Minajul Sheikh, a resident of Beldanga in Murshidabad district, told The Hindu that his brother Minarul Sheikh was picked up from Mumbai where he was working and subsequently forced into Bangladesh. Apart from Minarul Sheikh, at least two other workers were pushed into Bangladesh. The three workers — Minraul Sheikh and Nizamuddin Sheikh from Murshidabad and Mostafa Kamal Sheikh from Purba Bardhaman — also sent a video message to their relatives where they can be heard pleading before Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other public representatives of the State to ensure their return to India.

It was only after the West Bengal government raised the issue, the workers were repatriated to India through the Mekhliganj border in Bangladesh on Sunday afternoon. Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha member and chairperson of West Bengal Migrant Welfare Board Samirul Islam said when the workers were picked up by the police in Mumbai, all necessary documents were provided by the State government.

“What has happened is very unfortunate and illegal. These are citizens of India and cannot be illegally pushed into Bangladesh in such a manner,” Mr. Islam said.

On X he said, “Under the leadership and active intervention of our Chief Minister @MamataOfficial, we were finally able to repatriate seven Indian citizens who were illegally pushed back to Bangladesh by the BSF. The Maharashtra Police first detained them on suspicion of being Bangladeshis and then handed them over to the BSF, which carried out the final act of deporting these poor migrant workers to Bangladesh—only because they spoke Bengali. They were deported to Bangladesh despite they showed all relevant proof of being an Indian. 

I have some questions:

1. How did the Maharashtra Police hand over these migrant workers to the BSF without informing the West Bengal government?
2. Why didn’t the BSF contact the local administration to verify their identities before forcibly deporting them to another country?
3. Is there a larger plan by these BJP-ruled states and the BSF to target and harass Bengali-speaking migrant workers?

We will not let this issue go. We will expose the dark forces behind this misdeed and ensure justice.”

Under the leadership and active intervention of our Chief Minister @MamataOfficial, we were finally able to repatriate seven Indian citizens who were illegally pushed back to Bangladesh by the BSF. The Maharashtra Police first detained them on suspicion of being Bangladeshis and…

— Samirul Islam (@SamirulAITC) June 17, 2025

The officer-in-charge of the Mekhliganj Police Station Mani Bhusan Sarkar said that after he received information from police stations in Murshidabad and Bardhaman about the Indian nationals in Bangladesh, he informed authorities of the BSF and Border Guard Bangladesh. “The three men were handed over to us [Mekhliganj police station] after a flag meeting at the border,” the Officer-in-Charge said. According to sources, the three men were pushed into Bangladesh on Friday night somewhere along North Bengal and Bangladesh border.

Since mid-May 2025, in a cloak and dagger operation, without any public disclosure, some administrations in India have been “pushing back” undocumented Bangladeshi migrants detained across the country through the eastern border. The Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) has expressed concern to India about the “push back” of individuals across the border, particularly undocumented migrants. Interestingly, there is no official word about the “push back” from the BSF. While instances of the “push back” of Bangladeshi nationals has come to the fore in Assam and Tripura, on this occasion, nationals of West Bengal were pushed into Bangladesh.

Meanwhile, Assam has seen the most aggressive of this policy in action. Citizens for Justice and Peace has been at the forefront of documenting and agitating the issue, both with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Gauhati High Court. The memorandums to the NHRC may be referred to here. No evidence of due process has been followed by the Assam police in detaining without notice, persons who have every reason to state –with documents—that they are Indian. The last month’s coverage of the crisis may be read here, here and here. 

Related:

Assam: Academics, lawyers, activists condemn ‘push back’ of persons to Bangladesh

Assam: When six ordinary Indian women were forcibly pushed out from India–No Man’s land– Bangladesh & then back

Assam: Slamming Sarma’s actions as discriminatory & unlawful, LOP, Assam Assembly Debabrata Saikia calls for an urgent stop to “pushback” of citizens

The post M’tra: Three West Bengal residents pushed into Bangladesh by BSF, return after WB state govt.’s intervention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The doctor, also a philanthropist Dr. Shamsheer Vayalil announced the financial aid to the families of medical students and doctors affected by the Air India Flight 171 crash in Ahmedabad last Thursday, June 12. The tragic plane crash killed a total of 270 people including 240 passengers.

The tragedy struck on 12 June, when a Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft crashed into the hostel and mess blocks of BJ Medical College, killing four medical students, injuring dozens, and claiming the lives of family members of doctors residing on campus.

The aircraft also struck the Atulyam hostel complex during lunch hour reducing student residences and the dining hall to rubble. Among those killed were MBBS students Jaiprakash Choudhary from Barmer, Rajasthan; Manav Bhadu from Shree Ganganagar, Rajasthan; Aaryan Rajput from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh; and Rakesh Diyora from Bhavnagar, Gujarat. All three were young medical students. As many as five family members of doctors were also killed in the tragedy.

Announcing the relief from Abu Dhabi, Dr. Shamsheer, Founder and Chairman of Burjeel Holdings and Managing Director of VPS Health, said he was deeply shaken by the aftermath of the crash. “As someone who had once lived in similar hostels during his own medical education at Kasturba Medical College in Mangalore and Sri Ramachandra Medical College in Chennai, the images struck a chord,” he said.

“I saw the footage from the mess and the hostel, and it truly shook me. It reminded me of the places I once called home, the corridors, the beds, the laughter, the pressure of exams, and the anticipation of a call from family. No one expects a commercial aircraft to come crashing into that world,” Dr Shamsheer added.

“Those students started the day thinking about lectures, assignments, and patients. Their lives ended in a way none of us could ever imagine. It hit close. Too close,” he further said.

Dr. Shamsheer’s relief package includes Rs. 1 crore for each of the four deceased students’ families, Rs. 20 lakh each for five seriously injured students, and Rs. 20 lakh each for the families of doctors who lost loved ones. The financial assistance will be delivered in coordination with the Junior Doctors’ Association at BJ Medical College, ensuring that those in need receive support swiftly.

This is not the first time Dr. Shamsheer has responded to such a crisis. In 2010, following the Mangalore air crash, he provided financial assistance and employment opportunities to affected families at Burjeel Holdings, a leading healthcare provider in the Middle East.

Dr Shamsheer’s humanitarian interventions extended to natural disasters, public health emergencies, and displacement crises across India and the Gulf. But this, he said, felt personal in an entirely different way.

“These young men were part of the same fraternity I once belonged to. I know what it’s like to stay up preparing for clinical exams, to crowd around a table in the mess hall, to walk into a hostel room after a tiring shift. That life builds not just doctors, but character. And to have that life stolen, so violently, so suddenly, is heart-breaking,” he said.

Among the injured is third-year student Ritesh Kumar Sharma, who was trapped under debris for hours with severe leg injuries. Several of his friends were injured alongside him. Others watched helplessly as classmates were engulfed in the impact.

Dr. Shamsheer emphasised that this support is not just financial, it is symbolic. It is a reminder that the medical community stands together, across generations and geographies. “What happened cannot be undone. These students were preparing to serve others. Their memories must not fade into headlines. We must carry forward the dreams they didn’t get to fulfil. It is shared responsibility,” he said.

As BJ Medical College reels from the loss, displaced students and families are being temporarily relocated. The Junior Doctors’ Association, which has been closely involved in supporting the affected students and families, is coordinating with authorities to facilitate assistance.

Related:

Speculation about the cause of Air India crash is rife. An aviation expert explains why it’s a problem

The temporariness and unpredictability of life

The post Ahmedabad Air India Crash: UAE-based Indian doctor offers Rs. 1 crore each to kin of deceased Medical Students appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is a tragedy of immense proportion! One of the worst in the history of civil aviation in India! An Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner (AI-171), from Ahmedabad to London, crashed shortly after take-off. The flight departed at 1:38 pm from the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport on Thursday June 12. The failure to achieve the lift happened at a very low altitude of 825 feet, resulting in a crash and bursting into a ball of fire. Just 33 seconds after take- off! The plane had 242 people on board – 230 passengers, 10 crew members and two pilots Videos show the plane struggling to gain altitude before it begins losing lift (upward force that allows an aircraft to stay airborne) and crashes, exploding in a ball of fire. The devastating crash claimed 241 out of the 242 on board!  According to the news agency Reuters, ‘the plane was carrying 169 Indians, 53 Britons, 7 Portuguese, and 1 Canadian. Passengers included 217 adults, 11 children, and 2 infants’. Eyewitnesses reported hearing a loud explosion followed by flames and heavy smoke rising near the crash site.

No one, at this juncture, seems to know the actual cause of this terrible accident! There are of course surmises, assumptions, opinions ad nauseam; mainstream and social media are full of them. One thing however emerges on which there is widespread unanimity, is that it was undoubtedly a technical/mechanical problem that caused the crash. Experts say that the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner is a model that had an immaculate safety record. There are however, opinions which differ and major flaws in the Dreamliner have been pointed out in the past. All this, for the moment is a matter of conjecture. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Air India officials will have to release more authentic details (as investigations progress), only then will a clearer and more accurate picture be revealed.

The added tragedy is that the aircraft crashed into the residential quarters of the BJ Medical College, just a few metres outside the airport. Many students were having lunch at that time; others in their quarters. At least four MBBS students and a doctor’s wife were immediately confirmed dead speaking to reporters the College dean Dr Minakshi Parikh said,”While four MBBS students living in the hostel died, 19 were injured. Five of them are serious. Two third-year students are untraceable. A doctor’s wife was also killed while two relatives of other doctors were injured. Three members of a doctor’s family went missing after the incident.” The number of those killed on the campus is expected to be much higher.

The moment the tragedy took place – there was a united response from every quarter. Civilians at great risk ran to the spot to be of help, there were emergency response teams (from the military, para –military and police forces), the firefighters were in full swing and so were the medical personnel with ambulances. They arrived swiftly at the scene of the crash even as plumes of smoke billowed from the wreckage. Rescue operations began immediately with the injured individuals being rushed to nearby hospitals. Local authorities cordoned off the area, and aviation experts were brought on-site to assess the situation.

All this makes one realise the temporariness and unpredictability of life. Plenty of memes and quotes are going viral – which include “Life is so unpredictable- you go for a vacation and you are killed by shooters; you go for a trophy victory parade and are killed in a stampede. You go on a flight for work/vacation and it crashes. You are eating / studying in the comfort and security of your home and the plane crashes right on you killing you!” Sad indeed but that is the truth and fact of life!

From the deceased emerge stories of reunions, new opportunities of homecoming and more; several heart-rending ones. There is the story of a family of five – husband and wife and their three children – from Banswara in Rajasthan. Dr Kaumi Vyas, her husband Pratik Joshi and their three children – Miraya, and the twins Pradyut and Nakul – were going to London to start a new chapter of their lives. While on the plane, Pratik took a selfie of the family in which all five of them are seen smiling. While Joshi and his wife Kaumi are seated next to each, the three children are seated beside them on the other side together, all posing for the camera with a smile. Pratik had been living in London for six years. A software professional, he’d long dreamed of building a life abroad for his wife and three young children, who stayed back in India. After years of waiting for due clearances the dream was finally coming true. Just two days ago, Kamini a renowned doctor in Udaipur, resigned from her job. The bags were packed, goodbyes said, the future within reach. They sent the selfie to several a one-way journey to a new life. But they never made it. None of them are alive today!

Then there was Captain Sumeet Sabharwal a seasoned pilot who had 8,300 hours of flying experience. A resident of Powai, Mr Sabharwal, had reportedly promised his father that he would quit his job shortly and take care of him full time. Mr Sabharwal was single and lived with his nonagenarian father who used to work with the DGCA. Then there was the Co-pilot a Clive Kunder who had 1,100 hours of flying experience. He, too, comes from a family of aviation enthusiasts, with his mother being a former Air India flight attendant. A popular young man of the Kalina area of Bombay who dreamt of great life ahead!  Then there were the two other flight attendants from Manipur. Nganthoi Kongbrailatpam and Singson Lamnunthem. Nganthoi is a resident of Thoubal district. While Singson, who originally belongs to Old Lambulane in Imphal West, has been residing in Kangpokpi district due to the ongoing ethnic conflict in the state. Both their families had suffered much because of the conflict; the hopes of their families rested on them.

In a matter of seconds, a lifetime of dreams turned to ash. A brutal reminder, life is terrifyingly fragile. Everything you build, everything you hope for, everything you love, it all hangs by a thread. So while you can, live, love, and don’t wait for happiness to start tomorrow. Life after all is temporary and very unpredictable! Even for Ms Bhoomi Chauhan, who was to board the ill-fated flight. The traffic jams in Ahmedabad delayed her and she missed her flight to London by just ten minutes! “My body is shivering” she stated even as she sighs with relief!

Prayers are being said all over; candle light vigils are being held. Messages of sympathy are pouring in from all over the world – including from several world leaders Pope Leo XIV sent a message to express his “heartfelt condolences” to the families and friends of those who lost their lives in the crash. Saying that he was, “deeply saddened by the tragedy involving an Air India aircraft near Ahmedabad.” He has assured everyone affected of his prayers for those involved in the recovery efforts, and commended the souls of the deceased to “the mercy of the Almighty.”

Viktor Emil Frankl (1905 – 1997) was an Austrian neurologist, psychiatrist, philosopher, author, and a holocaust survivor, who suffered at the hands of the Nazis. He was the founder of ‘logotherapy’, a school of psychotherapy which describes a search for a life meaning as the central human motivational force. The autobiographical Man’s Search for Meaning, a best-selling book, is based on his experiences in various Nazi concentration camps. In the book he tells the story of how he survived the Holocaust by finding personal meaning in the experience, which gave him the will to live through it. His ‘logotherapy is based on the premise that man’s underlying motivator in life is a “will to meaning,” even in the most difficult of circumstances. Frankl pointed to research indicating a strong relationship between “meaninglessness” and criminal behaviours, addictions and depression. Dr. Frankl explains: “Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible”. 

We are called to reflect on the meaning and purpose of our lives. We live in this world for such a short time. We are just pilgrims! Why then do we have to hate and kill each other? Why should we waste this short while in discriminating and demonising, excluding and exploiting the other? Can we not make of ourselves pilgrims of hope radiating compassion and unity, equity and fraternity to others? Yes, in this temporary and unpredictable life we all must give ourselves and others both meaning and fulfilment! 

In the meantime, let our hearts, minds and lips well up in prayer:

“May all the victims of this terrible plane tragedy –

-those in the plane and those in the BJ Medical College campus –

Rest in Peace!

Our heartfelt and prayerful condolences

to ALL who have lost a loved one

We share in their grief!”

 (The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist and writer;  cedricprakash@gmail.com ) 

Related:

Speculation about the cause of Air India crash is rife. An aviation expert explains why it’s a problem

The post The temporariness and unpredictability of life appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Parts of the media seem to be encouraging this. For example, earlier today I was contacted by an international news organisation for an interview about the tragedy. While I agreed, I cautioned that I could only say “it is too early to speculate”. They decided not to proceed with the interview. No reason was given, but perhaps it was my aversion to speculation.

Of course, I want to know as much as anyone else what caused this disaster. But publicly speculating at such an early stage, when there is so little evidence available, is more than unhelpful. It is also harmful, as many examples throughout history have shown.

Like an archaeological excavation

Aviation accident investigations start as soon as first responders have extinguished the fires and completed the search for survivors – the first and foremost driver when responding to such a disaster – and have declared the site safe. The identification of the victims will then commence, completed by a different agency, parallel to the accident investigation.

State authorities aren’t the only people involved. The aircraft manufacturer (in this case Boeing) will usually send representatives to assist the investigation, as can the home countries of victims. Investigators in the country where the accident occurred may also request assistance from countries with more experience in aviation accident investigation.

An early step for investigators is finding the black boxes (flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorder) among the debris. These contain data about the flight itself, what the aircraft was doing, and what the pilots were saying.

But a plane crash investigation involves much more than just finding the black box.

An aviation accident investigation is akin to an archaeological excavation – methodical and painstaking. If the evidence is not collected and preserved for later analysis at the time, it will be irrevocably lost.

In the case of Air India Flight 171 the scene is further complicated by the crash location – a building. It will take time for the aeroplane wreckage, victims and personal belongings to be sorted from the building debris. This must occur before the search for answers can commence.

Investigators will also gather witness statements and any video of the event. Their analysis will be further informed by company documentation, training, and regulatory compliance information.

Around 80% of aviation accidents are due to “human factors”.

According to the International Civil Aviation Organisation human factors are:

what we know about human beings including their abilities, characteristics, and limitations, the design of procedures and equipment people use, and the environment in which they function and the tasks they perform.

It could take several years for the full forensic investigation into this disaster to run its full course. For example, the final report into the Sea World helicopter crash in Queensland, Australia, back in 2023, which claimed the lives of four people and injured nine others, was only released in April this year.

A history of speculation – and vilification

There is a long history of undue and harmful public speculation about the possible causes of a plane crash.

For example, since the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 on March 8, 2014, speculation has swirled about whether chief pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah was responsible for the disaster and the deaths of the other 238 people on board. This has deeply upset his sister, Sakinab Shah. In 2016, she told CNN she feels her brother is a “scapegoat” she must defend.

Similarly, the pilots of the British Midlands accident near Kegworth in 1989, in which 47 people died, were also publicly vilified.

The pilots, who survived the crash, were experienced but misidentified which engine had failed, and shut down the wrong one. They were widely criticised in the press for the error, tarnishing their reputations, losing their jobs, and no doubt causing more stress to their families. The investigation later revealed the pilots themselves had not received any simulator training as they transitioned to a newer variant of the aircraft they were flying.

This shows how undue public speculation about an airline disaster can add to the distress of victims and their families.

Respect the process

No doubt pilots and aviation experts are speculating in private right now about the causes of this particular disaster. Cafes, pubs and crew rooms will be rife with discussions and opinions. It is human nature to want to know what happened.

But to speculate in public won’t assist the investigative process. Nor will it help the families of the victims, or the first responders and investigators themselves, get through this horrible time.

Investigators need to work without external pressures to ensure accurate findings. Respecting this process maintains integrity and supports the many people who are currently experiencing unimaginable grief.

Author is Program Director for the Bachelor of Aviation, University of Southern Queensland

Speculation about the cause of Air India crash is rife. An aviation expert explains why it’s a problem

The post Speculation about the cause of Air India crash is rife. An aviation expert explains why it’s a problem appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The relentless surge of global displacement, driven by conflict, persecution, and instability, presents a profound challenge to nations worldwide. India, situated in a volatile geopolitical landscape, inevitably finds itself at the crossroads of these human flows. Historically, the nation has welcomed various communities fleeing distress, from Sri Lankan Tamils and Tibetans to, more recently, Rohingyas from Myanmar and Afghans. As India’s economic and political stature ascends on the global stage, its stance on humanitarian issues, particularly its treatment of those seeking refuge, comes under sharper focus. This growing influence carries an implicit expectation of heightened responsibility, yet recent judicial pronouncements and policy directions suggest a potential divergence from its traditionally magnanimous approach, creating a palpable tension between its global aspirations and its actions on the ground.

Previously, in Part 1 of this explainer which may be read here, the legal framework surrounding the deportation policy was discussed. In this part, it is argued that India’s response to foreign nationals seeking refuge or settlement must evolve beyond mere dismissal or chiding, especially when profound humanitarian and civilisational values are at stake. A more nuanced, principled, and empathetic approach is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic necessity for a nation aspiring to global leadership.

Two recent Supreme Court cases serve as critical prisms through which to examine this evolving landscape: the first, involving a Sri Lankan national whose plea to settle in India was rejected with the stark admonition that the country, with its vast population, cannot be a “dharamshala“ (a charitable shelter) for all; and the second, Mohd. Ismail v. Union of India, where the Court declined to grant interim relief to halt the potential deportation of Rohingya refugees despite grave concerns about their safety back in Myanmaar. These judicial decisions are not isolated events; rather, they may act as barometers, reflecting and perhaps legitimizing a broader national mood and policy direction that increasingly prioritizes security and resource arguments, sometimes at the significant cost of humanitarian principles and India’s long-cherished civilisational ethos.

The echo of “Dharamshala“: When Doors Seem to Close – the Sri Lankan national’s plea

The case of a Sri Lankan Tamil national, Subaskaran, starkly illustrates the tightening approach towards individuals seeking to remain in India on humanitarian grounds, particularly those with a security-related past. Arrested in 2015 for links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and subsequently convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), his initial ten-year sentence was reduced by the Madras High Court in 2022 to seven years. Upon completion of his prison term, he was ordered to stay in a Tamil refugee camp pending deportation. Subaskaran’s plea to the Supreme Court to settle in India was rooted in compelling personal circumstances: his wife and children were already settled in the country, his wife was seriously ill, and his son suffered from a congenital heart defect. Crucially, he also expressed profound fears of arrest, torture, or worse if deported to Sri Lanka due to his past LTTE affiliation. This case thus pitted an individual’s dire humanitarian needs and fears of persecution against the state’s national security concerns, even after the individual had served his judicially mandated sentence.

The Supreme Court’s response was unequivocal. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran dismissed the plea, with bench famously questioning, “Is India a dharamshala to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with a 140 crore population. India is not a dharamshala to entertain foreign nationals from all over”. When counsel reiterated fears of persecution in Sri Lanka, the bench’s stark suggestion was that he could “move to some other country“. The “dharamshala” comment, emanating from the nation’s apex court, carries significant weight. It frames those seeking refuge primarily as a burden on national resources and population, a narrative that can easily overshadow if not trivialise individual humanitarian claims and the complexities of forced displacement. Such judicial rhetoric risks normalising a more restrictive and less empathetic public and administrative posture towards all foreigners seeking sanctuary, irrespective of their individual circumstances or the historical context of their displacement.

The ruling underscores an increasingly hard-line stance, prioritising “national security” and resource constraints over compelling individual humanitarian concerns, even when familial ties to India are established and credible threats in the country of origin are alleged. This is particularly striking given that the petitioner had already served a significant sentence under a stringent anti-terror law. Denying him the possibility of settlement with his family, despite fears of persecution, can be perceived as a form of continued jeopardy, extending beyond the judicial sentence. The “dharamshala” analogy, while perhaps intended to highlight population pressures, risks oversimplifying the multifaceted nature of refugee situations. It also appears to disregard the nuanced historical context of Eelam Tamil refugees in India, many of whom share deep cultural, linguistic, and ethnic bonds, particularly with Tamil Nadu, a state that has historically provided considerable support and shelter to this community.

The Rohingya Plight: A test of constitutional empathy – Mohd. Ismail v. Union of India

The plight of the Rohingya Muslims, fleeing persecution in Myanmar, presents another critical juncture for India’s humanitarian commitments. In Mohammad Ismail v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court refused to grant interim relief to halt the future deportation of Rohingyas from India. The petitioners had made grave allegations, including the forcible deportation of 43 Rohingyas – among them women, children, the elderly, and individuals with severe health conditions – claiming they were abandoned in international waters near Myanmar after being detained under the pretext of biometric data collection. They pointed out that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Court of Justice have recognised Rohingyas as refugees facing persecution. This case directly tests India’s adherence to the principle of non-refoulement – the customary international law principle prohibiting the return of refugees to territories where their lives or freedom would be threatened.

The Supreme Court’s response to these serious allegations was marked by pronounced scepticism. The bench, including Justice Surya Kant, characterised the petitioners’ claims as “fanciful ideas” and “vague, evasive, and sweeping statements” that lacked “prima facie material”. The Court questioned the authenticity of the claims, including how a Delhi-based petitioner could verify events allegedly occurring in remote maritime regions. When references were made to UN reports on the matter, the Court retorted, “People sitting outside cannot challenge our sovereignty”. This assertion of national sovereignty, while a fundamental tenet of international law, becomes problematic when used to deflect credible concerns raised by international human rights bodies regarding potential violations. It risks fostering an insular approach to international human rights obligations, potentially diminishing India’s stature as a responsible global actor. The Court reiterated its earlier stance that the right to residence is exclusive to Indian citizens and that foreigners found to be in the country illegally would have to be deported. The demand for “prima facie material” from petitioners alleging clandestine state actions against a highly vulnerable and marginalized group like the Rohingyas places an almost insurmountable evidentiary burden upon them. It is exceedingly difficult for individuals fearing for their lives, often in hiding or lacking resources, to procure court-admissible evidence of state-led covert operations, potentially weakening judicial review as a safeguard for fundamental rights in such contexts.

This judicial stance has drawn criticism, with some legal analysts describing the order in Mohammad Ismail as “peculiar” and reflecting a “dubious understanding” of domestic and international refugee protection, particularly when contrasted with the Supreme Court’s own history of progressive interpretations of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The refusal to grant interim relief leaves the Rohingya community in India in a precarious position, continually vulnerable to deportation despite the widely acknowledged risks they face in Myanmar. The treatment of the Rohingyas becomes a litmus test for India’s humanitarian commitments, especially when viewed alongside policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which offers a path to citizenship for specific non-Muslim religious minorities from neighbouring countries, explicitly excluding Muslim refugees like the Rohingya.

Whispers of a civilisational ethos: India’s legacy of refuge

India possesses a long and often celebrated history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution and violence. This tradition of offering refuge to diverse communities – including Jews, Parsis, Tibetans, nearly 10 million Bangladeshis during the 1971 liberation war, and numerous Sri Lankan Tamils – is deeply embedded in the nation’s cultural fabric. This historical generosity, rooted in ancient traditions of compassion and hospitality, was often extended despite India not having a formal domestic refugee law or being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This historical record stands as a powerful testament to India’s civilisational values and provides a benchmark against which current policies can be measured.

The recent trend of remarks and the non-transparent push-back policy adopted in Assam (this guise has also been largely directed at marginalised Indians), appear to strike a dissonant chord with this inclusive historical ethos. They suggest a potential shift away from a “shared burden” narrative, evident in past responses like the 1971 Bangladesh crisis, towards an “internal burden” perspective, where India’s own population and resource constraints are foregrounded as primary reasons for restricting entry or stay. While national security imperatives and the challenges posed by a population of 1.4 billion are undeniably valid concerns, the question arises whether these should entirely eclipse a deep-rooted humanitarian tradition. The selective invocation of this “civilisational ethos” also warrants scrutiny. For instance, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) invokes religious persecution as a basis for offering refuge to specific non-Muslim communities from particular neighbouring countries, while other groups facing well-documented persecution, such as the Rohingya Muslims, and are met with a markedly different, more restrictive standard. This inconsistency suggests that the “civilisational ethos” might sometimes be instrumentalised or narrowly defined to align with specific political or ideological agendas, rather than being applied as a universal principle of humanitarianism, potentially leading to perceptions of discrimination.

The ‘Vishwa Guru’ paradox: Moral costs of a narrow vision

India’s contemporary aspiration to be recognised as a ‘Vishwa Guru’ – a world teacher or global leader – projects the nation as a source of guiding norms and principles for international relations. This ambition is often accompanied by invocations of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (the world is one family), an ancient Sanskrit phrase symbolizing universal brotherhood and global unity. However, these lofty ideals stand in stark contrast to restrictive or dismissive refugee policies. Reports of “push-in” operations, involving the forcible expulsion of alleged illegal migrants into neighbouring countries without due process, are particularly jarring. Such actions are inhumane, unlawful, and clear violations of international norms, create a significant credibility gap for a nation seeking moral leadership. The ‘Vishwa Guru’ aspiration, while intended to project India’s normative power, inherently subjects the nation to a higher degree of scrutiny. If a country claims moral leadership, its actions, especially concerning human rights and humanitarian issues, will be judged more stringently against its proclaimed ideals. Inconsistencies between proclaimed values and actual policies can easily lead to accusations of hypocrisy, thereby diminishing the very soft power the ‘Vishwa Guru’ concept seeks to enhance.

The social and moral costs of such a narrow vision are substantial. Beyond the immediate human cost for refugees denied protection – who are often condemned to live in precarity, face statelessness, or risk deportation to harm – there are broader repercussions. Such policies can erode India’s long-standing reputation as a compassionate nation and alienate international partners and neighbouring countries. Internally, if policies are perceived as selective or discriminatory, particularly on religious or ethnic lines, they risk fostering societal divisions and undermining India’s secular fabric. Furthermore, refugee policy can become entangled with geopolitical manoeuvring, where humanitarian considerations are subordinated to, or instrumentalised for, strategic foreign policy objectives, as hinted in discussions about “push-in” tactics being linked to regional power dynamics. This fundamentally taints the moral basis of any ‘Vishwa Guru’ claim, as true leadership should be rooted in consistent principles, not mere expediency. The moral cost is therefore not just external, in terms of reputation, but also internal, impacting societal values and the ethical foundation of governance.

Constitutional ideals vs. ground realities: Soft power at stake

The Indian Constitution provides a robust framework of rights that, in principle, extends significant protections to non-citizens. Article 21, guaranteeing the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, applies to all persons within India, not just citizens, and has been expansively interpreted by the judiciary to include the right to live with human dignity. Similarly, Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to any person within India’s territory. Furthermore, the principle of non-refoulement, though India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, is considered by many legal scholars and has been acknowledged in some court judgments as part of customary international law, potentially flowing from the obligations under Article 21. These constitutional and international legal principles offer a strong foundation for a more humane and rights-respecting refugee policy.

However, a discernible gap exists between these ideals and the ground realities faced by many asylum seekers and refugees in India. The clear distinction drawn between Article 21 (right to life, applicable to all) and Article 19 (right to reside and settle, applicable only to citizens) is strictly employed to deny foreign nationals the possibility of long-term settlement, even on compelling humanitarian grounds. Without a rigorous judicial definition of what constitutes adequate procedure in the context of refugees facing potential refoulement, Article 21’s protection can be significantly weakened. The absence of a dedicated national refugee law further exacerbates this situation, leading to ad-hoc, inconsistent, and often discriminatory treatment of different refugee groups. This disconnect between constitutional promises and practical application directly impacts India’s soft power, which relies heavily on its image as a democratic nation governed by the rule of law and committed to human rights. Inconsistent application of these core values inevitably tarnishes this image.

Charting a more principled path: Balancing interests with obligations

Navigating the complexities of refugee policy requires a delicate balance. Legitimate state concerns regarding national security, resource allocation, and population density are undeniable and must be addressed. However, in an increasingly interconnected world where refugee crises are often transboundary phenomena demanding collective responsibility, these concerns cannot be the sole determinants of a nation’s approach. Ignoring humanitarian obligations carries its own strategic costs, including tarnished international relations, a loss of moral authority, and the potential for regional instability if displacement is not managed humanely and effectively. A principled refugee policy, therefore, can be viewed not just as a moral duty but as a strategic asset, enhancing soft power and building goodwill.

To forge a more empathetic, principled, and globally respected approach, several key elements are essential. Firstly, the enactment of a comprehensive National Refugee Law is paramount. Such legislation would provide a clear, rights-based domestic legal framework, distinguishing refugees from other categories of migrants and ending the current ad-hoc system that breeds inconsistency and allows for wide executive discretion. This law should align with international standards, establish fair and transparent refugee status determination (RSD) processes, and clearly define the rights and access to basic services for recognized refugees. A clear domestic law would also serve as a catalyst for more consistent judicial interpretation of constitutional rights for refugees, strengthening the rule of law.

Secondly, there must be a consistent and robust application of constitutional protections, particularly Articles 14 and 21, to all refugees, ensuring their right to life, liberty, dignity, and non-discrimination. Judicial review in cases involving the fundamental rights of vulnerable individuals must be probing and sensitive to the power imbalances inherent in such situations. Finally, India must move towards nuanced individual assessments rather than relying on broad-stroke dismissals like group-based profiling. Fair, individualised RSD processes that consider the intersectionality of vulnerabilities are crucial. Ethical RSD, as highlighted in academic discourse, requires a steadfast focus on human dignity, fairness, and transparency.

Fostering a compassionate public and official discourse is vital. This involves reframing refugees not merely as burdens but as individuals deserving of empathy and protection, and potentially, as contributors to society. Engaging civil society organisations and NGOs, which often possess valuable expertise and on-the-ground presence, in policy-making and implementation processes can also lead to more effective and humane outcomes. Many of India’s refugee influxes originate from neighbouring countries; thus, a robust domestic policy must be complemented by proactive regional diplomacy aimed at addressing the root causes of displacement and fostering regional cooperation on refugee management.

India’s choice in an emerging world order

India stands at a critical juncture where its actions towards those seeking refuge will significantly shape its international identity. The current path risks diverging sharply from India’s rich civilisational ethos of providing sanctuary, undermining its constitutional ideals of justice, equality, and fraternity, and creating a jarring paradox with its aspirations of global leadership as a ‘Vishwa Guru.’

A more nuanced, empathetic, and principled refugee policy is not an indicator of weakness but a hallmark of mature and confident leadership. It necessitates a careful balancing of genuine national security and resource concerns with fundamental humanitarian obligations and international legal principles. Such an approach, grounded in a clear domestic legal framework and a consistent application of constitutional values, would not only uphold the dignity of those fleeing persecution but also significantly strengthen India’s moral authority and soft power on the world stage. The way India treats the most vulnerable at its gates is not merely a domestic concern; it is a profound statement about its national character and its vision for its role in the 21st century. The choice is stark: to be a nation that risks being defined by dismissive rhetoric and closed doors, or one that courageously upholds its legacy of compassion and justice, thereby truly leading by example in an emerging world order that desperately needs principled humanitarian engagement.

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

Related:

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

A jumla or a concrete step? Assam CM’s announcement on Koch Rajbongshi cases raises more questions than answers

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Why India needs a National Refugee Law aligned to international law standards appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Two Views, Leader of the Opposition (LoP Rahul Gandhi) & Chief Minister, Maharashtra, Devendra Fadnavis

A recent issue that has re-emerged after a year of the Lok Sabha 2024 polls is the issue of non-transparency around the conduct, polling and data release of the November 2024 Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha Elections. Rahul Gandhi’s article was published on June 7, 2025 and received Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s multiple responses. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has, relatively, not been at the forefront of rebutting the allegations.

Rahul Gandhi writes: Match-fixing Maharashtra, June 8, 2025

Devendra Fadnavis replies to Rahul Gandhi: Rejected by people, now he rejects people’s mandate, June 9, 2025

One can discuss many of the issues raised (including the questionable claim that the NDA made the process of appointment to the Election Commission of India (ECI) “more transparent (!!!)” given that the ruling coalition in the Centre hurriedly brought in a law to nullify a Supreme Court judgement of November 2023 including the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the selection process. But here, this note will discuss the elementary lapses (or anomalies) in data presented by the Chief Minister, Maharashtra, Devendra Fadnavis.

In a nutshell, he has been selective and faulty and preferred to keep mum on data points inconvenient to the ruling party.

Dr. Pyara Lal Garg, Former Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Panjab University, Chandigarh is the expert who provided the basis for mathematical extrapolations is one of the key experts with Vote for Democracy and he has probed both articles. VFD presents this preliminary data:

1. First of all, the issues mostly emerge out of the failure of the ECI to act as per its own law and procedures.
2. Thereafter, the refusal to put in public domain the procedural steps of registering new electors form 6 and deletion of names on complaint by others on Form 7.
3. Safe custody of the voting apparatus.
4. The amendment of rules to the detriment of transparency, fairness and impartiality.

Dr Garg: Devendra Fadnavis IE June 8, 2025 has been trying to play with figures which are not sourced from ECI official records

1. LOK SABHA

2014-19 Lok Sabha: Increase in Voters is 78.78 lakh Voters NOT 63 lakh

2009-2014 Lok Sabha: 78.45 lakh Voters were added NOT 75 lakh Voters

2004-2009: One Crore Voters were Added (correctly stated). However the exact figure is 99.42 lakh Voters being added

2019-24 Lok Sabha Elections: 40.80 Lakh Voters were added

Source 1: Election Commission of India

Source 2: Maharashtra Government website

Source 3: Maharashtra Government website

Devendra Fadnavis: “Between 2014 and 2019, 63 lakh new voters were added; from 2009 to 2014, 75 lakh new voters were added; and from 2004 to 2009, 1 crore new voters were added. This means that nothing extraordinary happened in 2024”.

Would the CM of Maharashtra Like to give his sources?

2. VIDHAN SABHA

In year 2004 (from Lok Sabha 2004 to Vidhan Sabha elections 2004) increase in voters is by 29.53 lakh

In year 2009 (from Lok Sabha 2009 to Vidhan Sabha elections 2009)  increase in voters is by 30.14 lakh

In year 2014 (from Lok Sabha 2014 to  Vidhan Sabha elections 2014) increase in voters is by 27.29 Lakh

In year 2019 (from Lok Sabha 2019 to Vidhan Sabha elections 2019) increase in voters is by 11.61 Lakh

In year 2024 (from Lok Sabha 2024 to Vidhan Sabha elections 2024) increase in voters is by 40.80 lakh

Source: ECI Statistical Reports for concerned years concerned house

Would the CM of Maharashtra care to give his sources?

3. Polling Percentages November 2024, Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha Elections

The hike in the last hour of polling is a hike in percentages from 5.82 percent per hour to 7.83 percent per hour it is 2 percent hike: This hike amounts to a hike in 65.97 lakh Votes in absolute numbers (Extrapolated from ECI data).

Even if the same number is divided between all 1,00,186 booths the same turns out to more than 65 votes per hour  whereas normal polling per hour on average including brisk polling is 56.5 votes.

Is the figure by DF not a high number?

Moreover, one fails to understand that if the percentage of voting figures at 5 pm could be uploaded by ECI at 6.14 pm then who or what prevented the ECI to upload the Percentage of Voter Turn-Out at 6 PM? The ECI has uploaded the Voter Percentages of 11.45 pm uploaded at 11.53 pm.

Devendra Fadnavis in his lengthy and convoluted defence has failed to explain why in the simultaneously held second phase of Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha polling, these (questionable) phenomena were not observed in which polls there was only only a 0.86 percent increase between 5 pm and 11.45 pm on day of polling. Incidentally, the NDA lost the elections there!

Fadnavis is factually wrong when he has quoted the “5 PM figure of the second phase of Lok Sabha 2024 polls for Maharashtra at 5.00 pm”. The fact is that the ECI has not uploaded the State-wise voter turnout on the day of polling till date. ECI has only published and aggregate 60.96 percent of polling for all the Parliamentary Constituencies taken together, Even the hiked figure of 66.71 percent  uploaded on 30.04.2024 is for all the constituencies and not for Maharashtra alone.

Fadnavis is factually wrong because the ECI has to date never declared the 5 pm figure of voting: in the Lok Sabha Polls, the first release of figures by the ECI was for 7 pm or after that till 7.45 pm.

Devendra Fadnavis: “The claim that the voting percentage suddenly increased is a huge joke. To understand how the percentage rose in the last hour, one must look at the hourly voting rate. The average polling rate throughout the day was 5.83 per cent per hour. So what new information are you revealing by stating there was a 7.83 per cent increase in the last hour? Is Rahul Gandhi unaware that 5 pm to 6 pm is also a polling hour, and everyone present in the queue at the booth by 6 pm is allowed to cast their vote? ”

Fadnavis’ Imagination not Facts:

The number of Polling Booths in Maharashtra are 100186 and the figure quoted by DF in the non fact checked article in Indian Express of 1.427 Lakh is creation of his own design.

Fadnavis is again wrong on Votes polled after 6 pm: the ECI, has to date, never released any such figure (quoted by Fadnavis) at 1770867—If Fadnavis is in possession of data that is NOT in the public domain, that speaks volumes for the both the Institution in question (ECI) and the Chief Minister. He has further distributed the total hiked votes between all the polling stations equally which is against all the statistical principles by any stretch of the imagination.

Fadnavis has failed to explain that if as per his own calculation all the voters standing in queue had cast vote with in 18 minutes 23 seconds after the end of scheduled time then why did ECI not post those final figures of 11.45 PM?

Who is playing with figures and transparency, Fadnavis or ECI?

Fadnavis has conspicuously (maybe intelligently) kept mum on the fact raised by Rahul Gandhi that the Number of Voters are even more than the TOTAL adult population of 18 and 18+ !!!

Fadnavis has wrongly given the Figures of Young Voters in Maharashtra at 2646608 contrary to the figure given by ECI which is 22.21 LAKHS as on 20.11.2024 vide No. ECI/PN/163/2024.

Devendra Fadnavis: Moreover, this didn’t just happen in Maharashtra. In the second phase of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the voter turnout figure given at 5 pm was 60.96 percent, which was finalised at 66.71 percent the next day. The increase was 5.75 percent. But are you going to hide that fact because you won that election? Previously, the final voting figures would come late at night; now, the 5 pm figure is released, and the final figure comes the next day. Here, Rahul Gandhi claims that the increased voter count was limited to 12,000 polling stations across only 85 constituencies, and that most of these seats went to the NDA’s tally. The calculation for this is also in the Loksatta article from December 3, 2024. The number of total votes cast after 6 pm was 17,70,867. Based on the day’s average voting rate, 97,103.32 votes were cast per minute across 1.427 lakh polling stations. Therefore, if we calculate the average for the votes cast after 6 pm, the additional time taken was only 18 minutes and 23 seconds.

The basic issues for citizens, Vote for Democracy still are:

1. Videography of Voters in queue after scheduled poll time must be released and made public by the ECI
2. Videography of the number of slips distributed and announced for those standing in queue must be released and made public by the ECI
3. Videography of number of votes polled at the end of scheduled poll time must be released and made public by the ECI
4. Videography of announcement of votes polled at close of polls must be released and made public by the ECI
5. Videography of sealing and transport of EVMs must be released and made public by the ECI
6. Videography of custody of machines all the time must be released and made public by the ECI
7. Proof of Form 6 and 7 all procedure adopted as laid down for addition of voters and deletion of voters must be released and made public by the ECI.

Courtesy: Indie Journal

The post VFD’s rebuttal of the Fadnavis’ Claims on Electoral Manipulation Allegations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, throughout the day, during the one-day session, opposition MLAs and the Chief Minister engaged in a heated discussion on the contentious topic of citizenship: the speeches and deliberations centred around the manner in which the Assam police have been forcibly detaining people in the state in late night operations, wrongly dubbing them as “foreigners” since May 24/25, 2025. Under state target have been especially Bengali-speaking Muslims who have been –without recourse to due process –expelled to no man’s land, many of them have subsequently even returned home.

Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, Debabrata Saikia led the charge by moving a motion in the Legislative Assembly, prompting the Chief Minister to respond. Several opposition MLA then took the floor, voicing their concerns and perspectives on the issue. The chief minister Himanta Biswas Sarma attempted to project himself as a saviour of the Assamese speaking communities, pushing the blame on previous Congress governments. This angered several members of the Opposition who took him on, point by point, in detail. They pointed out that the first declaration of ‘D-Voter’ (Doubtful Voter) took place in 1997 when the government was ruled by Prafulla Mahanta of the AGP (Asom Gana Parishad). Sarma also gave incorrect information in the House that the practice of creation of D-Voters was begun during the time of Hiteswar Saikia (Former Congress chief minister of Assam, who is also father of Debabrata Saikia), but the fact is that Hiteswar Saikia was died on April 11, 1996 and the practice of D-voters was started from 1997.

Himanta also defended the moves saying that the “push” was taking place in accordance with the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Order, 1950 and a recent Supreme Court order. Incidentally, the Citizens for Justice and Peace has in memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) detailed how no procedures at all were followed by the authorities while they conducted the recent drives. These may be read here and here.

Meanwhile, the members of the opposition were vociferous in the tactics being employed by the authorities, urging that, any foreigners identified in the state, who have entered after 1971 (the cut-off date in Assam Accord) should be sent abroad (deported) according to provisions of law and procedure and any repatriation agreement with neighbouring countries, however the hounding and torture of poor, innocent Indians under the slur/label of being “Bangladeshi” must be stopped.

The entire speech of the LoP in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saikia is being reproduced here:

Monday, June 9, 2005

“We all know that Assam Movement was held to expel foreigners and after the Assam Accord of 1985, among all clauses, Clause 5 was very important. (This is) because it talks about the identification of foreigners and (the process to be followed) to expel foreigners from India.

And to carry this out smoothly, NRC updation process was undertaken on the base of 1951 NRC. And, finally, in the year 2013, SC directed (the Assam government) to update the NRC in Assam.  And finally we have the final draft of the NRC dated August 31, 2019.

On July 22, 2018, through a press conference, the then Home minister Rajnath Singh said that even after the final NRC, Foreigners Tribunal will detect the citizenship of people. He also said that any person’s name that has been dropped out from the final draft of NRC, (even) he or she can appeal. When the draft was published, it was seen that 19 lakh people were excluded from the NRC. At the time, Rajnath Singh also announced that a ‘Rejection slip’ will be provided to (ensure that people undergo process) to include their name in the NRC and if needed Goverment will provide the legal aid.

Later also, (with a change of guard) the Home Minister, Amit Shah said that all help will be provided to the people left out from the NRC and only foreigners tribunal will decide on the citizenship. No person should think themselves as outsider, until or unless Foreigners Tribunal take a decision on this, he had said.

The Supreme Court (SC) also declared that in the judgement of Abdul Kuddus that if any person was declared as foreigner he can approach the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal.

After the release of the final draft list of the NRC, government authorities announced that 200 Special tribunals would be set up. However, in October 2023, 3,34,964 cases were reportedly disposed off by the tribunals, 96,146 cases are still ongoing in the FTs. A total of 10, 3764 people were reportedly declared foreigners.

However after the release of the Final Draft of the NRC (August 31, 2019), the government did not provide the rejection slip to those excluded from the list. And it is these who are facing many challenges challenge due to not being enrolled in the NRC. They are facing problems of Aadhaar card exclusion and exclusion from government welfare schemes because “only citizens can avail welfare of the state.”

Recently the Assam Government has “pushed back” more than 100 people based –ostensibly– on a judgement of the SC. People were (simply) left in the No Man’s land. Almost 1200 people were sent, possibly 1000 people didn’t come back but those sent from Assam were taken back again (this was in the context of persons sent from Gujarat, Delhi, etc.)

The Union Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar had said, when Indians were repatriated from America or at other times, according to the rules and regulations, no one should be considered a foreigner until proven so. The suffering inflicted on Indian citizens in Assam by labelling them as foreigners has been highlighted in the recent declaration.

Therefore, we demand that, rejection slips should be given through the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process. And, through the legal process, foreigners should be identified and those who are Indians should be included. According to a report of CJP (Citizens for Justice and Peace), during the NRC process in 2019, around 60 people in Assam attempted suicide due to various fears and trauma. Among them, 32 were Hindus and the rest belonged to other religions.

One such tragic incident was of a highly educated individual from Kharupetia, who held MA, LLB, and BT degrees, and worked as a teacher. He was subjected to constant taunts and comments like ‘Look Bangladeshi has come’ while walking on the streets or at market, which led him to take his own life in 2018 due to extreme fear and anxiety.

Recently, Sonabhanu from Barpeta was left in no man’s land in May (2025) while her appeal was still pending in the Supreme Court. Additionally, 51-year-old Khairul Islam from Morigaon was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal and the High Court, and he has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

There are many such people for whom the verdict has not been delivered yet they have become victim of the government’s moves. Besides, the statement that citizenship will be granted based on a particular religion to those who are Bangladeshi, under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2014, which was mentioned in 2019, has brought shame to many. This is evident from the suicide of Nirad Baran Das ((On October 20, 2918 tragedy struck Kharupetia town in Darrang district of Assam, when a retired school teacher and advocate Nirod Baran Das “took his life by hanging himself to a fan in his home.” CJP’s report had stated that Das had become “fearful and insecure of being arrested, wrested of his citizenship, declared a non-Indian, took his own life after hanging himself from a fan in his home”, claiming, NRC had declared him a foreigner even though “he was born and brought up in the town where he taught” and was in “possession of all the legacy documents.”))

.Therefore (we demand), that the process (of expelling foreigners) should be carried out as per the Assam Accord. The manner in which (Indians), who are “merely suspected” as D-Voters (Doubtful Voters), are declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunal, and later proved not to be foreigners in the High Court – this process needs to be more realistic so that people are not wrongly labelled as foreigners.

Other interventions by opposition members in the Assam legislative assembly on June 9:

• Jakir Hussain Sikdar, MLA from the Sarukhetri Assembly constituency, and Assam Pradesh Congress Working President said, “The government’s foreigner identification process is fundamentally flawed. Identifying individuals without sufficient information and evidence is entirely incorrect. The government’s misguided decisions are wrongly labelling Indian citizens as foreigners.”
• Nurul Huda, MLA, Indian National Congress (INC) from the Rupohihat Assembly constituency said that the unlawful targeting of ordinary Indian people as foreigners is unacceptable,’ he said, cautioning that continued police harassment without due process will undermine faith in the Indian judiciary.
• Ashraful Hussain, AIUDF MLA from Chenga Assembly constituency stated that the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam operate under the direct influence of the state government, with the Home Department dictating their actions. He expressed deep concern that selectively targeting indigenous people based on religion, language, and race would be utterly unfortunate.

In his replies to the Opposition members, chief minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma stated that Government does not need to take NRC as reference for deportation of foreigners. He self-abrogated the powers to deport to the District Collector and myself, legally or illegally! He added, “We will further expedite the issue of foreign extradition in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment. All those who came after 1971 are foreigners.”

When the Opposition rebutted stating that many who were forcibly deported have returned, an unreptentant Himanta said, “”We have pushed back about 330 people, none of them have returned and there is no question of them coming back, and this push back will increase further.”  He added, “There are 35 more ready (to be sent): I will send them too (uses un-parliamentary language) “. He also mocked Congress for starting evictions, tribal belts and blocks, D-voters, detention camps, etc., and said that he is trying to do all these things now. He also claimed that like Prafulla Mahanta (former CM) who created D-Voters, he has garnered votes on the question of “expelling foreigners.” I on the other hand, am working for my ideology and that of my party (BJP) which is different. Sarma also made a rather outlandish claim, “Today the Deputy Speaker of Assam Assembly told me that I also have the power to review FT orders, so I will also make anyone who has been made Indian into a foreigner!.. “After Bimala Prasad Chaliha (Former CM of Assam), I am the only Chief Minister who has been able to make any foreign investments.”

At this point Akhil Gogoi Independent MLA from the Raijor Dol from the Sibsagar Assembly Constituency intervened, “It would be better if you spoke like a Chief Minister, please speak like a Chief Minister.” To which Sarma replied, “I want to speak like an Assamese.” He added, “I am the Chief Minister later, but I am an Assamese first. Whatever I say, I will say it like an Assamese, like a proud Assamese.”

Akhil Gogoi said, “You are not a proud Assamese, you are a Big Zero. In your day you could not send a single foreigner (out) legally, what you did you have sent illegally.” Himanta replied,”I will send legally and I will send illegally, yes I will send illegally. ”

Related:

Union Govt admits handover of Samsul Ali to BSF, Gauhati High Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Does India have a lawfully established procedure on ‘deportation’, or are actions governed by Executive secrecy and overreach?

Assam: Academics, lawyers, activists condemn ‘push back’ of persons to Bangladesh

The post Assam: Stormy one day Assembly session, LoP Debabrata Saikia compels CM Himanta Sarma to respond appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The ED dragged Sanjay Raut in a case wherein he was not at all involved. This book is a great account of how power is being misused. It shows how the agencies function now,” said NCP(SP) Supremo Sharad Pawar.

Book stirs controversy

Earlier, speaking about his book, Raut said that while he wrote 80 percent of his book in the prison, he took another two years after getting out of the prison to complete the rest of the book.

“This book is political. Those who want to work while in the opposition must read this book. This book is not for those who only seek power,” Raut said.

Along with Thackeray and Pawar, Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale, renowned writer-lyricist Javed Akhtar and several leaders from the Maha Vikas Aghadi including NCP (SP)’s Jayant Pawar, Anil Deshmukh, Shiv Sena (UBT)’s Aditya Thackeray, Anil Parab, were present at the event.

Raut’s book, which has made several explosive allegations, has come under fire from the ruling party. In his book, Raut has claimed that Sharad Pawar helped PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah avoid legal action after the 2002 Gujarat riots. He also said that Shiv Sena founder Balasaheb Thackeray helped Amit Shah when his arrest was imminent in the same case. He has also written a chapter about the arrest of Jharkhand’s independent journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh, who has been jailed since July 2022 under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The book has been met with jibes and criticism from BJP leaders over its explosive content. However, while speaking at the book launch, Pawar questioned how did the people in power know what’s in the book without even reading it.

Raut as well as the other dignitaries also mentioned several other opposition leaders like Saket Gokhale, Anil Deshmukh, AAP’s Sanjay Singh, who faced action under PMLA.

The use of PMLA

Pawar was part of India’s Union Government when the PMLA was enacted. Speaking at the book launch, Pawar shared that he had tried to warn the then UPA-led government of the potential dangers of this Act.

“It was P Chimdambaram who had proposed to the cabinet an amendment to the PMLA. I had informed the then prime minister Manmohan Singh that this proposal is very dangerous, we shouldn’t do that. If we lose power, it might be used against us. And then, we lost power and the first person who was arrested using PMLA was P Chidambaram himself,” Pawar said.

He was speaking of a provision under the PMLA, which puts the onus of proving innocence on the accused in order to even get bail, instead of the investigating agency having to prove his crime. The Supreme Court, last year, took note of this provision multiple times, criticising it.

Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale, who was also arrested under the PMLA in Gujarat, was present at the book launch. He also drew attention to this provision of the Act.

“This law used to break parties, people. ED is being used for that. Our judiciary has failed completely, that’s why this is happening. The judiciary is responsible for overseeing that the government functions properly. But when your cases don’t see the light of the day, the government does not fear anyone. It’s people like Sanjay Raut who instill that fear back in the government,” Gokhale said.

Pawar also pointed out how the UPA and the NDA governments used this law. He said that while the UPA government had evoked this law for a probe against nine people, there were no arrests made. However, he said that the NDA government has used this act against 19 leaders from different opposition parties and arrested most of them.

Shiv Sena (UBT) Chief and former CM Uddhav Thackeray also alleged that the Centre has been using agencies to intimidate the state governments.

“When I was the CM, Maharashtra’s Director General of Police (DG) and Chief Secretary (CS) were called by the CBI. Mamata Banerjee [West Bengal CM] also faced the same thing, her CS then resigned. If these people hold the strings of people using government agencies, how are we supposed to rule?” Thackeray questioned.

He also demanded that the states should also be allowed to force acts like PMLA. “Our country is a union of states. The states have just as much rights as the Centre, as they should. The states should also be allowed to use the ED, the Income Tax department, the CBI, the PMLA. Let’s put those found accused in the Central Government behind bars and ask them to prove that they are innocent,” Thackeray said.

Courtesy: Indie Journal

The post Sanjay Raut’s Prison Memoir Stirs Political Storm appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The start of 2025 was marked with a publicity push by the Union and Uttar Pradesh governments around the Kumbh, a ritualistic observance that takes place in Prayagraj (Allahabad) every 14 years. Despite coverage by independent media, others and You Tubers around the crushing stampede, the state government had gone out on a limb to deny this. The government has so far admitted to only around 30 deaths.

Following an initial information blackout and no statement for over a day, police had said that 30 people had died. This figure has never been updated and the government has as yet not given a total count of the people who died at the Kumbh, even though it has announced a Rs. 25-lakh compensation for the families of those who died. The Allahabad high court recently asked for it to disclose the total number of people who died at the Kumbh this time.

BBC reports that it has met 26 other families who received compensation in cash bundles of Rs. 5 lakh each, but the names of the victims were not used to update the figures of the dead. The investigation traversed 50 districts and meetings with 100 families, and the ability of the investigation to confirm “at least 82 deaths”. The BBC collected videos and photographic evidence.

In a vast overreach, the union government and the Adityanath government have claimed that “66 crore persons attended the 45-day Kumbh and claimed that it was a huge success. Rs. 7000 crore of public money was reportedly spent on the event.

Finally, due to the pressure, it was only as late as February 19 that the chief minister Adityanath made a statement in the state Assembly on the stampede, admitting to 30 deaths, and 29 bodies being identified. He referred to some places as “pressure points”, saying that some difficulty was experienced there. BBC in its investigation found that deaths at occurred at four of these so-called “pressure points”.

The report classifies the victims into three categories, the first who received officially acknowledged compensation of Rs. 25 lakh each, and the second category of those who got Rs. 5 lakh – in cash. The third category of those victims who got nothing at all.

To the news that government giving cash as compensation for such avoidable tragedies goes, the disbursal of ex-gratia compensation to the next of kin of those who died in the stampede at the New Delhi railway station in February had raised eyebrows, and many questions too, with regard to the mode of payment. Union Railway ministry officials were reported to have been seen “handing over wads of cash, in bundles of notes of Rs. 100 and 50, after announcing that it would provide Rs. 10 lakh ex-gratia to the kin.”

37 of the deceased that were paid Rs. 25 lakh was by direct transfer or by cheque. But BBC says it is unable to confirm where the money for 36 families – who confirmed Rs. 5 lakh cash bundles each by the government adding up to Rs. 1 crore and 30 lakh – came from. Most of those who the investigation has confirmed got cash, have videos and images of the money being handed over. The report says that in most cases, UP police was involved in the handing over of money.

The BBC also reports that it was able to confirm that there are at least 19 families who have lost people in the stampede but received no help from the government.

The investigation has dozens of accounts of eyewitnesses, photographs and conversations with affected parties.

The report, released today, June 11, concludes by saying that there is a possibility that the numbers killed in the stampede is much higher, but they are sticking to 82 as that is the number they have been able to confirm by way of “solid evidence and eyewitness accounts”.

This editorial by The Hindu in January 2025 recalls the high cost of stampedes around religious gatherings in India.

Related:

Unveiling the hidden challenges behind the greatest religious celebration ever: Maha Kumbh, 2025

The post A staggering 82 Killed in Mahakumbh Stampede: BBC Investigation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sarma’s June 9 letter is his expression of concern. He has also referred to his June 2 letter, which detailed how the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) reportedly made “out-of-the-way, imprudent concessions” to Starlink. Starlink Corporation is owned by USA’s multi billionaire Elon Musk. In that letter, Sarma had argued that allowing the foreign company – which he said was “working in tandem with the US defence services” – a “near monopoly on direct satellite surveillance over India” openly violated the Supreme Court’s 2G spectrum ruling where it said that such resources should not be assigned opaquely.

Sarma also highlighted an “extra-ordinary exemption” granted to Starlink from the standard security rule allowing authorities to monitor a licensee’s equipment near international borders.

Sarma, a 1965 batch IAS officer, has publicly expressed his concerns earlier too. In a letter dated November 14, 2024, to the DOT Secretary, Sarma first warned against directly assigning strategic satellite spectrum, particularly to foreign firms like Starlink with known “close ties with the US Army.”

Sarma has cited reports suggesting Starlink is “a time-tested reliable satellite bus technology that can accommodate various payloads as needed, including radars, optical cameras, and infrared (IR) missile launch signalling systems.” He urged that satellite spectrum be reserved for the Indian Space Research Organisation, the defence forces and strategic Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs).

From February 23, 2025 onwards, Sarma’s warnings have grown more urgent. Citing news that the US had reportedly threatened to “shut off” Starlink in Ukraine unless it secured a deal for a “lion’s share in its mineral resources,” he urged the DOT to tighten safeguards against Starlink. He expressed dismay that India was welcoming the company “with open arms… against all legal norms, ignoring all strategic implications.”

Sarma raised the issue of monopoly market practices on March 13, 2025, alleging Starlink was “forming a cartel with the two domestic telecom operators, namely, Jio and Airtel.” He suggested this would allow them to “dominate satellite spectrum use at the cost of millions of telecom customers in India,” potentially leading to a “scam far worse and more egregious than the 2G spectrum scam.”

Now, in his latest communication, Sarma points to new foreign events to highlight his security concerns. He cites news reports from early June 2025, including a detailed Washington Post article dated June 7, 2025. According to this report, “Elon Musk’s team at the U.S. DOGE Service and allies in the Trump administration ignored White House communications experts worried about potential security breaches when DOGE personnel installed Musk’s Starlink internet service in the complex this year.”

The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, reported that a Starlink terminal was installed on the roof of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in February. A “Starlink Guest” WiFi network then appeared on White House phones, asking only for a password without further checks. This setup, the report indicated, could allow data transmission “without any kind of record or tracking,” bypassing normal White House IT security.

One source has told the Post, “With a Starlink connection that means White House devices could leave the network and go out through gateways… It’s going to help you bypass security.” Representative Stephen F. Lynch, the House Oversight Committee’s acting top Democrat, said the situation “could have the potential to undermine our national security by exposing sensitive data and information to hackers, our adversaries, or those wishing to do Americans harm.”

Sarma hopes these reports will “wake up the government to the security risk posed by foreign players in India.” He stated, “Evidently, on extraneous considerations, the government has chosen to ignore my cautionary letters and go ahead with granting clearance to StarLink.”

This senior former bureaucrat from India’s civil services has also pressed for a judicial enquiry to examine several points: whether directly assigning spectrum complied with the Supreme Court’s 2G judgment; changes to StarLink’s security license conditions; the strategic effects of StarLink’s near-monopoly and its US defence ties; and the likely loss to the public treasury from not auctioning the spectrum.

He ended his letter stating that the “manner in which DOT had gone out of the way to give a special treatment to Elon Musk and StarLink, throwing caution and legality to the wind, raises serious concerns about the propriety of the deal itself.”

He warned that failing to start an enquiry “would lead one to draw the inference that the government does not wish to hold itself accountable to the Parliament and the public.”

In his previous letter, Sarma had stated clearly that if the government failed to respond promptly, he would “have no other alternative than to seek judicial intervention.”

The government has not publicly responded to Sarma’s latest claims yet.

Related:

Koo instead of Twitter: Is India becoming the next China?

Plea seeking restoration of internet in Haryana, HC issues notice

After 18 months, J&K gets 4G internet back!

The post Ex Sec E.A.S. Sarma expresses ‘serious concerns’ over Starlink deal; demands judicial probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.