lankesh in 2017 was not an isolated act of violence. It was part of a calculated campaign against dissenters, rationalists, and progressive voices who dared to challenge Hindutva supremacy. Lankesh, a fearless journalist, was gunned down outside her home in Bengaluru on September 5, 2017, a brutal assassination that sent shockwaves across India.

The Karnataka Police’s Special Investigation Team (SIT) eventually arrested 17 individuals, all linked to the extremist outfit Sanatan Sanstha, revealing a vast network of Hindutva militants operating across multiple states. The investigation found that Waghmore was the shooter, with Miskin as the getaway driver. Their case, like that of many others charged with politically motivated killings, has been dragged out in court, leading to bail for several accused on procedural grounds.

The SIT uncovered further links between the Gauri Lankesh murder and other high-profile assassinations of rationalists, including MM Kalburgi, Govind Pansare, and Narendra Dabholkar. These killings form part of an ideological crusade in which Hindutva extremists systematically target voices that oppose their radical vision of Hindu nationalism.

While legal proceedings remain ongoing, the celebration of the accused makes it clear that for their supporters, these men are not criminals—they are ideological foot soldiers in a war against secularism and rational thought.

A systemic pattern: Hindutva’s hero worship of convicted criminals

The glorification of murder accused in Karnataka is not an aberration—it is part of a well-documented pattern of Hindutva forces celebrating individuals involved in communal violence, sexual violence, and hate crimes.

• 2022: Bilkis Bano Case (Gujarat) – Eleven convicts in the gang-rape and mass murder case were released early and garlanded in Godhra by RSS member Arvind Sisodia, signalling approval of anti-Muslim violence.
• 2020: Bulandshahr Mob Violence (Uttar Pradesh) – Shikhar Agarwal, accused in the mob killing of police officer Subodh Kumar Singh, was honoured by BJP’s Bulandshahr president Anil Sisodia, reinforcing political protection for rioters.
• 2019: Bulandshahr Lynching Case (Uttar Pradesh) – Seven accused in Inspector Singh’s lynching received a hero’s welcome from Bajrang Dal, VHP, and right-wing groups, legitimising vigilantism.
• 2018: Gujarat Pogrom Planner Honoured (Gujarat) – Keka Shastry, a VHP leader who admitted to planning the 2002 Gujarat carnage, was felicitated and praised by BJP leaders, showcasing open endorsement of communal violence.
• 2018: Ajmer Dargah Blast Convict Welcomed (Gujarat) – Bhavesh Patel, convicted in the 2007 Ajmer Dargah blast, was given a grand celebration by BJP and VHP, normalising Hindutva-led terrorism.
• 2018: Minister Felicitates Lynching Convicts (Jharkhand) – Union Minister Jayant Sinha garlanded eight men convicted of lynching coal trader Alimuddin Ansari, highlighting state complicity in mob violence.
• 2018: Kathua Rape Case Protests (Jammu) – BJP leaders and Hindu Ekta Manch members organised rallies in support of men accused of the gang rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl, exposing the communalisation of sexual violence.
• 2013: Muzaffarnagar Riots Accused Honoured (Uttar Pradesh) – BJP’s ‘Human Rights Cell’ felicitated Sangeet Som and Suresh Rana, accused of inciting communal riots that killed over 60 people and displaced thousands.
• 2018: Giriraj Singh Backs Riot-Accused (Bihar) – Union Minister Giriraj Singh visited Bajrang Dal and VHP members jailed for communal riots, portraying them as victims of political persecution.
• 2014: Hindutva Bravery Award for Murder Accused (Maharashtra) – Hindutva groups planned to honour Dhananjay Desai, Hindu Rashtra Sena leader accused of murdering Pune techie Mohsin Sheikh, reinforcing the veneration of violent extremists.

From political patronage to social media glorification, the infrastructure of Hindutva extremism ensures that those who commit violence against minorities, journalists, and rationalists are not just shielded but celebrated. The repeated public honouring of individuals accused or convicted of such crimes is not merely a law-and-order issue; it is a fundamental challenge to the fabric of Indian democracy.

The danger of normalising hate

The message sent by these acts of public glorification is clear: in today’s India, those who commit violence in the name of Hindutva are not just protected—they are exalted. By treating rapists, lynchers, and murderers as heroes, both convicted and accused, the Hindutva ecosystem is ensuring that such crimes will not only continue but will be carried out with even greater impunity.

The failure of the state to curb these displays of hate is a tacit endorsement of the growing culture of extremist violence. With each celebration of hate criminals, Hindutva forces are further emboldened, deepening the assault on secularism, diversity, and democracy itself. The question now is not just about whether justice will be served in individual cases—it is about whether India can still call itself a nation governed by the rule of law, or whether it has fully embraced mob rule in the name of Hindutva.

Related:

Bilkis Bano Case: Supreme Court strikes down remission for gang rape and murder convicts, citing flagrant violation of rule of law

Bilkis Bano gang rape convict shares stage with BJP MP, MLA: Gujarat

Remembering Gauri Lankesh, Renewing A Pledge

The post Honour for killers of Gauri Lankesh and MM Kalburgi in Karnataka, public felicitation and terms like “Hindu tigers” for accused Amit Baddi and Ganesh Miskin appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One commonly heard statement is that – ‘when the Constitution was first formulated, when Indian democracy started, for the first 10-15 years there was one nation, there was one election’. However, the events of 1956 paint a different picture. Nehru’s dismissal of the Kerala government led to a by-election, marking a significant shift in the political landscape. While history shows that simultaneous elections were once the norm, the dissolution of governments in Kerala sparked midterm elections. In 1971, Indira Gandhi further separated Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections, setting a precedent for separate elections to be held since then. This historical context sheds light on the evolution of India’s electoral process over the years.

Now, when they say work comes to a standstill, as I said, model code doesn’t stop any work except new policy, new schemes. As elections are taking place in Delhi, tell me is your life here in Thrissur getting affected? Do you even know that an election is taking place? You would not know, even if the election was to take place in your neighboring constituency. It may be said, ‘look, elections are happening all the time’. It may be happening all the time, somewhere or the other, because India is a big country, but it is important to recognize that firstly, the impact of elections is localized to specific constituencies for a limited period of time and secondly, we have been doing multiphase elections (seven phases).

Previously, I defended the multiphase election system, but now I say that it is high time we revert to single phase elections for these reasons. The rationale behind conducting multiphase elections may not be widely understood, as Kerala has consistently held single-phase elections. However, Maharashtra, which previously conducted elections in a single phase, recently divided it into four phases, with only one phase held last month. This raises questions of consistency and integrity in the electoral process. Is this approach not contradictory and lacking in transparency?

If you wanted a simultaneous election, but where it used to be simultaneous you staggered them into four because it suited you. So, this proposal lacks sincerity. Now the only reason why we do multiphase elections is because we do an analysis of the booths (we have 1 million booths). There are some normal booths, some sensitive booths, some hyper sensitive booths. Hyper sensitive booths require more advanced security, sensitive ones require normal security, and normal booths can manage with policemen.

Now, paramilitary forces were introduced by Mr. T.N Seshan in the ’90s. Their availability used to be limited, we used to see whether the available forces could take care of all the sensitive booths, they could not. So, we had to recycle them. We used to circulate them from one booth to the second, to the third, to the fourth, with the same force so that it was used up to 5-7 times. Now, the experience has changed. These forces take four to five days to pack up and move and reach the new place and deploy, but the ‘gundas’ who used to capture booths travel in their swanky SUVs in 4 hours.

So, having multiple phases is proving to be counterproductive and more so specifically, in the age of social media, where in 3 minutes the country can be set on fire on the basis of a rumor and with the rise of artificial intelligence they can even create fake videos, fake rumors. Therefore, it is in our interest as well as in the interest of good elections, to compress the election and come out very quickly instead of prolonging it indefinitely, almost two and a half months, three months. We can do it in 32 days. I’ve mentioned in several articles, we can do it. Law requires 26 days, we can give 3-4 days extra for political parties to decide the candidates. But they don’t talk about it, they don’t even look at these proposals because it does not serve to fulfill their vested interests.

Now what is the Election Commission’s stand? For the Election Commission it is a brilliant idea. Why? Because the voter is the same wherever you go, whether it is Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha or Panchayat, voters are the same. Where you go to vote, the booths are the same, the people who set up those booths, the District Administration, are the same. Security operators, they are the same. Therefore, conveniently, we create a safe booth for you and instead of pressing one machine, you press three machines. So, we conduct elections once in 5 years and play golf for 5 years, but our convenience and our comfort cannot be the concern. Our job is to conduct elections wherever it is happening; if it is happening all the time, somewhere or the other, that’s our job. So, whose time are you trying to save we don’t understand.

When the proposal was referred to the Parliamentary committee they also could not come to a conclusion, it went to Niti Ayog,who also suggested a two-phase election spanning two and a half years. Now, what is the big deal if you are not able to achieve one election in five years and you wanted two and a half years? What is the benefit? What is all this fuss about? Now, one thing which they have been saying is that in simultaneous elections, an argument is given, that the causes, the issues get mixed up. When you are voting for your Lok Sabha MP, you have some other issues in mind, like the Ukraine policy and what should be our policy in Gaza, and what should be our policy towards the Middle East and America. But when you’re voting for your Sarpanch, what is the issue before you? The drain in front of your house which is stinking and so when you are voting for your Sarpanch, would you be looking at Ukraine policy? You would only consider local issues, but, if you merge the elections, the local issues will get subsumed by the national issues, which is wrong. Because the issues cannot be allowed to be subsumed but they say– ‘…no no people are very intelligent, voters are very intelligent, look at Odisha, in the same election for Lok Sabha they voted one party and for Vidhan Sabha they voted another party’. Although, it was not the case this time as they voted for the same party. This is what they have argued.

There is a study which is stunning, done by an organization called IDFC Institute and they analyzed voting behavior over 16 years on 2,600 assembly constituencies over 16 elections and what did they find? That if there is a simultaneous election, the voters have a 77% chance of voting for the same party. But when it is staggered it comes down to 61% and additionally, if it is staggered by longer duration it changes the result totally– an example of which is Delhi. The Aam Aadmi Party got 67 out of 70 seats in the Vidhan Sabha election, 6 months later, in Lok Sabha, all seven seats went to the BJP. This has happened twice.So, to say, staggered elections are better because the local issues and the national issues do not get mixed up and to say that the voter is intelligent, he or she votes consciously for different levels, is wrong and this study proves the point.

The final aspect to consider is the committee led by former President Kovind. When the government faced challenges in reaching a consensus, they established a high-level committee with former President Kovind at the helm. It is important to note that involving a former President in political activities is ethically questionable. The President serves as the head of the country and should remain apolitical. By appointing him to lead a government committee, we risk compromising the integrity of the office.

It is naive to assume that simply because a former President is heading a committee, the public will unquestioningly support their recommendations. On the contrary, it is likely that there will be criticism.

What this committee did well and very quickly was talk to all political parties, they invited suggestions from the people, and they received 21,000 representations. This committee said that 80% of people supported simultaneous elections but the critics point out that this result is skewed because the proforma which was sent to the people was only in Hindi and English. If sent in Malayalam, the result would have been different. If sent in Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada, the result would have been different. Seeing it was sent only in English, the responses came only from the Hindi speaking people. Therefore, this is also not a great figure to talk about. Then, of the 47 political parties who responded, 32 supported simultaneous elections but were all from NDA. They supported it and all 15 parties opposed it because they belonged to the opposition. Our sources indicate that while the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) may publicly support certain actions, privately they may view them as an attack on federalism. For example, if the Kerala government and Chief Minister were to consider dissolving the assembly, this decision would ultimately be subject to approval by the Lok Sabha. If the Lok Sabha were to be dissolved, all other state assemblies would follow suit.Why should this happen? Consider the scenario of holding simultaneous elections – many of you may recall the Vajpayee government falling in just 13 days. If it happened once, it could happen again. If the Lok Sabha were to dissolve, would we then be required to hold elections for all 28 states simultaneously? Why should the well-being of individuals across the country be impacted by political events in Delhi, caused by a party’s betrayal or any other unforeseen circumstances?

As the saying goes– ‘Don’t try to repair something which is not broken’. Similarly, the system is working and if you tinker with it, chances are that you’ll probably create problems. You’ll break the system.

The bill currently under consideration includes references to five Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, I will be discussing Article 182A, which is a key addition to the legislation. This article states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in articles 83 and 172.” Article 83 pertains to the duration of the Lok Sabha, while Article 172 addresses the duration of a legislative assembly, both of which specify a term of five years. However, Article 182A introduces a new provision that states when the Lok Sabha is dissolved, all members will also be dissolved. This raises questions about the necessity and implications of such a provision.

Furthermore, despite being a high-level committee, what was the stance taken by this committee? The committee stated that when referring to simultaneous elections, they are specifically addressing the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections, excluding Panchayats. This raises the question – what is the rationale behind this exclusion? If Panchayat elections are conducted separately, it no longer aligns with the concept of simultaneous elections. This deviation undermines the objective of streamlining the electoral process.

The second point raised is regarding the simultaneous holding of Parliament elections and Vidhan Sabha elections, while Panchayat elections are to be held separately after a period of 100 days. It is important to note that any election held after this 100-day period is considered a new and distinct election, necessitating a completely different set of arrangements.

Consider the sheer number of individuals involved in the electoral process – approximately 15 million government employees, school teachers, and junior staff members. Requiring them to participate in multiple elections within a short timeframe can lead to fatigue and inefficiency.

Have you ever served as a presiding officer or polling officer during an election? If so, would you be willing to undertake such duties again within a span of 300 days? The idea of simultaneous elections loses its appeal when elections are separated by such a significant time gap.

The committee tasked with examining this proposal was not given the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate its advantages and disadvantages. Instead, they were simply instructed to find a way to implement it. The recommended Constitutional Amendments and legal changes fail to address the concerns raised by critics, including the high costs and potential policy paralysis associated with the proposal.Numerous individuals, including writers, politicians, lawyers, and constitutional experts, have expressed reservations about the necessity of altering the current electoral system. The proposal, in its diluted form, lacks the moral authority needed to justify such sweeping changes.

But this kind of stubbornness is disturbing the Constitutional scheme of things, this is surely an attack on federalism of the country.The determination of your political future should be left in the hands of your state’s people, rather than being dictated by the central government. This principle forms the foundation of our democratic system. As this issue is brought before the Supreme Court, we remain hopeful that they will recognize any flaws in the proposed legislation. In 1973, the Supreme Court established the concept of the basic structure of the Constitution. This principle asserts that while the Constitution can be amended, certain fundamental elements cannot be altered. The basic structure is parliamentary system of election, not presidential election. The basic structure is federalism. The basic structure is secularism. These pillars of our democracy are essential and must be upheld, even in the face of parliamentary acts or constitutional amendments.

This article was first published on The AIDEM

The post The History and Politics of the “One Nation, One Election” Idea (Part 2) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The origins of the ‘One Nation, One Election’ had begun with discussions about simultaneous election. This had gone on fir many years and even before Mr. Modi became the Prime Minister. He talked about the idea of holding simultaneous elections in a 2013 (BJP) party meeting, while addressing party workers.

But he was not the first to talk about this idea; in 2010 Mr. L.K. Advani had written about it and even earlier, a Law Commission Report had talked about it. And long long back, Mr. Vasant Sathe of the Congress party had talked about it. So, Mr. Modi actually only flagged the issue and significantly, he asked for a national debate on the subject and for arriving at a consensus.

Debate happened for 10 years, but consensus did not happen. The logical conclusion should have been if there is no consensus you should drop the idea. Then the government decided that even if there is no consensus we are going to push it down the throat of the nation and they brought this bill. They introduced the bill in Parliament which is going to be discussed soon. Which is what makes the subject very topical, although discussion on it has been going on for 11 years.

Now, originally when the Prime Minister talked about it, what are the things he had said? He said the cost of elections is so high and we have repeated elections and it becomes a very costly thing. The cost referred to here means two things– cost to the Election Commission or the government for managing the election, which is just about Rs 4,500 crore. This is nothing for a democracy of our size. We are the fifth largest economy in the world. The other is the cost of politicians with their campaign; in fact that is where the problem lies. There is a law prescribing a ceiling on election expenditure. You can’t spend more than the ceiling, which is revised from time to time.

For Vidhan Sabha it must be about 40 lakhs, but we know for fact that people are spending crores on every election. Whether Panchayat elections or Vidhan Sabha or Lok Sabha, they are spending crores in violation of the law. It has become so that only the rich people can contest. Poor people cannot contest elections anymore now.

One anomaly here is that while the law prescribes a ceiling on individual expenditure, there is no ceiling on expenditure by the political party. If I am a candidate and as a candidate I can’t spend more than 40 lakhs but my party can spend 40 crores on me, so what is the purpose of the ceiling? It gets defeated. So, I have been suggesting that if you are so conscious of the cost why don’t you put a ceiling on political party expenditure? The cost will come down drastically and instead of this long route of ‘One Nation, One Election’, we’ll have an easy solution. But that is not their intention.

Now, as I said initially they used to talk of simultaneous elections but later on they introduced the word ‘Nation’– ‘One Nation’. The moment you talk of nation, our patriotism gets aroused. So, for that purpose One Nation One Election. Now, India is a unique nation. It’s the most diverse country in the world, it’s a mini Commonwealth with 22 official languages. Here (at Thrissur) I was hearing Malayalam, yesterday in Chennai I was hearing Tamil, that is not what we hear in Delhi, we hear Hindi.

So, India is a mosaic of cultures, a mosaic of languages of all varieties and that is the beauty of India. America is a big country also, although it is one fourth of India in size, but from East coast to West Coast, it has the same language. Russia is huge, has 11 time zones, but the same language throughout. But here we have 22 official languages and hundreds of other recognized languages. Every major religion of the world we have in India.

The plurality of India is our asset, it is our unique aspect which we should be proud of and not disturb. But the attempt being made now with One Nation One Election is to carry out this very disturbance.. In fact, in one of my articles, I said that the next slogan will be ‘One Nation, One Political Party’, ‘One Nation, One Leader’. And why have elections every five years? Appoint leader for life. What is this– in the name of One Nation? One nation and many people, one nation and many languages, one nation many cultures– that was our national slogan all through and that is being played around with now and that’s very wrong.

The second reason given for one nation one election or simultaneous election proposal was that it leads to work paralysis, as the work (of the nation) comes to a standstill because of the Model Code. That is a lie. I will request all of you and as many of you who can, please download the Model Code of Conduct. It is 10-12 pages of small reading when you look at the overall functioning of the Election Commission. It does not stop anything, except two things– you cannot announce a new policy and you cannot make transfers after elections have been announced.

Now, you are talking only about a new policy, why is it that they say– because of this Model Code we cannot do public good? We cannot announce policies? Who stopped you from announcing new policies for 4 years and 11 months? Why is it that all the bright ideas for new policies come to your mind 2 weeks before elections? It’s totally illogical. So, nothing really stops.

In fact, when I was in the election commission we have repeatedly called ministers, along with the Cabinet Secretary Mr. Chandrashekhar, who was originally from Kerala. He used to say to please tell the ministries not to stop anything, because the model code doesn’t expect to stop anything, other than new schemes and official transfers. If you have to transfer, you can do it before but not after the elections have been announced.

The other thing or argument is about the party workers’ time. What is party workers’ time for? For electioneering. So, because of the election their work stops. What stops? Maybe the hate speech, maybe the polarization, all the kind of activities which they were doing and are not able to do. But elections are a great opportunity for them to polarize the country, they’re doing it regularly. The important thing is, the Prime Minister mentioned very clearly that when we’re talking of simultaneous elections, we’re talking of all three levels– Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, and the Panchayat. But you would notice if you have been reading the newspapers and watching the media, the debate forgot about Panchayat and they were only talking of Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha.

How can you ignore Panchayats? Lok Sabha has 543 MPs, Vidhan Sabha all together have 4,120 MLAs, but Panchayats have 30 lakh members of Panchayat. That is the major part of democracy, how can you brush it aside? Constitutionally they are as important as Lok Sabha elections, but from the debate it disappeared.

Now, after the suggestion was made, a parliamentary committee went into it and they also talked of massive expenditure on Election, and about stoppage of the delivery of essential services. But there are some political leaders here, who would agree that our experience is that during elections, services improve. When an election is being held in the constituency they will make sure you get electricity nonstop. They may cut electricity in the neighboring District and transfer it to you. Everything will improve and to say that because of the election the service delivery gets affected is wrong; it improves and because of so many announcements and the freebies that come along with.

But along with this we should also note that when elections are staggered, it leads to more corruption because money is used in the elections. Unaccounted money, black money, distribution of liquor, etc. Casteism is also promoted; 70 years ago we hardly knew about caste, many people did not even know their caste, and now because of the election they know their sub caste and sub caste within sub caste. Everything they know because that is how the vote banks are created.Communalism also increases; you would have noticed, that close to election communalism increases to polarise the community.

There is a book which I have written– ‘Population Myth’, ‘Islam, Family Planning, and Politics in India’, and here is a small observation which I had made– ‘Are Muslims overtaking the Hindus?’; that is the slogan they are mouthing constantly – ‘you know the Muslims are going to overtake 80% of the people’, the Hindus are being made scared of 14% people. This is unique in the country, 80% of people are scared of 14%, a small segment of people. Every day they say, ‘these guys, they will kill you’, and it is leading to polarisation. Polarisation has become a winning electoral strategy.

Now, the arguments against– I was attending one meeting where Biju Janata Dal MP, Mahtab, made a very interesting statement. Now he is in the BJP; he said– ‘…have we asked the people? What do people want?’. He said, people love frequent elections. Why? Because for most poor people, this is the only power they have. At least because of the election the leaders come with folded hands to their door, otherwise we have seen how many times the MLAs and MPs go missing for 5 years, they don’t come back. People have to put posters in the streets– “missing, finder will get 50,000 Rupees”, because they never come back. But, at least on account of frequent elections of all kinds, they come back to your door. Therefore, free staggered elections actually is not a bad idea.

Now, the estimate of the 2019 election by the Center for Media Studies was Rupees 60,000 crores were spent by the political parties. Personally, I feel that this expenditure is not a bad idea, this is recycling of the politician’s money which goes to the poor, to the labourers, to the auto drivers, to the people who make posters. At least the money is being circulated instead of lying in trunks and suitcases of the politicians. And what is 60,000 crores? No big deal. In any case, I’ve told you that if you really want to reduce spending, that is to device ways and means to cut political party expenditure.

End of part 01. Part 02 to be published on 4 February 2025 

Full Speech is available on The AIDEM YouTube Channel

The Article was first published on The AIDEM

The post The History and Politics of the “One Nation One Election” Idea (Part 01) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the extremely polarised era in the India that we live in, a biography of a contentious person, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966) is bound to attract substantial attention. This is not limited to the popular domain of public history but also in the scholarly domain. Historian Janaki Bakhle (Columbia University) has intervened in this sphere, first with two of her long, well-researched essays in 2010. These essays created a temptation among academics and expectations from Bakhle that she brings out a comprehensive biography of Savarkar. The wait took long. Eventually, this large volume has come out. In terms of methodological rigour, the book is indeed an extraordinarily impressive work.

This is perhaps for the first time that Savarkar has been studied not in a hagiographic account but with extraordinary scrutiny of a multitude of sources and evidence: the thick files of police and intelligence reports and a deep engagement with the range of Marathi language sources. This awe-inspiring volume inevitably impresses a discerning student of history with the range of the facets of Savarkar: his anti-colonial revolutionary activities, his anti-Muslim hatred, his radical caste reformism, his Marathi language oeuvres in prose and poetry (creative and rhetorical), the way he looked upon and weaponised history, and the ways he adapted to fashion himself into a legend in his own time through both mythologization and sacralization. In this segment, Janaki Bakhle looks into all hagiographical accounts (around 250 tracts) on and by Savarkar, mostly in the Marathi language. Bakhle says that between 1924 and 1937 Savarkar wrote around 300 essays on various issues, in Marathi, and therefore she makes it clear (p. 423) as to why did she has looked so deeply and closely into Savarkar’s Marathi writings, hitherto untapped by historians:

In this book I have kept in mind Theodor Adorno’s aphorism that one must be steeped in a tradition to hate it properly. By hate, Adorno meant critique, which I take to mean both appreciation and analysis. I have steeped myself in the traditions that surround Savarkar so I could present a new view, scholarly and dispassionate, but also embedded in the traditions and milieu that spawned his life and his legends. I have tried to present Savarkar as a man of intense nationalist passion who was seen as extraordinarily dangerous (hence important and influential) by the colonial authorities, yet who was used (perhaps unwittingly) at the same time by them to further their own agenda.

Janaki Bakhle’s study doesn’t go beyond 1937, even though, while evaluating Savarkar’s “historical” and performable writings, his 1963 account, Six Glorious Epochs has also been subjected to scrutiny and analysis. By terminating the study in 1937, Janaki Bakhle skips the story of Savarkar’s alleged roles in plotting the assassination of Gnadhiji wherein he was acquitted owing to lack of sufficient evidence. The critics of Savarkar may argue that a further trial based on “circumstantial evidence” may have culminated into a different end result This continues to intrigue many as to why neither Nehru, Sardar Patel (who barely spoke against the RSS before January 30, 1948) and Morarji Desai (whose 1974 autobiography hints at something) and other such leaders in power pursued this case further? Was it because such a judicial pursuit may have created administratively unmanageable revulsion from the admirers of Savarkar? Did Savarkar really carry a strong charisma among a section of his fellow castes in parts of his home province?

A close reader of the last three chapters of Bakhle may get some hint/clue about the answers to the last question. In fact, just as a powerful fiction leaves readers thinking for long after having finished reading the story, Bakhle leaves her discerning readers thinking on so many aspects of Savarkar. Bakhle’s relevant chapters clearly suggest that Savarkar, the poet-politician, rhetorical essay-writer, and playwright, the “nation’s bard”, was a sort of cult among a section of the Marathi literary world (for communalisation of this segment of Marathi population, see T C A Raghavan’s 1983 essay). Thus, Savarkar’s pre-Cellular Jail life when he was fiercely anti-colonial revolutionary, and his post-1924 life when he fashioned himself first and foremost as a poet and Marathi litterateur besides a rationalist anti-caste social reformist, helped him become quite a charismatic figure for a section of the Marathi-speaking population. That he “was not sporadically or episodically anti-Muslim; he was deeply and systematically anti-Muslim” (p. 148) could be no less significant factor in his popularity among certain quarters.

The first two chapters rely much upon a critically insightful examination of intelligence reports of the colonial police. The author rightly says that Savarkar spent all his public life under state surveillance (even after independence too). Bakhle is very clear about (a specific contention around Savarkar) that his anti-Muslim hatred always existed and that it had nothing to do with the rumour that he turned anti-Muslim only after he received maltreatment at the hands of a Muslim in the Cellular Jail. However, Savarkar’s anti-Muslim hatred became much more pronounced with the start of the Khilafat Movement, and it served the colonial interest very well. He looked upon Khilafat agitation as an “international conspiracy to steal Hindu sovereignty”.

Bakhle deals with colonial motives in great detail while detailing the Savarkar-Gandhi-Khilafat issue. It provokes scholars of the field to re-look into the hitherto untold impact of the pan-Islamist Khilafat agitation upon a section of Hindus. Apprehensions of Lala Lajpat Rai (Intezar Husain’s 1999 Urdu biography of Hakim Ajmal Khan, Ajmal-e-Azam, records it) were not far different from those of Savarkar on the issue. The colonial power-play of pitting the two religious communities of India against each other is brought out very deeply and comprehensively by Bakhle. Bakhle, quite rightly, makes it a point to mention that many eminent Muslim leaders and scholars were not for the institution of Khilafat, such as, Sir Syed (1817-1898), Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943), Ahmed Riza Barelvi (1856-1921), Shibli Numani (1857-1914) and Anwar Shah Kashmiri of Deoband. Despite this, by the time the World War-I began, Indian Muslims became so agitated in favour of the Khilafat keeping themselves quite oblivious to the anti-Caliphate upsurge of the Turks at home in Turkey. This aspect needed little more detailed treatment, in order to understand the sentiments of those segments of Hindus who were apprehensive about pan-Islamist “designs” of Indian Muslims. Yet, Gandhiji extended unconditional support to them in the early 1920s.

A further engagement with Azmi Ozcan’s 1997 book, Pan Islamism: Indian Muslims, the Ottomans and Britain, 1877-1924 would have further enriched the book under review. Ozcan makes it clear that Indian Muslims turned sympathetic to the Turkish Caliphate only in the 1870s, when the Ottoman-British relations began to deteriorate. Otherwise, the Ottomans and Mughals were not on good terms. There are indications that the former remained in apprehension that Mughals might snatch away their Caliphate. Mughal princess and writer Gulbadan Begam (1570s; see Rumer Godden’s 1975 biography), Sikandar Begum of Bhopal (1861) and the Tonk State administrator (1871) faced hostilities of the Haj administrators under the Ottoman Caliphate (see Ziauddin Sardar, 2014, Mecca: The Sacred City). Janaki Bakhle however does benefit from Naeem Qureshi (2014) who explains the Ottoman anxiety and insecurity, as they were the first Caliphs to have been non-Arab and non-descendant of the Prophet Mohammad (p. 91).

Bakhle misses to note that, not only Savarkar, long before that, since 1877-1878, Indian Muslim leaders too, were under colonial surveillance for their growing sympathies with the Ottomans. Just two decades back, in 1857, the Mughal state had already been liquidated. It would be pertinent to note that Turkish Cap became a fad in the MAO College of Aligarh (which was founded in 1877). Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hameed II (1876-1909) was reclaiming the Caliphate, calling himself, Imam-ul-Muslimeen, which had receptivity across Asia, Africa, including British India. Soon after Hameed, India’s Pan Islamists would form Anjuman-e-Khuddam-e-Kaba (Society of the Servants of Kaba) in 1912-13.

The colonial intelligence reports about India’s Khilafat leaders and Savarkar’s vitriol against the same carry some degree of resemblance in tone, tenor and vocabulary. She devotes considerable number of pages on the evolution of colonial policing and surveillance, which is quite useful for evidence-based historical research.

Savarkar’s deep antipathy against the Ali Brothers is understandable. While the former looked upon Kemal Ataturk as a secular saviour, the later was agitating passionately about the preservation of Caliphate. Interestingly, Jinnah too displayed a limited, essential resemblance with Savarkar on this specific issue. Also, in the post-Tilak phase of the nationalist mass movement both Savarkar and Jinnah developed an antipathy against Gandhiji. Contrary to assertions from some circles, at least for once, by 1927, we do find Savarkar speaking against Jinnah. In Savarkar’s understanding all Muslim leaders were for enhancing Muslim numbers through conversion, and that they bargained to obtain concessions from Hindus, issuing a threat that “whatever demands Muslims make, all of them have to be immediately granted by Hindus, otherwise with the help of Afghanistan or some other Muslim country we will establish Muslim rule in India” (p. 124).

Subsequently, like Savarkar, Shaukat Ali too (in 1933) would seek clemency from the colonial state to secure his pension to be restored from 1919, rather than from 1933 (something Janaki Bakhle has ommitted). Nonetheless, with meticulous and detailed surveillance reports obtained about Savarkar from the colonial state, helps Bakhle conclude almost irrefutably that the Colonial state always looked upon Savarkar as a tool to be used for creating Hindu-Muslim hostility (p. 423) and made a greater use of him after 1937.

Janaki Bakhle brings out the merits of Savarkar’s caste reformism, something which has remained largely unacknowledged among the non-Marathi readers. She however doesn’t gloss over the limitations of Savarkar’s reformism. “[H]e never developed a critique of caste that acknowledged its deep connections to structures of power, access, and wellbeing” (p. 151). This chapter makes comprehensive engagement with the positions of Gandhi, Ambedkar and Savarkar on the issues of caste and untouchability. Savarkar’s pathologically obsessive pursuit of ethno-nationalism wanted to convert caste (jati) into Hindu ethnicity through an upper-caste Brahminic lens (p. 153). However, on this count, for a more informed critique of Ambedkar and its divergence as well as convergence (in terms of anti-Muslim utterances) with Savarkar, an engagement with Keith Meadowcroft’s works could have proven more useful.

Savarkar’s ethnonationalist project is analysed quite brilliantly in each chapter. He wanted to cure his “nation” of the “narcoleptic sleep disorder”, suggests Bakhle (p. 352). Scrutinizing him as “nationalist historian” she looks into his 1963 text, Six Glorious Epochs as a “defensive tract about the Hindu Mahasabha, which had held itself aloof from Gandhi and the INC-led Quit India Movement [of 1942]”, and where he “appears both angry and tired”.

This is a commendable work not only to know of many lesser known aspects and psyche of her subject (Savarkar) but also to learn much more about the divisive power-play of the British, the crucial decades of the nationalist movement during the 1920s and 1930s, and it unpacks new layers of Hindu anxiety around the Pan-Islamist Muslims of India. Janaki Bakhle’s historiographic rigour, insight (and beautiful prose) uncovers the genesis behind contemporary resurgence of Hindutva. A must read both for the specialists as well as popular reading which settles many contentions of public history on the subject.

Related:

The AMU Teachers’ Association (AMUTA) and Waqf Worries: Ordinary members of the Qaum are caught between a self-serving elite and a majoritarian Regime

Political History of India’s Two Muslim Universities since 1947

The Waqf Bill 2024: An Open Letter to the Joint Committee of Parliament, the Opposition, and India’s Muslim Communities

The post Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva: Book Review appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We just lost another warrior against war, an activist wrote on his Facebook post, within hours of the passing away of Tapan Bose. Tapan was not just any ordinary warrior, he was the marg darshak and mentor for many warriors like us.

A fountainhead of inspiration and an ocean of wisdom, it was his steely and stubborn determination, his energy, and his clear vision for a liberal world order that made him a shining north star for many liberals, activists, academics and journalists.

This is, perhaps, why the news of his death is shattering, even though he had been battling several ailments in recent years. Losing a trusted friend, comrade and dependable guide is like being left rudderless in a moving boat. But far bigger than the deeply personal loss is the huge void his absence creates in the struggles for peace, human rights, and justice in South Asia.

Tapan was a rare blend of wisdom, foresight, unwavering principles, conviction, courage, compassion, boundless generosity and genuine warmth. A multifaceted personality whose vast canvas of life encompassing filmmaking, peace activism, and writings in pursuit of upholding humanistic values calls for a celebration. Whichever hat he donned, he invested his best with youthful zest despite his failing health in recent years.

I had the good fortune of having a long and close association with Tapan, both in our peace work – mainly through Pakistan India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD), South Asia Forum for Human Rights and Other Media (organisations in which he played a key role) – and at a personal level.

His guidance was instrumental in shaping my work in peace and human rights activism. Though my initial interest was sparked by the colossal violations of human rights around me, witnessing the brunt of India-Pakistan hostility on the people living at the borders in Jammu and Kashmir, and inspiration from my father, Ved Bhasin, it is to Tapan, and his wife Rita Manchanda, that I owe a debt for pulling me out of my father’s shadows and helping me create my own path to channel my convictions into meaningful action.

B.M. Kutty, I. A. Rehman, Admiral Ramu Ramdas, Tapan Bose at PIPFPD Convention, Bangalore, 2000.File Photo

 

Before I met Tapan in the late nineties, I was familiar with some of his work – notably his films on Bhagalpur blindings and Bhopal gas leak and his phenomenal documentation of human rights abuse in Kashmir. The admiration deepened after meeting him – his vast knowledge, clear vision coupled with his articulation and oratory were powerful. I found his humility and warm smile endearing.

Tapan was a close associate of my father, both founder members of Pakistan India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD), and they shared a common passion for peace, democracy, equality and justice. My initiation into the PIPFPD and other human rights interventions were to a large extent a result of his encouragement and mentorship.

One of my biggest lessons from my association with him is to keep looking for possibilities in the face of impossibility and not give up. Tapan was an obstinate optimist. “You can’t keep waiting for the right situation to start working for change. You must work towards making it happen. That’s how situations change,” he would say, pointing to the birth of PIPFPD – a movement of people from across the borders to rally for peace and democracy – which happened when India-Pakistan hostility was at one of its worst. “We could do it then, we can do it.”

It was this belief that energised his involvement with whichever issue he worked on – South Asian peace and unity, media freedom, Naga and Kashmir crisis. He not only led movements and campaigns for peace, but he also worked tirelessly and inspired many. In whatever he did, he was passionately involved and continued to remain invested in each issue he pursued – though the momentum of work would vary.

It was always a pleasure to be around Tapan and listen to his views on every issue, often his conversations were laced with wit and humour. Unlike many of his stature, he was also a very patient and observant listener. He would take a young activist or a student as seriously as he would take a senior colleague, without being patronising.

Our commitment to similar causes brought our families closer. Tapan and Rita often stayed with us whenever they visited Jammu or Srinagar, and I have enjoyed their warm hospitality in Delhi on a couple of occasions. Their house was an open space where like-minded people would always converge over coffee, drinks, or for collaborative work.

Tapan Bose in an intimate conversation with his friends Sumanta Banerjee, Kamal Chenoy, Dinesh Mohan and I.A. Rehman.Photo/Public Domain

 

Whether it was work, music or food, Tapan was passionate about everything, even about polishing off a packet of biscuits with his morning tea. He didn’t live life; he loved every bit of it.

In 2016, Tapan was in Jammu as the keynote speaker at my father’s death anniversary, commemorated with poetry, literature and music themed around peace. It was difficult to talk about friendship with Pakistan those days when the Hindu rightwing fervour had reached a feverish pitch in the city. But Tapan minced no words in his speech, speaking both against Hindu majoritarianism and batting for a people-centric peace and talking about the centrality of Kashmir in India-Pakistan peace.

Tapan made the crucial distinction between state-level and people-level peace. Whichever government is in power, he said, state-led peace is inherently unstable and vulnerable. Real, lasting peace must be built at the people’s level.

In 2018, when Rita and I were collaborating on a Kashmir-related project, they stayed with me in Srinagar. If he had the time, Tapan would sometimes accompany us on our field trips. It was a year before the Article 370 abrogation, but one can recall the early signs of tightening restrictions, particularly in South Kashmir, were already visible. When we were on our way to Pulwama, the security forces at a barricade tried to stop us from entering the town, Tapan disarmed them with his words. I can’t exactly recall what he said but they were convinced and let us move ahead.

The last I met both of them was at their house for dinner in the early summer of 2022. After that, I may have briefly chatted with him several times over phone. The only detailed conversation I had was in March 2023 when I interviewed Tapan for a PIPFPD collection over Zoom. Tapan looked frail but he was just as clear with his foresight and strong with his arguments.

His health deteriorated after that, and he had been in and out of hospital several times. Despite his condition, his death came as a shock.

How do you let go of a person whose existence is valuable to the world and your own life? At a time when the world needs more people like Tapan Bose, his departure makes the weight of loss heavier.

My solidarity with Rita, his daughter – Mishti, his grandsons – Rudra and Somansh, and his vast circle of close friends. They must be shattered. But in this mourning, there is a celebration of his life. His absence will be filled by his memory in our hearts and his words in our minds, as a guide. Long after he’s gone, he will continue to live.

Adieu Comrade! Long Live Comrade!

First Published on kashmirtimes.com

The post Tapan Bose: A Man and a Life to Remember appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This year, 2025, marked the 77th anniversary of the commemoration of the Martyrdom of Gandhiji, who was murdered on January 30, 1948, precisely at 5.17 pm. In keeping with the national tradition, this platform, HBKL has endeavoured to involve citizens, peoples’ movements and political parties across the spectrum, to mark this day, as a day of national introspection. The aim is to recall the Martyrdom of Mahatma Gandhi in the context of his values and teachings, even as we recall all the martyrs of our freedom movement.

Towards this end, the platform had, with local support, put up six hoardings in Nagpur city, where Hum Bharat Ke Log (Nagpur) and Gandhi Smarak Nidhi (Nagpur) were actively involved in the initiative. The billboards, based on a creative effort of a Keralite artist, were put up in six locations across Nagpur.

The locations included – Variety Square FTF Lokmat, Gandhi Statue CA Road, Trimurti Nagar Square, Laxman Nagar Square, Akashwani Square & Bhole Petrol Pump. The billboards were put up in the late evening of January 29. One of the locations included the constituency of Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadvanis (BJP).

According to Prajwala Tatte (HBKL, Nagpur), who was coordinating this brave effort, “The company that we had given the contract to, began to call us that they would have to remove the hoardings, as they ‘portrayed violence’. Clearly, the advertising company was being threatened & and pressured by the government, though he was not willing to say this on record. He also said that you could maybe put up hoardings of Gandhiji’s funeral procession. Well, I told him that’s not for him to decide. The billboards were taken down between 1.00 pm and 2.00 pm yesterday, that is January 29.”

In a statement issued on January 31, the HBKL platform has stated that, under the present regime at the centre, the entire country has witnessed the video of Puja Shakun Pandey (Hindu Mahasabha, National Secretary), shooting at an effigy of Gandhiji, to mark the death anniversary of Gandhiji, as Shaurya Divas, in Aligarh. No visible action has been taken against her for promoting hate and violence – and the fact that she was eulogising the murder of the Father of our Nation.

At a time when “temples are being made in honour of Nathuram Godse, the murderer of our Bapu, the Father of our Nation,” the removal of billboards visually portraying Bapu’s death were pulled down, that too in a town that has the headquarters of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The organisation has called for a national debate on the murder of Mahatma Gandhi and re-iterated their commitment to Mahatma Gandhi;s thoughts and moral values.

The statement has been issued by Dr. G. G. Parikh, Tushar Gandhi, Feroze Mithiborwala, Guddi S L, Sharad Kadam, Dhananjay Shinde, Santosh Ambekar, Ali Bhojani, Siddesh Kadam, Vanita Tondwalkar, Yashodhan Paranjpe and Archana Tajane.

Related:

Courts and the Gandhi murder case: What happened on January 30 and who was behind it?

Remember when RSS-Jan Sangh leaders (clandestinely) apologised for opposing Emergency, called Gandhi murderer “patriot”

Real History: Gandhi’s Murder, Godse & the RSS

The post Nagpur: Billboards portraying Gandhi Bapu’s murder pulled down appeared first on SabrangIndia.