Teesta Setalvad speaks with Ebin Basil and Mohammad Athnan about the struggle to regain their university and an elected students’ union after two decades.

The conversation also confronts the stigma and demonisation Jamia and its students have faced, part of a right wing agenda to obliterate the institution’s emergence from India’s struggle for freedom.

The post 20 Years Without a Union, 18 Days of Hunger Strike: Jamia Students Script a Win | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The website of the organization has published a portrait of Gautam Adani, garlanded and looking upwards wearing a half-smile, who now joins an array of 33 global figures and companies lined up by Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) in its “2026 Press Freedom Predators List”. Donald Trump, US President, makes it on the list for the first time this year. OpIndia, which features pro-establishment critiques of independent media, is on the list again.

The list is RSF’s rather unique way to mark the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists on November 2. It profiles 33 “press freedom predators” who targeted journalists and media outlets in 2026. “What do they have in common? A hatred of press freedom,” says RSF.

“This tongue-in-cheek awards list highlights the diversity and brutality of the tactics used to stifle journalism,” RSF says.

India has two entries – corporate giant Adani features as a representative of his Adani Group, which RSF says is a “predator” of the media for its “use of gag suits”. A journalist the group has been pursuing with a criminal defamation case due to articles published recently spent time in a prison in Gujarat. RSF notes that the conglomerate has “11 ongoing civil and criminal proceedings against journalists in India over their reporting on the Adani Group and its subsidiaries”.

The RSF report notes that the Adani Group seeks “to criminalise journalism via abusive legal proceedings against media outlets and journalists”, joining other noteworthy personalities with the same goal: Kazakhstan’s president Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, making his debut, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

RSF cites from a lawsuit filed by Adani Enterprises on September 6, 2025, to illustrate its point:

“[T]he Plaintiff is aggrieved by the actions of certain reporters, activists and organisations, who, with malicious intent, have damaged the Adani Group’s reputation and also cost its stakeholders billions of dollars and also caused massive loss to the image, brand equity and credibility of India’s brand as a country… [T]he Defendants, by aligning with anti-India interests and continuously targeting the Plaintiff’s Infrastructure and energy projects, which are critical to India’s infrastructure and energy security, have disrupted these projects with ulterior motives.” Adani Group is among several others who use lawfare to target journalists critical of them or their regimes as per the RSF’s 2026 report.

Ironically, the second Indian entry is media outlet OpIndia, which features this year for “fuelling public hatred through digital attacks on independent journalism, orchestrated or supported by those in power”. In its study of how OpIndia operates, RSF has previously noted that between January and September, 2025, it published 91 articles targeting journalists and media outlets, including 43 aimed exclusively at five journalists. “The RSF analysis found that of these 43 articles, 32 were followed by immediate waves of online harassment,” its study found.

OpIndia continues to find support from Google AdSense and other sources despite funding withdrawals as a result of the ‘Stop Funding Hate’ campaign, the RSF notes. Anne Bocandé, RSF editorial director, said:

OpIndia is a central cog in the systematic harassment of journalists in India, which puts them in very real danger. RSF calls on the Indian justice system to investigate the cyber harassment campaigns linked to these publications. Online platforms, particularly X, must act to remove the hateful content fuelling these attacks. What’s more, it seems that Google AdSense’s continued funding of this site is incompatible with its misconduct. The fight against online harassment is key in protecting journalists and press freedom in India.

The profile of OpIndia on the RSF site says, “Between 2023 and 2025, more than 300 publications targeting journalists were published on its website, often fuelling large-scale online harassment campaigns.”

OpIndia takes on independent sites, opposition-ruled state governments for their perceived wrongs. Screenshot taken on November 3, 2026. As per the RSF report, the journalists most frequently targeted on OpIndia were: Rajdeep Sardesai, consultant editor and anchor of India Today (36 articles); Arfa Khanum Sherwani, journalist of The Wire (18); Mohammed Zubair, Co-founder of the fact-checking website Alt News (15); Mahesh Langa, journalist at The Hindu (13), Ravish Kumar, independent journalist (11); and Prabir Purkayastha, chief editor of NewsClick (10).

Independent media outlets, The Wire, NewsClick and Newslaundry, were also among the main targets, RSF found, with 32, 17 and 16 disparaging articles documented, respectively, over this period. Together, such entities (among many others) have contributed to bring India’s media ranking in 2026 to 157th/180 – down six places from last year. As per the RSF rankings, India is part of a sea of red for lack of media freedoms in a vast part of the world:

The RSF recently provided a retrospective of the last 25 years in terms of media freedoms, in which it noted:

For the first time in the history of the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, over half of the world’s countries now fall into the “difficult” or “very serious” categories for press freedom. In 25 years, the average score of all 180 countries and territories surveyed in the Index has never been so low.

Donald Trump makes it to RSF’s top worst list

After narrowly missing the cut last year, US President Donald Trump earned his spot on the 2026 Press Freedom Predators List as a result of his appalling record of attacks on the press after less than two years of his second term.

“Since returning to the White House in January 2025,” writes RSF, US President Donald Trump has been “waging an assault on press freedom that is unprecedented in recent US history.”

The report lists verbal attacks, legal intimidation and administrative reprisals against media outlets he considers hostile. It says the Trump administration has restricted journalists’ access to government and military institutions, undermined the independence of public broadcasters and weaponised the broadcasting regulator against the press.

Besides it also cites the President responding to questions regarding the restriction of journalists’ access to the White House, September 2026:

“Oh, the ban on the – on the free press. Right? A very simple ban. I don’t want them in my office. I don’t want them here. I would say the ban would go as far as you can.”

Still, the US ranks 64th/180 on the rankings in 2026 though it has dropped 7 places from last year.

‘Familiar faces’

Adani Group, OpIndia and Trump feature on different lists within the RSF rankings. While Adani features in the “legal” category, OpIndia features on the “social” category and Trump sits among the political. But these are just three among the 33 RSF features.

RSF describes Russian President Vladimir Putin as “ever-present” on its rankings, and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega as another “repeat offender” in the “security” category. It also refers to the “dismayingly unassailable” Israeli armed forces, Mexican cartels and Chinese Communist Party.

“Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, alongside the Israeli armed forces, has pursued its repressive policy against journalists in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon,” it says.

The only woman featured among the 33 is Margarita Simonian, the editor of Russia Today and other Russian outlets.

“She has called for the dissolution of RSF and congratulated Alexander Lukashenko after a plane was diverted to arrest the Belarusian blogger Raman Pratasevich,” RSF notes.

Earlier, while releasing the World Press Freedom Index, RSF noted that over half of the world’s countries now fall into the “difficult” or “very serious” categories for press freedom. “In 25 years, the average score of all 180 countries and territories surveyed in the Index has never been so low,” it says.

Related:

Jahangirpuri: Navika Kumar, Anjana Om Kashyap demolish media credibility further

‘Godi media’ on a rampage: Mowing down of farmers labeled ‘clashes’, victims ‘khalistanis’

From Watchdog to Lapdog, Weaponisation of the India Media

The post RSF classifies ‘Press Freedom Predators,’ Adani, OpIndia make it to the 2026 List appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Kumar, an alumnus of HCU, said that in the absence of concrete action, he would be compelled to take the matter to the University Grants Commission (UGC), the Union Ministry of Education, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and other statutory authorities. He also said he would raise the university’s failure to take substantive action despite his multiple official complaints of class, caste and racial discrimination. He has attached a copy of the 16 April email as evidence.

Chronology of Events 

As reported by the Siasat Daily and other online media outlets like Maktoob Media reported that, a former student of the University of Hyderabad has lodged a formal complaint against Dr Vijay Ramdas Mandala, Associate Professor in the university’s Department of History, over an email in which the professor called him a “Dalit untouchable idiot” and described students from Bihar and Jharkhand as “third-rate, poverty-ridden idiots”.

Subodh Kumar, an alumnus of the university (MA History, 2017-19) and currently a PhD candidate at the University of Nottingham, wrote to the Vice-Chancellor, the university’s RC Cell and the University of Hyderabad Students’ Union on October 31, 2026, demanding institutional and disciplinary proceedings against the professor.

According to the complaint, Kumar and other alumni of the university were working with Dr Mandala earlier this year on an edited book volume. When one of the contributors communicated British university regulations for fieldwork in India to the professor, he “for reasons incomprehensible” resorted to “wanton abuse of students from marginalised backgrounds” in an email dated April 16, 2026, Kumar said.

The email in question

An email, sent from Dr Mandala’s account and signed “Dr. Vijaya Ramadas M., PhD (History), The University of Manchester, U.K., Associate Professor, Department of History, School of Social Sciences, University of Hyderabad”, is addressed to one of the contributors. “The recent German PhD who comes from an untouchable Dalit background also said to me the same thing about his collection of archives in India,” the professor wrote, before telling the recipient that they were from “a high-risk country, specifically a civilizationally, politically, and economically backward state like Jharkhand.”

“A large chunk of the Indian population is from non-Aryan and non-wealthy backgrounds, including backward states like Bihar and Jharkhand, which resemble some countries in Africa on the political map of India and across the globe. This also happened to another Dalit untouchable idiot at Nottingham, who is working part-time in a hotel in England after his post-UK PhD,” the email read.

“Perhaps these students who come from poverty-ridden backgrounds develop such Pakistani-centric thinking (not knowing that one cannot emulate class, one should be born in a high class and culture) in a country known as Mini-Pakistan – England among India’s rich and high middle-class circles,” he wrote.

The professor went on to claim that “Europeans are, by all means, inferior to the Indo-Aryans in India”, and described the United Kingdom as “a global laughing stock” where “ethnic minorities such as Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans own the decision-making” and which “is no longer an Anglo-Saxon country.” Refusing to accept the recipient’s chapter submission, he wrote: “At Indian Business School, I do alert all the faculty across India not to entertain you, anti-Indian (typical of Pakis in England) across the leadership spectrum.”

“A cunning fox, after going anywhere, would remain a traitor to its home country, as it cannot be a tiger or lion in a trillion years, but would live on with its low-level roots and working-class upbringing,” the email said.  The email ended: “I am terminating further communication with you, but also will not provide academic support from third-rate, poverty-ridden idiots from Bihar and Jharkhand henceforth. Best wishes, Vijay.”

There is more. On April 27, 2026, Dr Mandala wrote separately to Kumar, saying he would not accept his chapter submission “as I have enough authors for my ongoing book project” and advising him to submit it to a peer-reviewed academic journal. “Also, do not include my name in any future academic references or in any communications of any kind henceforth,” the professor wrote. The email carried a disclaimer stating that it “does not represent the University of Hyderabad or any student community, but the views of an individual in a personal capacity.”

Meanwhile, the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) has flagged the alleged “casteist, classist and discriminatory remarks” of an associate professor against a former student of University of Hyderabad. SFI’s United Kingdom unit and HCU unit have both released statements condemning remarks by Dr Vijaya Ramadas Mandala, Associate Professor at HCU’s Department of History. Both have cited this email that was allegedly shared by the professor to a former student. SFI UK stated that Mandala called one of his students a “Dalit untouchable idiot” and demeaned students from marginalised backgrounds coming to the UK to pursue higher education, claiming that they lack class and culture. He also said that he “will not provide academic support for third-rate, poverty-ridden idiots from Bihar and Jharkhand henceforth,” the statement read.

According to the SFI unit at HCU, the incident was triggered over revisions to a book chapter when the student cited ethical constraints in anonymising individuals in his research.

“These remarks expose a deeply entrenched casteist and classist mindset that determines who deserves dignity, recognition and opportunities within academic institutions. Targeting a student because of his Dalit identity, regional background and economic circumstances is an attack on the very principles of equality and social justice that public universities are expected to uphold,” they stated in an Instagram post.

“The repeated deaths of marginalised students on university campuses have exposed the devastating consequences of caste discrimination, institutional apathy and the absence of effective grievance-redressal mechanisms. Behind these tragedies lie structures of everyday humiliation, unequal treatment, academic gatekeeping and the denial of dignity. It is precisely in this context that the remarks made by Dr Ramadas must be understood.” they added.

Mandala allegedly dismissed the remarks as a momentary flare-up of emotion when confronted by the university administration and the department, SFI UK said. The union added that the students had earlier received academic guidance and recommendation letters from Mandala while collaborating with him on academic publications, and abuse began only when they disagreed with him.

“Students depend on senior academics for references, research guidance and publication opportunities, and it is this dependence that makes such abuse an instrument of control,” they added.

“Dalit, Adivasi and Bahujan students across Indian and UK universities continue to face casteism, gatekeeping and institutional indifference. Caste also follows Indian students abroad while remaining absent from the protected characteristics of the UK’s Equality Act 2010,” the statement read. SFI UK has demanded the dismissal of Mandala from all positions at the University of Hyderabad following a transparent inquiry with public findings and the registration of a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

They have also called upon the academic community in the UK to withhold collaboration with Mandala until these demands are met and upon publishers to review any contracts with him.

Meanwhile, Ajith, a PhD student at the university who is also associated with SFI, told Siasat.com that the student who received the email is currently doing a PhD in UK.

He had received a letter of recommendation from Mandala which helped him in his admission. Mandala later approached the student to contribute a chapter for a book he was editing but the student declined citing UK guidelines

.“The student would have to go through bureaucratic hurdles to contribute the chapter and delay his own PhD. It is very difficult to get an extension there so he politely declined the offer. However, the professor got offended and sent the abusive email.” Ajith said. He alleged that the university department also quietly brushed off the matter and said that they were closing it after receiving an apology from Mandala

“Matter will resolve”

Kumar first complained to the Head of the Department of History, but said he received only a formal apology, along with an explanation that the email was “only a momentary flare-up of emotions”.

On May 10, 2026, Head of the Department Prof. Y. Swarupa R. Shankar wrote to Kumar that she had spoken to the faculty member, who “agreed not to intervene with your fellowship and recommendation letter” and “also gave an apology letter.” “Hence, the matter will resolve and there will not be any problem from the faculty in your research and career. The department will be in your support,” she wrote.

Kumar rejected this. “The matter cannot be considered resolved merely based on an apology or an assurance of non-interference,” he replied on 13 May. He said he had submitted an official complaint concerning serious instances of racism, classism and caste-based discrimination, and that a junior colleague had independently lodged a separate complaint about related conduct.

“In a university that has previously witnessed the tragic death of Rohith Vemula, which brought national attention to the realities of caste discrimination within academic spaces, such matters cannot and should not be treated lightly or resolved informally,” Kumar wrote. “The University must demonstrate through its actions that discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated.”

He sought proceedings within a week. According to his latest complaint, his follow-up complaints to the Head of the Department demanding stricter disciplinary action received no further response.

Related:

ABVP fails to a win single seat in first election since Rohith Vemula’s death in University of Hyderabad

Muslim visitors denied entry into Hyderabad University campus, security officials defend action

Victory for now, but the Resistance Continues: Hyderabad Central University (HCU)

The post University of Hyderabad professor calls alumnus ‘Dalit untouchable idiot’; complainant rejects department’s bid to close matter with apology appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice RS Sodhi (retd) expressing extreme anguish on the 42^nd anniversary of the Sikh genocide stated:

“In Trilokpuri, Sultanpuri and Mangolpuri, men were dragged into the lanes and burned alive. Women were raped. Children watched their fathers die and then went hungry in relief camps. Trains arriving in and around the capital were stopped, and passengers wearing turbans were pulled out and killed. The Army was not deployed in time, and police personnel stood aside or lent a hand to the mob in many localities. Within weeks the new Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, said during a rally that when a big tree falls, the earth shakes. It was as if he had already reconciled himself with the tragedy.

“Justice was slow to come. By one count, as many as 11 commissions and committees of inquiry probed the killings, but almost nothing followed…Whenever there is a bus or train mishap, the State immediately accepts that it owes something to the families of the dead and announces compensation within a day or two. The victims of 1984 had a stronger claim because cops remained bystanders in several localities and those named by witnesses belonged to the ruling party. Yet the relief that followed was more for property and shelter than for compensating the families of the dead. Compensation for death was fixed at Rs 10,000, later Rs 20,000, against Rs 10,000 for a house wholly destroyed.

“The Rs 3.5-lakh relief that the High Court ordered in 1996 reached families only through a Central package in 2006, and a further Rs 5 lakh was approved in 2014 for the kin of 3,325 dead. The fulfilment of promises on pensions and jobs has been patchy. In 2023, 10 states had still not reported what they had paid. A State that pays promptly for accidents, but in instalments over four decades for a massacre it failed to stop, has told its Sikh citizens what their lives were worth.”

[‘India must never forget scars of 1984’, The Tribune, Chandigarh. Link: https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/india-must-never-forget-scars-of-1984/]

It was the same status on the eve of 41^st anniversary as stated by Shekhar Singh in The Tribune,

“Forty-one years ago, Delhi burned, not from a foreign enemy, but from within. Between October 31 and November 7, 1984, mobs roamed the streets hunting down Sikh men, torching homes, and setting gurdwaras ablaze. Officially, 2,733 Sikhs were killed in the capital even as survivors say the toll was over 3,000. Over four decades later, most of the ‘guilty’ still walk free.

“Of the 650 cases registered, chargesheets were filed in 362, but only 39 ended in conviction. Nearly 300 cases collapsed for want of evidence, witnesses or police will. Now, barely 20 cases remain alive, dragging on in Delhi’s trial courts or pending appeal in the high court. The rest have been swallowed by the system’s silence…a justice process that has moved slower than time itself.”

[‘Only 39 convictions in 650 cases, justice eludes 1984 riot victims’, The Tribune, Chandigarh, October 31, 2025. Link: https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/only-39-convictions-in-650-cases-justice-eludes-1984-riot-victims/]

Two kinds of Justice

Whenever the country witness’s large-scale violence against minorities and Dalits, the search for perpetrators continues endlessly and the criminals are rarely identified or punished. Major incidents of violence against minorities like Nellie massacre (1983), Sikh genocide (1984), Hashimpura custodial massacre of Muslim youth (1987), pre/post- Ayodhya Mosque demolition violence against Muslims (1990-92), Gujarat carnage (2002) and Kandhmal cleansing of Christians (2008) and continuing bloodbath of Kuki Tribals (who are mostly Christians) in Manipur are testimony to this reality.

But when the victims are Dalits or minorities no such urgency is shown. In such cases Indian State is fond of playing commission-commission. Enquiry Commissions after commissions would be constituted to see that the heinous crimes disappear from the public memory. The horrendous genocide of Sikhs in different parts of India in 1984 is a living testimony of this criminal attitude of the Indian justice system with the motto in Sanskrit: ‘Yato Dharma Tato Jaya’ [Where there are righteousness and dharma, there is victory]. Judiciary must explain what it means by Dharma. Does it include religions of minorities and right of Dalits also?

The scenario of the anti-Dalit violence is no different. The major incidents of persecution and massacre of Dalits; 1968 Kilvenmani massacre, 1997 Melavalavu massacre, 2013 Marakkanam anti-Dalit violence, 2012 Dharmapuri anti- Dalit violence (all in Tamil Nadu), 1985 Karamchedu massacre, 1991 Tsundur massacre (all in AP), 1996 Bathani Tola Massacre, 1997 Laxmanpur Bathe massacre (all in Bihar), 1997 Ramabai killings, Mumbai, 2006 Khairlanji massacre, 2014 Javkheda Hatyakand, (all in Maharashtra), 2000 Caste persecution in (Karnataka), 5 Dalits beaten/burnt to death for skinning a dead cow 2006, 2011 killings of Dalits in Mirchpur (all in Haryana), 2015 anti-Dalit violence in Dangawas (Rajasthan) are some of the thousands of incidents of the Dalit persecution. In almost all these cases perpetrators are yet to be identified. Even if identified the prosecution rate never exceeded 20%.

On the other hand, the Dalit, working class and minority ‘perpetrators’ of violence are efficiently put on trial by constituting special investigation teams and punished by fast-track courts. In order to meet the end of ‘justice’, ‘national security’ and ‘wish of society’ they are hanged and jailed. The overall reality is that whenever victims are minorities, working class and Dalits the State and judiciary go into coma.

Betrayal by Governments until 2014

After giving free run to the killer gangs, the government appointed one man Marwah Commission to find out the perpetrators of the 1984 ‘riots’. As this exercise was proving to be inconvenient, the Ved Marwah Commission was asked to disband itself within short period of its existence and a sitting Supreme Court Judge Ranga Nath Mishra was asked to conduct inquiry into 1984 ‘riots’ who submitted his report in 1987. Shockingly, this fact finding (or fact-hiding) commission headed by Misra observed that “riots which had a spontaneous origin later attained a channelized method at the hands of gangsters”.

The genocide was reduced to ‘riots’ as if Sikhs equally participated in the violence. It was a brazen lie. The ‘apostle of justice’, Mishra, champion of the theory of spontaneity was not, naturally, able to find out where these gangsters came from! According to Jarnail Singh author of the book, I Accuse: The Anti-Sikh Violence of 1984 for this service to the State he was awarded a berth in Rajya Sabha.

Betrayal by the present RSS-BJP Rulers

RSS claims to have always stood for Hindu-Sikh unity. It occasionally expresses its gratitude to Sikhism for saving Hinduism from the Muslim aggression. It may not be irrelevant to note here that RSS does not treat Sikhism as independent religion, which discarded Casteism and Brahmanical hegemony, but part of Hinduism. The RSS/BJP leaders blamed Congress for anti-Sikh violence Modi while addressing a public rally during last parliamentary elections at Jhansi, UP (October 25, 2013) asked Congress leaders to explain who “killed thousands of Sikhs in 1984” and “has anyone been convicted for the Sikh genocide so far”. Modi during Punjab elections and 2014 general elections kept on referring to ‘qatl-e-aam’ or genocide of Sikhs.

Modi, soon after becoming PM in a message (October 31, 2014) said that anti-Sikh riots in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination were like a, “dagger that pierced through India’s chest…Our own people were murdered, the attack was not on a particular community but on the entire nation.” Hindutva’s icon, RSS whole-timer, and PM Modi lamented the fact that culprits were yet to be booked and tried for this genocide. However, Modi did not tell the nation what NDA governments which ruled this country from 1998 to 2004 did to persecute the culprits. Modi also forgot to share the fact that as per the autobiography of LK Advani (“My Country, My Life” 2008, page 430); it was his Party which forced Indira Gandhi to go for army action infamously named as Operation Blue Star which killed large number of Sikh pilgrims.

Renowned journalist Manoj Mitta, author of the book When a Tree Shook Delhi: The 1984 Carnage and Its Aftermath straight forwardly tells that “Despite the BJP rule, there has hardly been any will to enforce accountability for the massacres that took place under the Congress. It’s as if there is a tacit deal between the sponsors of 1984 and 2002 (Gujarat genocide)”.

It was not oversight that during 2024 parliamentary elections 1984 genocide was totally forgotten. This is not what outsiders or critics of the RSS have been telling. The perusal of the contemporary RSS documents show that major focus was on condemning the Sikh extremism, eulogizing Indira Gandhi, and welcoming the crowning of Rajiv Gandhi as new prime minister.

RSS Ideologue Nana Deshmukh’s de-humanised attitude wards the Sikh Genocide

The most important proof of such a dehumanized attitude towards the genocide of Sikhs is a document circulated by Nana Deshmukh, a prominent whole timer and ideologue of the RSS [now deceased]. This document titled as ‘MOMENTS OF SOUL SEARCHING’ was circulated by Deshmukh on November 8, 1984, may help in unmasking the whole lot of criminals involved in the genocide of innocent Sikhs who had nothing to do with the killing of Indira Gandhi. This document may also throw light on where the cadres came from, who meticulously organized the killing of Sikhs. Nana Deshmukh in this document is seen outlining the justification of the genocide of the Sikh community in 1984.

This document also shows the true degenerated and fascist attitude of the RSS towards all the minorities of India. The RSS has been arguing that they are against Muslims and Christians because they are the followers of foreign religions. Here we find them justifying the butchering of Sikhs who according to their own categorization happened to be the followers of an indigenous religion. In this document we will hear from the horse’s mouth that the RSS like the then Congress leadership believed that the genocide of the innocent Sikhs was unavoidable.

This document was published in the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes, who later became Defence Minister of India in the NDA regime, in its edition of November 25, 1984, titled ‘Indira Congress- RSS collusion’ with the following editorial comment:

“The author of the following document is known as an ideologue and policy formulator of the RSS. After the killing of Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) he distributed this document among prominent politicians. It has historical significance that is why we have decided to publish it, violating the policy of our Weekly. This document highlights the new affinity developing between the Indira Congress and the RSS. We produce here the Hindi translation of the document.”

The original pages of the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes, reproduced below:

Deshmukh  in his document ‘Moments of Soul Searching,’  is seen outlining the justification of the genocide of the Sikh community in 1984. His defence of the carnage can be summed up as in the following:

1. The genocide of Sikhs was not the handiwork of any group or anti-social elements but the result of a genuine feeling of
2. Deshmukh did not distinguish the action of the two security personnel of Indira Gandhi, who happened to be Sikhs, from that of the whole Sikh community. According to his document the killers of Indira Gandhi were working under some kind of mandate of their
3. Sikhs themselves invited these attacks, thus advancing the Congress theory of justifying the genocide of the Sikhs.
4. He glorified the Operation Blue Star and described any opposition to it as anti- national. When Sikhs were being killed in thousands he was warning the country of Sikh extremism, thus offering ideological defense of those killings.
5. Sikh community as a whole was responsible for violence in
6. Sikhs should have done nothing in self-defence but showed patience and tolerance against the killer
7. These were Sikh intellectuals and not killer mobs which were responsible for the genocide. They had turned Sikhs into a militant community, cutting them off from their Hindu roots, thus inviting attacks from the nationalist Indians. Moreover, he treated all Sikhs as part of the same gang and described attacks on them as a reaction of the nationalist
8. He described Indira Gandhi as the only leader who could keep the country united and assassination of such great leaders such killings could not be avoided.
9. Rajiv Gandhi who succeeded Mrs. Gandhi as the PM and justified the nation- wide killings of Sikhs by saying, “When a huge tree falls there are always tremors felt,” was lauded and blessed by Nana Deshmukh at the end of the
10. Shockingly, the genocide of Sikhs was being equated with the attacks on the RSS cadres after the killing of Gandhiji and we find Deshmukh advising Sikhs to suffer silently. Everybody knows that the killing of Gandhiji was inspired by the RSS and the Hindutva Ideology whereas the common innocent Sikhs had nothing to do with the murder of Indira
11. There was not a single sentence in the Deshmukh document demanding, from the then Congress Government at the Centre or the then home minister Narsimha Rao (a Congress leader dear to the RSS who later silently watched demolition of Babri masjid by Hindutva goons as PM of India in 1992) remedial measures for controlling the violence against the minority community. Mind it, that Deshmukh circulated this document on November 8, 1984, and from October 31 to this date Sikhs were left alone to face the killing gangs. In fact, November 5-10 was the period when the maximum killings of Sikhs took place. Deshmukh was just not bothered about all
12. It is generally believed that the Congress cadres were behind this genocide. This may be true but there were other forces too which actively participated in this genocide and whose role has never been investigated. It could be one of the reasons that actual perpetrators remain unknown. Those who witnessed the genocide were stunned by the swiftness and military precision of the killer/marauding gangs (later on witnessed during the Babri mosque demolition, burning alive of Dr. Graham Steins with his two sons, 2002 pogrom of the Muslims in Gujarat and cleansing of Christians in parts of Orissa) which went on a burning spree of the innocent Sikhs. This, surely, was beyond the capacity of the thugs led by many Congress
13. It is shocking that Deshmukh presented 1984 genocide of Sikhs as an issue between Sikhs and Hindus. He wrote: “I feel proud of all those Hindu neighbours who protected lives and property of troubled Sikh brothers without caring for their lives. Such things one being heard from all over Delhi. These things have practically increased the faith in natural goodness of human behavior and particularly faith in Hindu nature.”He remained oblivious to the fact that these were not only Hindus but Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Communists who defended Sikhs’ lives and properties.

The RSS’ shameful attitude towards the Sikh Massacre

Deshmukh document did not happen in isolation. It represented the real RSS attitude towards Sikh genocide of 1984. It may be relevant to know here that the RSS cadres did not come forward in defence of the Sikhs. The RSS is very fond of circulating publicity material, especially photographs of its khaki shorts-clad cadres doing social work. For the 1984 violence they have none. In fact, Deshmukh’s article also made no mention of the RSS cadres going to the rescue of Sikhs under siege. This shows the real intentions of the RSS during the genocide.

The RSS English organ, Organizer in its combined issue dated November 11 & 18, 1984 carried an editorial titled ‘Stunning Loss’ which praised Indira Gandhi in the following words:

“It will always be difficult to believe that Indira Gandhi is no more. One had got so used to hearing her myriad voices for so long that everything looked so blank without her. The violent manner of her death is the most shocking horror story, giving the nation the creeps…It is a case of treacherous fanatics stigmatizing the whole nation by butchering a remarkable specimen of Indian womanhood…She literally served India to the last drop of her blood according to her own lights.” The same editorial ended with the words supporting newly installed PM, Rajiv Gandhi who “deserves sympathy and consideration”. 

The Organizer also carried statement of RSS Supremo; Bala Deoras titled ‘Balasaheb condemns assassination, Delhi carnage’ in a single column. He mourned and condemned the carnage but not even once referred to the fact that Sikhs were under attack. For him it was “infighting in the Hindu Samaj”. He also overlooked the fact that it was not only Delhi where Sikhs were butchered/burnt but in many other parts of India too. According to this statement “swayamsevaks have been instructed to form or help in forming Mohalla Suraksha Samitis” for restoring peace and rehabilitation of the sufferers. However, there are no documents available in the contemporary RSS archives to show how these Samitis functioned. It is a fact that RSS, which is fond of displaying photographs of its cadres doing social work did not publish any visual of the activity of these Samitis.

In the same statement Deoras reacting to the assassination of Indira Gandhi stated,

“It is shocking beyond words to express the feelings at the murder of PM                          Mrs.Indira Gandhi by some fanatic elements. She had been carrying on almost the entire burden of the country since 1966. She was loved and respected not only in this country but all over the world. Her passing away at this critical juncture will create a void in India and also in the world.”

According to the above-mentioned Organizer,

 “RSS Sarkyavah, Rajender Singh issued instructions to all the branches in the country to    hold a special meeting in Shakha condemning the dastardly murder of the PM and paying homage to the departed soul. He also issued instructions to cancel all public functions to be held by RSS during the period of mourning”.

Of course, RSS archives do not contain any instructions from RSS top brass ordering to mourn the Sikh victims.”

RSS against former Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh’s apology for the 1984 genocide

The RSS continues to downplay 1984 Sikh genocide will be clear by the perusal of charter of demands submitted to the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in last July. The senior RSS ideologue, Dina Nath Batra on behalf of RSS-affiliated Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas submitted five pages containing list of items to be removed from school text-books. Batra demanded that any reference to violence against minorities in the textbooks should be removed which included references to a simple apology tendered by the former PM Manmohan Singh over 1984 violence. It is to be noted that in an apology in Parliament on August 12, 2005, Manmohan Singh, the then PM of India stated:

“I have no hesitation in apologising to the Sikh community. I apologise not only to the Sikh community, but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution.” 

So, the search for finding the perpetrators of Sikh genocide of 1984 continues endlessly. The present RSS/BJP rulers who claim to be co-religionists of Sikhs prove no different from Congress. The only hope is that those Indians who have stakes in continuation of democratic-secular Indian polity will come forward to force the Indian State to identify and punish the killers. The scholars who have been involved in the study of religious violence are unanimous in the conclusion that if 1984 genocide was not allowed to happen, there would not have been 1992- 93 (violence against Muslims in pre/post Babri mosque demolition period), 2002 (genocide of Muslims in Gujarat), Kandhmal 2008 (cleansing of Christians) and many other massacre of the minorities of India. Allowing the 1984 genocide the Indian State, let it be known to all the majoritarian fascist organizations that in such criminal happening the former would remain silent! 

Nana Deshmukh awarded “Bharat Ratna’

As if it was not enough injustice to the martyrs and survivors of the 1984 genocide, on the eve of the Republic Day (January 25, 2019) RSS-BJP rulers of India, bestowed the highest national award BHARAT RATN (gem of India) on Nanaji Deshmukh. PM Modi praising Deshmukh said, “He [Nana Deshmukh] personifies humility, compassion, and service to the downtrodden. He is a Bharat Ratna in the truest sense”.

If anybody wants to understand the exact meaning of the proverb ‘to rub salt into the wound’ this Bharat Ratna to Deshmukh is the fittest example!

[This photograph is of a street theatre performance titled ‘Sadharan Log (common people) by Nishant Natya Manch against genocide of Sikhs in 1984. It was performed at more than two thousand places. The author is also doing a role.]

The criminal shirking of responsibility by the Indian State in finding the perpetrators of 1984 genocide was deliberate and conscious. Despite the identities of criminals involved being in public domain. Prominent human rights’ organizations, namely, People’s Union for Democratic Rights and People’s Union for Civil Rights had published a factual ground report by the end of November presenting comprehensive details of the city-wide incidents and names of the criminals involved. This report titled ‘Who Are the Guilty?’ was based on eye-witness accounts of the survivors, civil society members belonging to different religions who were against the genocide and played great role in defending and saving Sikhs at many places. The State consigned this report to the dustbin but remains the most authentic document of the genocide till date.

References:

Link for the full English text of the RSS ideologue Nana Deshmukh’s document: https://www.academia.edu/4890979/RSS_IDEOLOGUE_ NANA_DESHMUKH_J USTIFIED_MASSACRE_OF_SIKHS_IN_1984_From_R

SS_archives_Link of a 2023 interview of the author on 1984 Sikh genocide:

https://www.academia.edu/107044638/Victims_Will_Never_Forget_The_Violence_Shamsul_Islam_On_1984_Massacre_of_Sikh

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

The post 42nd Anniversary of 1984 Sikh genocide: Amnesia of the Indian state and society appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Jamia’s hunger strike is far from over. Ebin Basil and Rehan Khan will continue their fast as students reject all three points in the administration’s October 26 order. They allege they were pressured into signing an agreement at 3 am. No firm election date, no clear assurance on revoking ALL suspensions, and a demand for public apology. “We protested peacefully, in a Gandhian way. Why should we apologise?” students ask. After 14 days of struggle, the standoff continues.

The two from left are Rehan and Ebin – who will continue their hunger strike while Jasim and Faizan will have to discontinue because of their medical conditions.
#JamiaMilliaIslamia

@santwana99
@NewIndianXpress

— Ifrah Mufti (@ifrahmufti) October 26, 2026

Delhi: Some students at Jamia Millia Islamia continue their hunger strike despite an agreement signed with the university administration overnight. The protesting students allege that some were persuaded to sign the agreement and say their original demands remain unmet. Those opposed to the agreement continue their protest

— IANS (@ians_india) October 26, 2026

Delhi: Security personnel have been deployed outside Jamia Millia Islamia as some students continue their hunger strike despite an agreement being signed between the university administration and students overnight. Protesters allege that some students were persuaded to sign the agreement and say their original demands remain unmet. Students opposing the agreement have continued their protest

— IANS (@ians_india) October 26, 2026

The order, issued by the Office of the Registrar, came after nearly a fortnight of sustained protests, hunger strikes, police deployment, detentions and mounting pressure from students and supporters across university campuses. A day before, the students were also alleged assaulted by police officers. Yet, instead of bringing the agitation to a close, its conditional terms have deepened the impasse.

Office of the Chief Public Relations Officer, JMI https://t.co/S0ydd6j8xo

— Jamia Millia Islamia (NAAC A++ Grade Central Univ) (@jmiu_official) October 26, 2026

According to the notice, the university has agreed to hold elections 15 days after the constitution is approved, revoked suspension and show-cause notices issued during the protest, and promised an inquiry into the conduct of security personnel. However, the order also requires protesting students to publicly apologise for alleged defamatory remarks and actions against the administration and remove related social media posts. For the protesting students, the central problem remains unresolved: the administration has offered no definite deadline for drafting and approving the constitution, leaving the election schedule contingent on a process with no specified completion date.

In view of the same, Ebin Basil and Rehan Khan would continue their hunger strike after students rejected all three points in the October 26 order. The students alleged that they had been pressured into signing an agreement at around 3 am, with the university’s conditions failing to provide the assurances they had sought. The demand for the resignation of Vice-Chancellor Mazhar Asif and Chief Proctor has also not been addressed. While two hunger strikers are continuing their fast, Jasim Khan and Faizan are expected to discontinue theirs because of their medical conditions, according to the account shared by Mufti.

The administration’s order thus offers a partial response to the agitation while leaving crucial questions about accountability, disciplinary action and the timeline for restoring elected student representation unanswered.

A campus increasingly marked by restrictions

The announcement followed two weeks of escalating tension on campus, with the administration and security personnel repeatedly attempting to contain the agitation. As reported by The Indian Express, Sunday, October 25, saw more than 500 students gather in support of the protest amid a heavy security deployment. Students alleged that access to the protest site, the library and the canteen had been restricted, while university gates were closed and students were prevented from entering the campus. Security personnel from the Delhi Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Industrial Security Force and Indo-Tibetan Border Police were deployed in and around the university.

The BJP govt, Delhi Police & Jamia admin are working tirelessly & brutally to break JMI’s resolve.

Yesterday students were attacked, today ID card carrying students were prevented from entering their own campus and detained.

The only people working harder are Godi media dalaals!

But students of JMI remain unshaken!
Salute and congratulations to them!

Video: aisa_jamia (Instagram)

— Neha (@neha_aisa) October 25, 2026

Jamia staff vandalise protest site in bid to evacuate hunger strikers; students form human chain to shield them

Watch: https://t.co/PITELTAcKb

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) October 24, 2026

The administration had shifted classes online on October 24, citing the prevailing situation and the need to ensure students’ safety. The move came amid allegations that protesters were being prevented from accessing campus facilities and that security personnel had attempted to dismantle their protest arrangements.

On Saturday, students alleged that a university delegation had attempted to dismantle their tents and take hunger strikers to hospital against their wishes. The five students on hunger strike subsequently moved into the Department of Political Science and locked themselves inside to prevent their removal.

The tensions intensified further on October 25, when students attempting to reach the protest site reportedly climbed campus walls, some of which were topped with metal spikes and rods. Students continued to organise marches and raise slogans despite the restrictions. The agitation also drew attention to allegations that access to food and water had been obstructed. By the time the administration issued its order on Monday, concerns about the physical condition of the hunger strikers had become increasingly urgent. Jasim Khan’s health deteriorated during the protest, and he was taken to hospital on the 14th night before returning to campus in the early hours of Monday, according to accounts of the agitation.

JUST IN | Students attempt to climb the gates to enter Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) as authorities restrict entry to the campus on Sunday, October 25, 2026. Heavy CRPF and police deployment and barricading are in place outside Gate No. 7, while students continue their protest inside the campus.

~@Shrimansi12 reports
Visuals: @Shrimansi12

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) October 25, 2026

When the entire nation is sleeping,Jamia is awake. Jamia is awake as the pressure mounts on admin to declare the students’ union elections which has been stopped from 2006! https://t.co/BsiaFLYDAF

— SFI Delhi (@SfiDelhi) October 25, 2026

Students also alleged that they were dragged by police.

Students Dragged, Gate Closed, Inside Jamia Student Protest.

@_main_niraj @Shayan_Ash

Watch Full Ground Report on The Red Mike’s YouTube channel. https://t.co/g0LvOdKehX

— The Red Mike (@TheRedMike) October 25, 2026

Jamia #Protest: Admin has welded shut the main gate (Gate No. 7), which hostel residents use to enter the university.

This comes as students continue a hunger strike, demanding a firm date for the resumption of student polls. #Jamia https://t.co/qxo1zNaU4M

— Vishu Adhana (@vishu_reports) October 26, 2026

Delhi Police detained female students protesting outside Gate No. 7 of Jamia Millia Islamia amid ongoing demonstrations demanding the restoration of the students’ union. Visuals from the protest show police personnel removing demonstrators from the site. The detention comes as students continue their sit-in and hunger strike, now in its 14th day, pressing the university administration to restore elected student representation.

— Millat Times English (@Millat_English) October 25, 2026

A clash was reported at Jamia Millia Islamia as university staff allegedly moved to dismantle the students’ protest site. The students, on a sit-in and hunger strike demanding the restoration of the Jamia Millia Islamia Students’ Union (JMISU), allege they were assaulted by a university official.

— FOEJ Media (@FoejMedia) October 24, 2026

A promise of elections without a deadline

Jamia students began their agitation on October 11, with the hunger strike commencing on October 12, demanding the restoration of the Jamia Millia Islamia Students’ Union (JMISU), a definite election schedule and the withdrawal of disciplinary action against protesters. They also called for the removal of the university’s Chief Proctor and Security Advisor, citing the treatment of students during the agitation.

The union has remained defunct since 2006, with the last elections held in 2005. Nearly two decades without an elected students’ body have left successive batches of students without a formal representative platform to raise campus-wide grievances.

As The Indian Express reported on October 26, students had repeatedly rejected the administration’s position that a new constitution must first be drafted before elections can be scheduled. They argued that the constitution-drafting process should not become an indefinite obstacle to restoring the union and had sought elections by November 30.

The university, meanwhile, maintained that the process required the drafting of a constitution, preparation of electoral rolls and the subsequent announcement of an election date. An official told The Indian Express that the process could not be rushed after a gap of almost 20 years, particularly in view of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and changes in applicable University Grants Commission regulations.

The students, however, maintained that the administration had not offered a concrete, time-bound commitment. They cited the Supreme Court’s 2006 judgment in University of Kerala v. Council of Principals, Colleges, Kerala and the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations in support of their demand for a clear electoral roadmap.

The October 26 order has not resolved this dispute. By tying the election date to the approval of the constitution, without specifying when that approval must take place, the administration has left the most important deadline dependent on its own future decisions.

Detailed report may be read here.

Disciplinary action and apology demand fuel discontent

The order also addresses disciplinary action initiated during the agitation, but students have questioned the scope of the relief offered. While suspension and show-cause notices issued during the protest are to be revoked, protesters have pointed out that the order does not clearly guarantee the unconditional withdrawal of all disciplinary measures, including rustication and campus bans.

Ebin Basil, a third-year law student who has been among the hunger strikers, told The Indian Express that the order failed to address the position of students who had been rusticated or barred from campus. He also questioned the demand that protesters publicly apologise for their criticism of the administration. The apology clause has emerged as another major point of contention. The university has required students to issue a public apology at a press conference for alleged defamatory statements, actions or social media posts directed against the administration. The posts are to be removed immediately, with compliance monitored by the university.

Students have rejected this condition, arguing that their agitation was a peaceful campaign for democratic representation and accountability. Their refusal to apologise reflects a broader disagreement over the administration’s handling of dissent and its attempt to make the withdrawal of the protest conditional on public expressions of contrition.

The university has also directed that the agitation be called off immediately. But the continued hunger strike by Ebin and Rehan demonstrates that the written order has not secured the consent of all the protesters.

Protest draws political support, detentions and an FIR

The Jamia agitation has expanded beyond the immediate question of student elections, drawing support from political representatives, former students and university communities across the country.

Congress MP Imran Masood was detained by Delhi Police after visiting the protesting students, while Samajwadi Party MP Mohibbullah Nadvi alleged that police had pushed and manhandled him before detaining him as he travelled to meet the protesters. Nadvi was subsequently released.

The university also lodged a complaint against Congress MPs Imran Masood and Imran Pratapgarhi over their entry into the campus, leading to an FIR over allegations of trespass and related conduct, as reported by The Indian Express and other media outlets. The MPs had visited amid the ongoing agitation and demands for the restoration of the union and withdrawal of disciplinary action.

The struggle continues

The university’s October 26 order marks a significant development after 14 days of sustained agitation, but it does not signal the end of the confrontation. The absence of a fixed deadline for approving the union constitution, uncertainty over the full withdrawal of disciplinary action and the demand for a public apology remain central points of disagreement.

The administration has asked the students to end their protest and warned of legal action if they fail to vacate the protest site. According to Moneycontrol, the Registrar said the university would issue a formal notice giving protesters 30 minutes after 9 am to disperse, citing the undertaking signed by the students.

But Ebin Basil and Rehan Khan have continued their hunger strike, refusing to accept an order they believe falls short of their demands. Their position underscores the gap between the administration’s announcement and the protesters’ insistence on clear, enforceable commitments.

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

The post Jamia students reject conditional election assurance, two continue hunger strike appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision follows discussions between student representatives and a university-appointed committee, which also yielded assurances on the withdrawal of FIRs against students, a review of contentious provisions of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual and the withdrawal of proctorial enquiries initiated during earlier campus protests. Hindustan Times reported that the university has also agreed to constitute committees with JNUSU representation to review the disciplinary provisions, examine the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) and address hostel reservation issues. The developments mark a breakthrough in the prolonged standoff, with further discussions also covering hostel infrastructure, library timings and the opening of a canteen at the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG).

At the heart of the confrontation is the suspension and rustication of elected representatives of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), alongside the administration’s continued enforcement of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual, which students argue imposes punitive restrictions on protests and collective gatherings. The dispute also raises questions about the university’s response to students exercising their right to protest, particularly when disciplinary action has excluded elected representatives from the institution they are mandated to represent.

The Hindu reported that CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas had sought intervention from President Droupadi Murmu and Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi as the hunger strike has reached a critical point amid concerns about the deteriorating health of participants. Brittas, a former JNU student, has called for the revocation of the rustication orders and an expedited resolution of the students’ grievances.

Rustication of elected representatives lies at the centre of the dispute

JNUSU president Aditi Mishra, vice-president Gopika Babau and other students have participated in the indefinite hunger strike. As reported by Outlook, JNUSU joint secretary Danish Ali said the union, along with former president Nitish Kumar, was rusticated in February 2026 following protests against the installation of facial recognition technology (FRT) at the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Central Library. Ali said the union and Nitish were rusticated for a year and fined ₹20,000 each, while eight other students were fined ₹19,000 each for their alleged presence at the protest.

The university had earlier suspended five students and declared them “out of bounds” in connection with the alleged vandalism of the facial recognition technology gates in November 2025. The administration has maintained that public property worth ₹20 lakh was damaged.

However, the continuing exclusion of elected student representatives has become a central concern in the present agitation. In his letter to President Murmu, Brittas argued that keeping elected representatives off campus directly affects the functioning of the students’ union and weakens the mechanism through which students collectively articulate their grievances.

The issue goes beyond the individual penalties imposed on the students. When elected representatives are barred from the university, their ability to represent constituents, participate in campus discussions and negotiate with the administration is significantly curtailed. Disciplinary action against individual students can therefore have consequences for the wider student body, particularly when it affects the functioning of an elected representative institution. JNUSU has maintained that its office-bearers represent a student constituency of approximately 9,000. Its demand for the revocation of the rustication orders is therefore tied to the question of whether students can meaningfully exercise their collective voice through an elected union.

CPO Manual and the shrinking space for campus dissent

The students’ have called for the withdrawal of objectionable provisions of the CPO Manual, alleging that its disciplinary framework enables the administration to impose substantial penalties and restrict assemblies and protests. The agitation follows a university general body meeting (UGBM) on October 3, which reportedly passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of the manual. The students have argued that its provisions undermine legitimate democratic expression by exposing those who protest to punitive action.

Brittas raised similar concerns in his letters to the President and the Union Education Minister. As reported by The Hindu, he warned that disproportionate disciplinary measures could deter students from raising legitimate grievances for fear of punishment. He also invoked JNU’s foundational commitments to social justice, secularism and a democratic way of life, as reflected in the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966.

President Droupadi Murmu, as Visitor of the university, has been asked to intervene under Section 8 of the Act. Brittas has urged her to facilitate the withdrawal of the rustication orders, address the disputed provisions of the CPO Manual and ensure that the outstanding grievances are resolved.

Students dispute the administration’s account of medical care

The disagreement has also extended to the provision of medical assistance to students participating in the hunger strike. In a statement reported by the Press Trust of India (PTI), Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit said that a committee headed by Professor Vivek Kumar, Dean of the School of Social Sciences, had held discussions with protesters on October 9 and October 14. The first meeting reportedly lasted more than four hours. According to the administration, two groups subsequently ended their hunger strikes after receiving assurances, while discussions with other protesters continued.

The administration has also maintained that the university’s Chief Medical Officer has monitored the health of hunger strikers and that medical check-ups have been conducted twice daily. It said medical assistance was extended to rusticated students on humanitarian grounds.

JNUSU, however, has disputed this account. In its statement, the union alleged that its rusticated office-bearers were denied medical check-ups during the first six days of the protest and that their vital signs were monitored through a private laboratory instead. The allegations directly contradict the administration’s claim that medical care was provided to rusticated students from the beginning of the agitation.

The union has also questioned the Vice-Chancellor’s visit to the hunger strike site at approximately 9 am on October 16. It alleged that the visit, which took place without prior intimation, risked creating the impression that only a small number of students were participating. The administration, meanwhile, stated that a representative had visited the site at approximately 8.50 am but found no students sleeping there.

A wider charter of demands remains unresolved

The agitation encompasses a broader set of concerns about the university’s academic environment, infrastructure and institutional accountability. Students have demanded the restoration of the Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH), which was replaced by an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). As reported by Outlook, a student identified as Dhananjay argued that GSCASH offered a more inclusive platform, while students were in the minority under the ICC structure.

The demand places the question of gender justice alongside the wider dispute over student participation in university governance. The charter also includes a demand for an Equal Opportunity Cell under the proposed Rohith Vemula Act, an inquiry into alleged recruitment irregularities, improvements to deteriorating campus infrastructure and the reinstatement of the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) in place of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET). Students have also opposed the introduction of recorded video lectures through the Siddhanta Foundation, alleging that the arrangement undermines the quality of teaching and the possibility of holistic academic development.

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication

The post JNU revokes rustication of five students after hunger strike, agrees to withdraw FIRs and review CPO manual appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I don’t remember when I started praying and keeping my Rozas ( the fast during Ramzan). Every child starts aping their parents and I guess I used to do the same. During Ramzan as kids we had the half ticket concept, either fast for half a day “aadhe din ka roza” or the more popular was “aadhe mooh ka roza”: we were allowed to eat using one side of the mouth. The right side of the mouth was the favorite side to chew among us, kids.

We lived in a joint family and there were siblings and cousins of similar ages.

Even our pet parrot Mitthu used to ape the rituals of the home, he was taught to say “Nabiji Rozi bhejo” (Prophet Ji send us bounty). Often, we got confused on whether it was “Dada Abba” (Grandfather) praying or our Mitthu, he used to make gibberish-like sounds which resembled, in sound, the tilawat (Quran recital). Many a time we got up in the night wondering what was wrong with Dada Abba, why is he praying so loud at this hour, and found Mitthu happily busy with his tilawat.

We lived in the Rourkela Steel City. In Odisha, it was very cosmopolitan with neighbours from all over India. Many of my non-Muslim neighbors used to join us during Iftar (breaking the fast during Ramzan) and similarly we used join in the feasts after their Pooja(s) and Havan(s) (Hindu prayers).

I remember my first Roza, a serious Roza of not eating the entire day, it was one of the biggest achievements of my life; I wanted to prove that even I was grown up, I could achieve this; I was about 6 years old.

My mom dissuaded me initially saying it is not a compulsory ritual for children, but I did not think I was a child and insisted on keeping the Roza. Getting up during Sehri was an adventure, the most exciting part of keeping Roza, (Sehri was at about 4am in the morning) and the excitement lay in eating the last meal before fasting.

There was a Durga Pooja Pandal near our house, and those days the artisans used to make large installations of the Durga goddess on the site itself. Their work used to begin 2-3 months in advance. I was completely fascinated by the making of those elaborate Durga Pooja installations. Sometimes I used to spend entire day admiring the process and Amma (Mom) used send someone to call me for lunch.

When I insisted on keeping my first Roza, Amma knew I would not feel hungry if I was at the Pandal; so she asked my elder brother to drop me off at the Pandal in the morning. There I spent the entire day, at the Durga Pooja Pandal, chatting with the artisans, playing with their clay. Amma was right, I did not feel thirsty or hungry, did not even realize it was my first Roza, it was almost evening when my brother came to call me home, for Iftar.

After 40 years of my first Roza, when I look around at our mohallas and cities, society at large, I see a huge difference. Practising the faith was easy and relaxed, there was little conflict, parents had no problem sending Muslim children to play at the Pooja Pandal, non-Muslims never had any issue with Muslim festivals. There was no television and no religious preachers entered our lives. Our faiths and religious sentiments were not so fragile that we needed religious fatwas.

With the increasing influence of Arabian practices on Indian Islam, (an Arabisation, a sort of purification of Islam started taking place) and many Indian practices have started changing. “Khuda Hafiz” has become “Allah Hafiz” because Khuda is a Persian word. Ramzan is becoming Ramadan, because in Arabic it is pronounced with a “d”, not a “z”. And visiting Durga Pooja Pandal has become Shirk (the sin of practicing idolatry or polytheism).

I see similar changes in Hindu society, where people are going back to the so called “Vedic Era” and becoming more intolerant towards each other.

Ramzan Mubarak,
Khuda Hafiz.

The post My First Roza was in a Durga Pooja Pandal: Amir Rizvi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“We’d like some senior officer to remain present here and explain,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed, making it clear that the police would be required to answer the allegations. After Jaising informed the Court that advance notice had been given to the Solicitor General, the Chief Justice indicated that the petition would be listed on Thursday alongside the matter concerning the alleged police action.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also mentioned a contempt petition filed by the Freedom Speech Collective, alleging that the police had assaulted journalists in violation of the Supreme Court’s October 10 order protecting media personnel covering the protests from harassment. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh mentioned a similar petition.

The NWMI’s petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, brings a distinct constitutional question before the Court: whether journalists can be physically restrained, detained or removed while documenting the exercise of State power, without a specific legal basis and without demonstrable necessity. It argues that the issue extends beyond the treatment of individual reporters to the institutional freedom of the press and the public’s right to receive information about events unfolding in public spaces.

A fresh petition following repeated allegations of police action against journalists

The petition, filed on October 12, places the alleged incidents within a sequence of protests, police restrictions and judicial interventions in Delhi during October 2026. It records allegations of journalists being detained despite displaying press identification, physically dragged or pushed, transported away from reporting locations and, in some instances, prevented from documenting police action.

The immediate context includes demonstrations concerning the Chief Election Commissioner and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. According to the petition, restrictions imposed around the protests affected journalists’ access to the sites, their ability to observe police operations and their capacity to transmit contemporaneous reports, photographs and recordings.

The petition refers to reports concerning journalists associated with Scroll, Newslaundry, Reuters, Business Standard, BOOMLive, The Quint, The News Minute, The Indian Express and other media organisations. It also recounts allegations that journalists were detained at locations removed from the protest site, notwithstanding their professional identification, and that some were transported to police facilities before being released.

These accounts form the factual basis of the petitioner’s case; they are allegations and reported incidents that require examination and verification. The constitutional question raised, however, is not confined to whether a particular detention was justified. It concerns the standards that must govern police conduct towards journalists when public-order measures are being implemented and the press is attempting to document those very measures.

The petition argues that the distinction between a protester and a journalist cannot be erased merely because both are present in the same public space. A journalist’s proximity to a demonstration may be necessary to observe, record and verify events. Treating that proximity as sufficient grounds for detention or forcible removal, it contends, risks converting the act of reporting into a basis for coercive State action.

Women journalists and the question of bodily integrity

The petition places particular emphasis on allegations involving women journalists, including physical handling, dragging, detention and confinement while they were performing their professional duties. It refers to complaints made by three women journalists alleging sexual harassment by Delhi Police personnel during demonstrations near Jantar Mantar on October 3. According to the petition, Delhi Police acknowledged receipt of the complaints and referred them to the Crime Branch for inquiry. The National Human Rights Commission subsequently took suo-motu cognisance of the reported allegations and sought a detailed report from the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

The NWMI argues that these incidents must be considered alongside subsequent reports of women journalists being physically handled or detained while covering protests on October 10 and 11. It contends that the treatment of women journalists raises concerns not only about press freedom but also about bodily integrity, dignity, personal liberty and their equal ability to participate in the profession.

The petition’s emphasis on women journalists is not merely a request for a gender-specific administrative precaution. It places their safety within the constitutional framework of equality and dignity. Physical coercion, intimidation or arbitrary confinement, the petitioner argues, can impair a journalist’s ability to work on equal terms and create a particular chilling effect on women reporting from public spaces.

The reliefs sought therefore extend beyond a general prohibition on interference with journalists. NWMI seeks specific safeguards against arbitrary physical handling, intimidation, detention and forcible removal of women journalists engaged in bona fide newsgathering, including where their presence at or proximity to a protest is the only apparent basis for the action.

Supreme Court’s earlier direction and allegations of continued interference

A central feature of the petition is the Supreme Court’s order dated October 11, passed in connected proceedings concerning restrictions and alleged illegal detentions during the protests. According to NWMI, the Court recorded an assurance from the Solicitor General that journalists, lawyers and other professionals would not be impeded in discharging their professional duties.

Paragraph 16(f) of the order states: “Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever.”

The petition argues that this direction must operate as an effective safeguard on the ground, rather than remain confined to an assurance given before the Court. It alleges that journalists continued to face detention, coercive removal and obstruction despite the direction, including incidents in which reporters displayed press identification but were nevertheless placed in police vehicles or taken away from reporting locations.

The petitioner’s case is that the continuation of such incidents exposes the limits of a general judicial direction when it is not accompanied by a clear operational framework. Without defined procedures, accountability mechanisms and preservation of evidence, the petition contends, compliance may depend on the discretion of individual officers rather than an enforceable institutional obligation.

This is also the basis on which NWMI distinguishes its petition from the existing proceedings concerning restrictions on transport, alleged illegal detention and contempt. It argues that those proceedings do not comprehensively settle the standards governing police interaction with journalists or provide forward-looking safeguards against a recurrence of the alleged conduct.

The petition consequently asks the Court to move beyond reiterating the general principle that journalists must not be obstructed and to establish a framework that specifies how that protection is to be implemented, monitored and enforced.

Article 19(1)(a): Press freedom begins before publication

The principal constitutional argument concerns Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. NWMI contends that this freedom cannot be confined to the final act of publishing a report. It must also protect the processes through which information is obtained, observed, documented, verified and communicated.

The argument is significant because reporting on protests and police action depends upon access to the places where events unfold. If journalists are prevented from witnessing detentions, dispersals or crowd-control operations, their ability to report on the exercise of public power is impaired before a story can even be written or published. The petition relies on the Supreme Court’s press-freedom jurisprudence, including Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, Sakal Papers v. Union of India, Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India and Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal. It also invokes Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh in support of its broader constitutional submissions.

Drawing on this line of authority, NWMI argues that freedom of the press encompasses the ability to gather and disseminate information concerning matters of public importance, alongside the public’s corresponding interest in receiving that information. The petition’s central proposition is that a journalist cannot report what the State prevents her from witnessing. Where police action obstructs newsgathering, the resulting injury is not limited to the reporter’s professional inconvenience; it may also deprive the public of information necessary to scrutinise the conduct of public authorities.

The petitioner accordingly argues that observation cannot be equated with participation. The mere presence of a journalist near protesters, possession of recording equipment, questioning of officials or documentation of police action cannot, by itself, justify detention or forcible removal.

Articles 14 and 21: Arbitrariness, liberty and dignity

NWMI also invokes Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, and Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. Under Article 14, the petition challenges the alleged indiscriminate treatment of journalists and protesters as interchangeable categories, without an individualised assessment of the circumstances or the legal basis for restricting a journalist’s movement. It contends that coercive action unsupported by a specific legal justification, recorded necessity or proportionate response is arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible.

The Article 21 challenge addresses the consequences of physical handling, assault, intimidation, detention and confinement. The petition argues that these actions implicate bodily integrity, dignity and personal liberty, particularly where women journalists are concerned.

Article 19(1)(d), which protects the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, forms another part of the challenge. NWMI contends that transporting journalists away from reporting locations or preventing them from accessing public spaces can interfere with their freedom of movement as well as their ability to carry out professional duties.

Read together, the four constitutional guarantees form the foundation of the petition’s case: police action against journalists must have a lawful basis, must not be arbitrary or disproportionate, and must not needlessly impair their ability to report on matters of public importance. The petition does not claim that journalists are exempt from generally applicable laws or lawful crowd-control measures. Rather, it seeks to prevent their professional activity from being treated, without more, as grounds for coercive action.

An independent inquiry and preservation of police records

Among the petition’s most consequential prayers is a request for an independent, time-bound mechanism to investigate allegations of detention, physical violence, injury, coercive removal, intimidation and obstruction of journalists. NWMI seeks identification of the personnel involved, examination of individual and supervisory responsibility, and recommendations for disciplinary or other action in accordance with law. It also asks that the mechanism consider appropriate compensation and remedial measures.

The petition stresses that an inquiry cannot be effective if the evidence necessary to reconstruct the incidents is not preserved. It seeks strict and demonstrable compliance with the Supreme Court’s October 11 direction, including preservation and disclosure of records relating to incidents involving journalists from October 10 onwards.

The records specifically identified include CCTV footage, body-worn camera recordings, police videography, wireless communications, duty rosters, deployment records, vehicle logs, detention records and medical records. The requested disclosure is intended to establish not merely whether a journalist was detained or injured, but also the circumstances in which the action occurred: who authorised it, which personnel participated, what directions were issued, what legal grounds were recorded, where the journalist was taken and whether any recording equipment or journalistic data was interfered with.

This demand for evidence preservation is central to the petition’s accountability argument. Where the alleged wrongdoers are public officials acting during crowd-control operations, an inquiry that does not independently establish the chain of events and responsibility may leave critical questions unanswered. NWMI therefore seeks a process capable of examining both the conduct of individual officers and the supervisory structure within which the alleged actions occurred.

Binding guidelines sought for police interaction with journalists

The petition asks the Supreme Court to frame, or direct the framing of, binding guidelines governing the interaction between police and media professionals during protests, public assemblies, crowd-control operations and other events of public importance. The proposed framework is intended to address the practical circumstances in which journalists encounter police personnel and to reduce the scope for arbitrary decisions at the scene.

Among the safeguards sought are:

• Identification of police personnel: Visible identification to enable officers involved in an incident to be identified and held accountable.
• Recognition of journalists: Recognition of press credentials without making formal accreditation the sole test of whether a person is engaged in bona fide journalistic activity.
• Standards governing force: Clear thresholds regulating the use of force against journalists performing professional duties.
• Recorded reasons for detention or removal: A requirement that coercive action be supported by specific, recorded and proportionate grounds.
• Access to assistance: Immediate access to legal counsel and the journalist’s editorial organisation.
• Medical assistance: Appropriate medical attention where injury or physical force is involved.
• Protection of equipment and data: Safeguards against interference with journalistic devices, recordings and other professional material.
• Evidence preservation: Retention of contemporaneous records necessary to investigate complaints and establish responsibility.
• Gender-specific safeguards: Protection of women journalists against arbitrary physical handling, intimidation, detention and forcible removal while engaged in bona fide newsgathering.

The petition also seeks interim protection pending its final disposal, asking the Court to ensure that journalists are not assaulted, threatened, detained, transported, removed or otherwise obstructed except under authority of law and on a specific, recorded and proportionate basis.

The proposed safeguards would, if granted, address both immediate protection and the institutional procedures governing police conduct. They would also provide a framework against which future allegations could be assessed.

The constitutional question before the Court

The proceedings raise a question that extends beyond the immediate allegations arising from the Delhi protests: what practical protection does press freedom provide when journalists are attempting to document the actions of the authorities themselves?

The power to regulate assemblies and maintain public order does not, by itself, resolve the distinct question of how journalists may be treated while reporting on those measures. The NWMI petition argues that the exercise of such powers must remain subject to constitutional standards and that restrictions on journalists cannot rest merely on their presence near a protest or their attempt to record events.

Its demand is therefore both preventive and remedial. The petitioner seeks investigation into the incidents already reported, preservation of evidence, identification of those responsible and a binding framework intended to prevent similar allegations from recurring.

Detailed reports on the anti-EC protest may be read here, here and here.

Related:

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

The post Supreme Court seeks senior Delhi Police officer’s presence over alleged assault on women journalists; NWMI seeks binding safeguards appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the SM Joshi Bridge protest, six people were reported to be on hunger strike for four days. The agitation has been centred on the demand for the resignation of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar amid allegations of irregularities in the recruitment process, including the alleged leak of the Drug Inspector examination held earlier this year. The Indian Express reported that the protest had drawn large numbers of students, with political leaders continuing to visit the site.

Pawar has made it clear that the protesters do not intend to move. “We will continue our agitation at the same location until the resignation of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar,” the group said, according to Hindustan Times. Pawar has maintained that the protesters had obtained permission from the Pune police commissioner to hold the agitation at the site and therefore would not shift.

The continuing protest comes even as police presence around the site has increased. Earlier, Pune Police Commissioner Amitesh Kumar had described the agitation as “illegal” and said notices had been issued to more than 70 protesters, coaching classes and Telegram channels. Police said the demonstrations were causing inconvenience to commuters and warned that action could follow.

Court recognises that students have serious grievances

The Bombay High Court’s intervention on Wednesday did not, however, dismiss the substance of the students’ complaints. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna observed that students in Pune are not ordinarily inclined to abandon their studies and take to the streets. If they are protesting, the court said, it indicates that their grievances are serious.

“Pune is an education hub of the State and students coming to this city for education are genuinely interested in their studies and they aren’t into getting down on streets for their demands, but if they are agitating it means there are some serious grievances, such students cannot be termed as anti-social,” the bench observed, according to LiveLaw.

The judges also rejected the suggestion that protesting students should be treated as anti-social elements, stressing that students have a right to agitate when they believe an examination has been compromised.

“They are students and not anti-socials…That’s how it should be…. The moment one exam is over and they realise there was some hanky panky in the process, students have every right to agitate… You have already indicated that 70,000 posts have been shown as vacant… A detailed enquiry to be carried out. Consider the fact that all the parents in the country are in crisis,” the bench observed, reported LiveLaw.

The court simultaneously directed the State to address the larger crisis of confidence surrounding MPSC recruitment. It noted that more than 70,000 vacancies were at stake and said examinations must be conducted impartially and without malpractice. The Maharashtra government has been directed to place on record, in detail, its proposed recruitment process and the number of vacancies in different departments. The State has three weeks to furnish the information.

The protests are not about one demand

The Pune agitation has developed into three separate protests, reflecting disagreements among aspirants over the MPSC examination pattern as well as the functioning of the Commission. The Pawar-led protest at SM Joshi Bridge is focused primarily on the removal of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar.

At Lal Bahadur Shastri Road near Ahilya Abhyasika, another group led by Nitin Andhale is demanding a return to the objective examination pattern.

At Alka Chowk, students had been demanding continuation of the descriptive pattern, arguing that aspirants had spent years preparing according to the existing format and would be severely affected by another sudden change. That protest was withdrawn after the High Court hearing. Free Press Journal reported that the group decided to respect the court’s appeal and return to their preparation.

Despite these differences, the question of accountability within the MPSC has emerged as a common thread running through the protests. The agitation at SM Joshi Bridge has continued to insist that the alleged irregularities cannot simply be treated as an administrative dispute.

‘Restore the trust’ is now before the court

The High Court’s remarks have placed the State in a difficult position. The government has urged students to return to their studies, while the court itself has asked them to avoid public roads and seek permission for any further protest. But at the same time, the bench has expressly recognised that the students’ distrust cannot be brushed aside.

“It is before the court now… We will make a request to the students to go back to the classes. We are not going to leave it conveniently. The trust just be restored. Exams must be conducted in a fair manner. So far as Commission is concerned, you (State) know how the chairman can be inducted and removed. We will ensure the response has to be there by the State. We want the backlog vacancies to be cleared first.. Those interested in studies should have a fair chance to appear in the exams… They’ve come with a clean hand with 70k vacancies… See the plight of the parents, those who’ve sent their kids to Pune. These children are innocent. We will look into how the State is dealing with this. Just a request to the students to come join the faculties. Or their career will be changed. Entire orientation will be changed. They shouldn’t indulge in such things. We shall ensure as a guardian,” the bench said, while issuing notice to the State, reported LiveLaw.

The judges also asked the State to ensure that the substantial backlog of vacancies is addressed, pointing to the thousands of young people whose careers depend upon a functioning and credible recruitment system. The court’s intervention therefore goes beyond the immediate issue of traffic disruption. It has effectively placed the credibility of the MPSC recruitment process itself under scrutiny.

Residents raise concerns over road blockages

The petition before the court was prompted by complaints from residents about traffic congestion and difficulties caused by the protests, particularly in Pune’s congested Peth areas, where coaching classes, libraries and accommodation for competitive-examination aspirants are concentrated. Residents told the media that repeated road blockages had forced them to take alternative routes and had made evening traffic particularly difficult.

Uma Joshi, a resident, said that travelling from the Ganjave Chowk area had become difficult because of the need to take alternative routes and increasing congestion.

Another resident, Sushant Fadake, said the repeated protests had compounded existing difficulties in the crowded area.

The court consequently made clear that the students’ grievances could not justify indefinite disruption of public roads. It asked protesters who wished to continue their agitation to obtain the necessary permission and choose an alternative location where public movement would not be obstructed.

“Public inconvenience shouldn’t happen. So far your concern is concerned, we’ll ensure recruitment drive is taken care of. And the malfunction details will come as to what has been done. We’ll examine it all on the next day. Till then, we make a request to all the agitating parties to withdraw the protest and join the faculty. Now the matter is before the court,” the bench assured, as reported by LiveLaw.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

‘Free the Temple’, ‘Defend the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How festivals became vehicles for anti-Muslim hate in September

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

The post ‘Serious Grievances’: Bombay HC backs students’ concerns, MPSC protests continue in Pune appeared first on SabrangIndia.

आंदोलन करणाऱ्या आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांना पोलिसांनी काँग्रेस कार्यालयातून ताब्यात घेतलं तेव्हा…
#TribalStudents #TribalProtest #MumbaiProtest @ShahidReports https://t.co/c8qElBftET

— BBC News Marathi (@bbcnewsmarathi) October 6, 2026

आंदोलन करणाऱ्या आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांना पोलिसांनी काँग्रेस कार्यालयातून ताब्यात घेतलं?
#TribalStudents #AdivasiStudents #AdivasiProtest https://t.co/ylGy3lj9as

— BBC News Marathi (@bbcnewsmarathi) October 5, 2026

STORY | Police detain tribal students protesting in Mumbai, drive them out of city

Police on Tuesday detained tribal students who had marched from Nashik to press for better hostel facilities and an inquiry into deaths at ashram schools, bundling them into buses outside the Maharashtra Congress headquarters and driving them out of the city.

READ: https://t.co/nMiY0GayvP

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 6, 2026

Tribal students who walked and travelled by bus to Mumbai to demand scholarships, basic amenities and the tribal development minister’s resignation were threatened and detained by police at 3 am, the Congress alleged.

Watch: https://t.co/xxTCpLxNVA

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) October 5, 2026

#Mumbai: Police on Tuesday detained tribal students who had marched from Nashik to press for better hostel facilities and an inquiry into deaths at ashram schools, bundling them into buses outside the Maharashtra #Congress headquarters and driving them out of the city.

https://t.co/VwFQsnEV02

— Deccan Chronicle (@DeccanChronicle) October 6, 2026

According to Hindustan Times, police personnel deployed outside Tilak Bhavan stopped the students from leaving on Tuesday morning before private buses were brought in and the protesters were made to board them. The students continued raising slogans against the Maharashtra government as they were transported out of Mumbai. NSUI state president Sagar Salunke said the students were taken to different locations, including Jalgaon, Nandurbar and Nashik. The Indian Express also reported videos of the operation showing police personnel pushing protesters towards buses, including a woman carrying an infant.

The students had begun their September 28 march from Nashik to Mumbai, after weeks of agitation over conditions in tribal schools and hostels. Their demands include an independent inquiry into deaths at state-run ashram schools, compensation of ₹1 crore each to the families of three girls who died after alleged snakebite at an ashram school in Japtalai, Gadchiroli, ₹50 lakh compensation for those injured, an inquiry into alleged irregularities in the distribution of grants, action against responsible officials and the resignation of Tribal Development Minister Ashok Uike. They have also raised concerns over scholarships, food, sanitation, hostel facilities and basic amenities.

The students had sought permission to protest at Azad Maidan. After that request was rejected, they sought to meet Maharashtra Governor Jishnu Dev Varma and submit a memorandum. Instead, they found themselves confined to the Congress office and subjected to police action for the second day in a row. On Monday, police had already forcefully moved students out of Tilak Bhavan and taken them towards Kopri in Thane after shifting them between vehicles and stopping at multiple locations. On Tuesday, the operation took place at the Congress headquarters itself.

Maharashtra Congress president Harshvardhan Sapkal condemned the action, saying the government had denied Adivasi students even the basic democratic right to protest and meet the Governor. Congress leaders also alleged that police behaved abusively towards women students and used force to break up the protest. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh had earlier described the Maharashtra government as “Adivasi-virodhi” over the police action.

The police, meanwhile, have denied that students were arrested from Tilak Bhavan. As reported by The Indian Express, police said those attempting to proceed towards Lok Bhavan were detained from different locations and that legal action was being taken. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has also claimed that the students’ demands have been accepted, alleging that the continuing agitation was being driven by some NSUI office-bearers rather than the students themselves.

But the students themselves have rejected any suggestion that the issue is over. Before being driven out of Mumbai, they announced that they would return on October 25 and resume their protest at Azad Maidan.

The episode exposes the stark gap between the government’s claim that the students’ demands have been resolved and the reality of students having to march hundreds of kilometres to Mumbai, seek a hearing from the state’s highest authorities, and then face police action instead of an open response to their grievances. Their demands concern not abstract policy questions, but the safety, dignity and lives of Adivasi students in institutions run by the state.

The government may claim the demands have been accepted. The students’ continued resistance, and their determination to return, suggest otherwise.

Related:

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

Unpacking a Coded Defence: What an IIT Professor’s post reveals about attitudes in elite institutions

‘Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

The post Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai appeared first on SabrangIndia.