A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing an application filed by Hindu Front for Justice, which sought permission for day-long Basant Panchami rituals at the site on January 23, coinciding with Friday Juma Namaz. The proceedings and directions were reported by LiveLaw.

Background: A contested sacred space

The Bhoj Shala, an 11th-century monument protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), occupies a deeply contested place in India’s religious and legal landscape. Hindus regard the structure as a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati), while Muslims consider it the Kamal Maula Masjid.

Since 2003, a court-monitored arrangement has been in place permitting Hindu puja on Tuesdays and Muslim namaz on Fridays, a fragile equilibrium that has periodically come under strain, as per The Hindu.

Arguments before the Court

Appearing for the Hindu applicants, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain submitted that Basant Panchami holds exceptional religious significance, with the auspicious muhurat extending from sunrise to sunset, during which uninterrupted pujas and havans are traditionally performed.

Jain urged the Court to consider whether Juma Namaz could be shifted to after 5 PM, allowing Hindu rituals to continue throughout the day without interruption.

Representing the Muslim side, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for the Kamal Maula Mosque Committee, firmly opposed the suggestion, pointing out that Juma Namaz is time-specific and must be performed between 1 PM and 3 PM, in accordance with Islamic religious practice. He clarified that once the namaz concluded, worshippers would vacate the premises, as has been the practice.

Justice Bagchi intervened during the exchange, remarking that the Court was conscious of the religious significance of both practices and cautioning against arguments that ignored doctrinal constraints—an observation noted by LiveLaw.

Administration’s role and court-endorsed arrangement

Seeking to de-escalate tensions and ensure public order, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Union of India and the ASI, proposed a pragmatic administrative solution. He suggested that if the mosque committee provided an estimate of the number of persons expected to attend the namaz, the district administration could cordon off a separate enclosure within the compound, complete with distinct ingress and egress, and issue passes to prevent overcrowding or provocation.

Khurshid agreed to furnish the numbers on the same day, a position welcomed by the Court. The Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh also assured the Bench that law and order would be strictly maintained, a commitment the Court formally recorded, as reported by Bar & Bench.

Supreme Court’s recorded directions

In its order, the Bench recorded the consensus arrangement as follows:

“A fair suggestion was given that for the duration of Juma Namaz between 1 PM and 3 PM, an exclusive and separate area within the same compound, including separate ingress and egress, shall be made available so that namaz can be performed peacefully. Similarly, a separate space shall be made available to the Hindu community to conduct traditional ceremonies on the occasion of Basant Panchami.”

The Court further noted that the district administration may issue passes or adopt any other fair mechanism to ensure that no untoward incident occurs.

In a rare and deliberate appeal, the Bench urged both communities to exercise mutual respect and restraint, stressing that cooperation with civil authorities was essential to maintaining communal harmony.

Clarification on pujas and non-interference with merits

When Jain pressed the Bench to explicitly record that Basant Panchami pujas could continue uninterrupted from sunrise to sunset, the Court clarified that this was already permitted under an existing ASI order, and nothing in its directions curtailed that right.

Importantly, the Bench emphasised that its directions were purely interim and facilitative, and did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the larger dispute, which remains sub judice.

Larger Case: ASI survey and High Court proceedings

The application was heard in the backdrop of a Special Leave Petition filed in 2024 by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, Dhar, challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order directing the ASI to conduct a scientific survey of the disputed complex.

In April 2024, the Supreme Court had allowed the survey to continue but imposed strict safeguards:

• No physical excavation that could alter the structure’s character
• No action on the survey findings without the Supreme Court’s prior approval
• Maintenance of status quo at the site

During Thursday’s hearing, LiveLaw reported, the Court was informed that the ASI has completed the survey and submitted its report in a sealed cover to the High Court.

Accepting a suggestion by Salman Khurshid, the Supreme Court directed that:

• The High Court may unseal the ASI report in open court
• Copies be supplied to both parties
• Where copying is not feasible, inspection may be allowed in the presence of counsel
• Parties be permitted to file objections
• The matter thereafter be taken up for final hearing

The Court further directed that the writ petition pending before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court be heard by a Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice or one of the senior-most judges, and disposed of the SLP accordingly.

Continuing status quo

Until final adjudication, the Supreme Court ordered that:

• Status quo at the site shall be maintained
• Parties must continue to abide by the ASI’s April 2023 operational order
• No step shall be taken that alters the religious character of the structure

A judicial tightrope

The Court’s orders reflect a careful judicial balancing act—protecting religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26, while preventing escalation at a site emblematic of India’s broader debates on faith, history, and constitutional secularism.

By foregrounding administrative coordination, mutual respect, and non-interference with pending adjudication, the Supreme Court has, for now, sought to ensure peace at Bhoj Shala—while leaving the ultimate question of its religious character to be resolved through due process of law.

Related:

In UP’s Mosque Coverings, a New Chapter From The Hindutva Playbook Unfolds

Supreme Court blocks execution of Nagar Palika’s order regarding well near Sambhal Mosque, prioritises peace and harmony

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

Sufidar Trust, Walajah Big Mosque: The 4 decades long tradition of Hindus serving Iftar meals to Muslims during Ramzan

Conspiracy or Coincidence? Mosques defaced in March after spate of hate speeches provoking the crime weeks before

CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat show on Gyanvapi Mosque to NBDSA

The post Supreme Court brokers interim peace at bhoj shala, allows basant panchami pujas and Friday namaz under strict safeguards appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Masood had recently reported on a controversial police drive to collect information on mosques and mosque officials in Kashmir. He was asked to sign a bond, stating that he would not do anything to disturb peace in the union territory, the person said. Interestingly, the police action is not based on a formal first information report, but is being carried out under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the person said.

The provision allows an executive magistrate to pre-emptively seek bonds from people “likely to commit a breach of peace”. Government officials can invoke this section merely on the basis of information they have received about individuals.

Senior journalist Nirupama Subramaniam, on January 19, Monday commented sharply on the developments on social media

Reporters of Delhi national newspapers are being summoned by J&K police, harassed about routine “he said”, “she said” reports and asked to sign bonds they won’t do such reports again. First, the correspondent of one newspaper was summoned repeatedly over three days, and perhaps…

— Nirupama Subramanian (@tallstories) January 19, 2026

For Kashmir’s journalists, the cycle is vicious: repeated summonses, institutional pressure and the lack of a community safety net have become a part of an entrenched system that limits critical reporting, encourages self-censorship and sidelines independent media voices in the…

— Siddharth (@svaradarajan) January 20, 2026

Reportedly, an Indian Express spokesperson confirmed to the media that Masood had been called to the police station. “Bashaarat Masood, Assistant Editor, and a member of the Srinagar bureau of The Indian Express since 2006, was called on four days to the Cyber Police Station, Srinagar, and asked to sign a bond which he has not signed,” the spokesperson said. “The Indian Express is committed to doing what is necessary to uphold and protect the rights and dignity of its journalists.”

Scroll also contacted the senior superintendent of Srinagar police, asking about the reasons for summoning journalists and asking them to sign the bonds. The official did not respond to our calls and messages. This story will be updated if he responds.

The police summons

It was on the evening of January 14, Masood first received a phone call from the cyber police in Srinagar, asking him to come to the police station the next afternoon, according to the person familiar with the events that followed. As he got there, he was made to wait for nearly three hours after which a police officer asked him to come back the following day. The officer assured Masood that he would only have to spend half an hour at the police station the next time he came. However, the senior journalist ended up spending the whole of Friday and Saturday running from one government office to another.

Masood was reportedly first sent to the deputy commissioner’s office from the police station, where he was asked to sign a Section 126 bond. The police officials were unwilling to provide reasons for their demand, said the person. When Masood refused to comply, a police official told him that he would then have to go to Srinagar central jail.

From the deputy commissioner’s office, the journalist was sent back to the police station. There, one of the officers told him that he was being asked to sign the bond because of a story he had written on the political reaction to the police drive in mosques in Kashmir.

On Monday afternoon, he was called in again, the fourth day he had been forced to turn up at the police station. This time, though, the police did not keep him at the station for very long. The three other journalists got similar summons. One of them was out of Srinagar when he got a call from a police official, asking him to come in. None of the other journalists have, as of yet, reported to the police station.

‘Serious attack on press freedom,’

The four journalists summoned had reported on the political reaction to the Jammu and Kashmir police’s drive to collect information on mosques, which has been the subject of much controversy over the past week in Kashmir.

Police officials are reportedly distributing copies of a four-page form to mosques in the Muslim-majority region. The form seeks extensive information pertaining to the family background and financial details of those involved in the upkeep of the places of worship.

The exercise has drawn fire from Kashmiri politicians cutting across party lines as well as prominent religious organisations, who argue that this goes beyond looking into the legal status of mosques.

Indian Express also reported that J&K Director General of Police Nalin Prabhat was not available for comment. Another officer, who did not wish to be named, told the newspaper that the police called him following his news report about the police distributing a four-page document to all mosques in the Kashmir valley and seeking detailed information about their budget, funding sources, and management committees.

Masood has been a member of the Srinagar Bureau of The Indian Express since 2006. “His work over the last two decades speaks for itself. He has not signed the bond as asked by the police. The Indian Express is committed to doing what is necessary to uphold and protect the rights and dignity of its journalists,” said Raj Kamal Jha, Chief Editor, The Indian Express as quoted in the newspaper.

Related:

Interim bail to Gujarat journalist Mahesh Langa: SC

“This system breaks the body when it cannot break the spirit” — Ipsa Shatakshi on her jailed husband, journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh

The post J & K: Attempt to muzzle FoE, Media? Police summons to media, journalists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The latest outburst was on January 11, 2026, when inaugurating the Swabhiman Parv (self-respect event) in Somnath, he declared that “every particle of the soil of Prabhas Patan is a witness to valor, courage, and heroism, and that countless devotees of Shiva sacrificed their lives for the preservation of Somnath’s form. He said that on the occasion of Somnath Swabhiman Parv, he bows first to every brave man and woman who dedicated their lives to the protection and reconstruction of Somnath, offering everything to Lord Mahadeva.”[1]

Shri Modi further stated that “when invaders from Ghazni to Aurangzeb attacked Somnath, they believed their swords were conquering eternal Somnath, but those fanatics failed to understand that the very name ‘Som’ carries the essence of nectar, the idea of remaining immortal even after consuming poison. He added that within Somnath resides the conscious power of Sadashiva Mahadev, who is both benevolent and the fierce ‘Prachanda Tandava Shiva’.”

[‘PM addresses the Somnath Swabhiman Parv in Somnath, Gujarat’, 11 Jan, 2026, https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pm-addresses-the-somnath-swabhiman-parv-in-somnath-gujarat/?comment=disable]

The senior most security advisor of the RSS-BJP government and close confidant of PM Modi, Ajit Doval was at his best seeking revenge for the religious crimes of Muslim rulers.  Speaking at the opening ceremony of Viksit Bharat Young Leaders Dialogue, at Delhi on January 9, 2026, Doval said, “This independent India wasn’t always as free as it appears now. Our ancestors made great sacrifices for it. They endured great humiliation and experienced periods of profound helplessness. Many people faced the gallows… Our villages were burned. Our civilisation was destroyed. Our temples were looted, and we watched helplessly as silent spectators. This history presents us with a challenge that every young person in India today should have the fire within them. The word ‘revenge’ isn’t ideal, but revenge itself is a powerful force. We have to take revenge for our history. We have to take this country back to where we can build a great India based on our rights, our ideas, and our beliefs.”[2]

[‘NSA Ajit Doval urges youth to learn from history, rebuild a strong India’ 10 Jan-2026, https://firstindia.co.in/news/delhi/nsa-ajit-doval-urges-youth-to-learn-from-history-rebuild-a-strong-india]

The gist of the speeches of both Modi and Doval was that Muslims destroyed Hindu temples. The revenge has to be taken from Indian Muslims who are necessarily children of the Muslim rulers. These calls were nothing but brazen demonizing the largest religious minority of India. PM Modi and NSA chief, in fact, were dog-whistling for cleansing of Muslims. However, we need to compare the above-mentioned claims with the ‘Hindu’ narratives of destruction of Somnath Temple.

No sane person can deny that Somnath Temple in Gujarat was desecrated, looted and razed by an army led by Mahmud Ghazi (Mahmud Ghaznavi) in 1026. But a crucial fact remains buried that it was done with the active help and participation of local Hindu chieftains. The most prominent ideologue of RSS, MS Golwalkar while referring to the desecration and destruction of Somnath Temple by Mahmud Ghazi in the RSS English organ, Organizer (January 4, 1950) stated:

“He crossed the Khyber Pass and set foot in Bharat to plunder the wealth of Somnath. He had to cross the great desert of Rajasthan. There was a time when he had no food, and no water for his army, and even for himself left to his fate, he would have perished…But no, Mahmud Ghazi made the local chieftains to believe that Saurashtra had expansionist designs against them. In their folly and pettiness, they believed him. And they joined him. When Mahmud Ghazi launched his assault on the great temple, it was the Hindu, blood of our blood, flesh of our flesh, soul of our soul-who stood in the vanguard of his army. Somnath was desecrated with the active help of the Hindus. These are facts of history.”

[Organizer, January 4, 1950.]

So far as valour of defenders of Somnath Temple against ‘idol-breaker’ Ghazni was concerned founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayananda Sarswati in his fundamental work, Satyarth Prakash, a Bible for Arya Samajists, stated that instead of resisting the army of defilers, the then priests, “made offering, called on gods and prayed: ‘O Mahadeva kill this infidel and protect us!’ They advised their royal followers to have patience as Mahadeva would send Bhairava or Bhadra who would kill all the infidels (mlechhas) or blinden them…Many popish astrologers said that it was not astrologically proper for their advance…Thus the warriors were misled and delayed.  The army of infidels soon came and surrounded them. They fled in disgrace.”  [Swami Dayananda Sarswati, Light of Truth (English translation of Satyarth Prakash), Dayanand Sansthan, Delhi, 1908, p. 328.]

PM, Ajit Doval and the entire Hindutva tribe instead of calling for revenge against Muslims need to do a serious introspection about the guilty-men responsible for the desecration of Somnath Temple. It is generally accepted that Mahmud entered India as aggressor seventeen times between 1000 AD and 1027 AD. He travelled approximately 2000 kilometres from Ghazni to reach Somnath Temple in 1025, covering almost 1000 kilometres in the region which fell in India. According to ‘Hindu’ narrative after destroying the Temple he travelled back with huge precious booty laden on hundreds of camels and horses. Those who are telling stories of valour at Somnath need to tell the nation: Who allowed his journey back? Why were he and his gang of robbers not liquidated despite destroying one of the holiest temples of India? The horrendous reality is that our ancestors miserably failed in resisting one of the meanest aggressors in Indian history.

Desecration of Buddhist and Jain Temples by ‘Hindus’

These were not ‘Muslim’ rulers only who were defiling Hindu temples. Swami Vivekananda shared the fact that, “Temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them. We shall have to do many things like that yet”.

[The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 3, 264.]

It has been corroborated by another darling of the Hindutva fraternity, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. According to him the Rath Yatra, an integral part of the rituals connected with Jagganath Temple was originally a Buddhist ritual. Bankim Chndra Chatterjee wrote:

“I am aware that another and a very reasonable, account of the origin of the festival of Rath [at Jagganath Temple] has been given by General Cunningham in his work on the Bhilsa Topes. He there traces it to a similar festival of the Buddhists, in which the three symbols of the Buddhist faith, Buddha, Dharmma, and Sangha, were drawn in a car in the same fashion, and I believe about the same season as the Rath. It is a fact greatly in support of the theory, that the images of Jagannath, Balaram, and Subhadra, which now figure in the Rath, are near copies of the representations of Buddha, Dharmma, and Sangha, and appear to have been modelled upon them.”[Chatterjee, Bankim Chandra, ‘On the origin of Hindu festivals’ in Essays & Letters, Rupa, Delhi, 2010, pp. 8-9.]

Conversion of Buddhist monasteries into Hindu temples was a common occurrence after Buddhist rulers were gradually overthrown by Brahmins. This process began when the last of Maurya dynasty’s Buddhist king (Ashoka being one), Brihadratha was assassinated by Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin in 184 BCE thus ending the rule of a renowned Buddhist dynasty and establishing the rule of Brahman Shunga dynasty. It was corroborated by Bankim in his controversial novel Anandmath, Bible of the Hindu nationalism. He described the scene of a temple used by Hindu army in the following words:

“Within this wood there stood a large monastery on a large piece of land with broken stones all around. Antiquarians would perhaps say that it was a Buddhist monastery in old days and was subsequently converted into a Hindu one.” [Sen-Gupta, Nares Chandra (translator Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s Anandamath), Abbey of Bliss, Padmini Mohan Neogi, Calcutta, nd, 16]

Many of Jain temples too met the same tragic fate. Swami Dayanand Saraswati regarded as a Prophet of Hindutva while dealing with the contribution of Adi Shankaracharya (8^TH CENTURY) in his tome, Satyarth Prakash wrote:

“For ten years he toured all over the country, refuted Jainism and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that are now-a-days dug out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst those that are found whole (unbroken) here and there under the ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of their being broken.” [Swami Dayananda Sarswati, Light of Truth (English translation of Satyarth Prakash), Dayanand Sansthan, Delhi, 1908, p. 294.]

Crimes of Maratha ‘Hindu’ armies against Hindus

Sir Jadunath Sarkar (1870-1958), a renowned historian, held no brief for Islam or Muslim rulers in India. In fact, he is regarded as a Hindu historian, narrator of the history of India from a Hindu point of view. His description of the Maratha invasion of Bengal in early 1740s, makes it clear that this army of ‘Hindu nation’ cared least about honour and property of Hindus of Bengal. According to Sarkar, “the roving Maratha bands committed wanton destruction and unspeakable outrage”. [Jadunath Sarkar (ed.), The History of Bengal-Volume II Muslim Period 1200 A.D.–1757 A.D. (Delhi: BR Publishing, 2003), (first edition 1948), p. 457.]

Sarkar, in his monumental work on the history of Bengal, reproduced eyewitness accounts of the sufferings of Bengali Hindus at the hands of Marathas. According to one such eyewitness, Gangaram,

“The Marathas snatched away gold and silver, rejecting everything else. Of some people they cut off the hands, of some the nose and ear; some they killed outright. They dragged away the beautiful women and freed them only after raping them”. [Jadunath Sarkar (ed.), The History of Bengal-Volume II Muslim Period 1200 A.D.–1757 A.D. (Delhi: BR Publishing, 2003), (first edition 1948), 457.]

Another eyewitness, Vaneshwar Vidyalankar, the court Pandit of the Maharaja of Bardwan, narrated the horrifying tales of atrocities committed by the Marathas against Hindus in the following words:

“Shahu Raja’s troops are niggard of pity, slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmans and the poor, fierce of spirit, expert in robbing the property of everyone and committing every kind of sinful act.” [Ibid., 458.]

Another crucial fact which is consciously kept under wrap is that despite more than 500 hundred years of ‘Muslim’/Mughal rule which according to Hindutva historians was nothing but a project of annihilating Hindus or forcibly converting the latter to Islam, India remained a nation with an almost 2/3 majority of Hindus at the historical juncture when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. The British rulers held first census in 1871-72. According to the Census report:

“The population of British India is, in round numbers, divided into 140½ millions [sic] of Hindoos (including Sikhs), or 73½ per cent., 40¾ millions of Mahomedans, or 21½ per cent. And 9¼ millions of others, or barely 5 per cent., including under this title Buddhists and Jains, Christians, Jews, Parsees, Brahmoes…”

This happened because Hindu dominent Castes with few exceptions decided to serve the Muslim rulers for hundreds of years which is known as a relationship of roti-beti (bread and daughter).

[Memorandum on the Census of British India of 1871-72: Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty London, George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 1875, 16.]

The linking of crimes committed by rulers with Muslim names in the pre-modern India to their religion is going to create serious unthinkable consequences even for ‘Hindu’ history as narrated by the RSS.

Take for example, Ravana, the king of Lanka who according to again ‘Hindu’ narrative committed unspeakable crimes against Sita, her husband Lord Rama and his companions for 14 years long vanvaas or exile. This Ravana, according to the same narrative, was a learned Brahman who also happened to be one of the greatest worshippers of Lord Shiva.

The epic Mahabharata is a story of a great war between two families known as Pandavas and Kauravas (both Kashtriyas) not between Hindus and Muslims but between two ‘Hindu’ armies in which, if you go by the ‘Hindu’ version 1.2 billion (120 crore) people, all Hindus are stated to have been slaughtered. Draupadi joint wife of Pandavas was disrobed by Kauravas, all Hindus. Modi and Doval must be aware that if the crimes of Ravana and Kauravas, are linked to their religion then India country will lose 80% of the population. And if revenge is to be taken from the present descendants of the past perpetrators then beginning must be made from the beginning of the Indian civilization; turn of the Indian Muslims will come far later!

[1] ‘PM addresses the Somnath Swabhiman Parv in Somnath, Gujarat’, 11 Jan, 2026, https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pm-addresses-the-somnath-swabhiman-parv-in-somnath-gujarat/?comment=disable

[2] ‘NSA Ajit Doval urges youth to learn from history, rebuild a strong India’ 10 Jan-2026, https://firstindia.co.in/news/delhi/nsa-ajit-doval-urges-youth-to-learn-from-history-rebuild-a-strong-india

Related:

Babri Mosque Demolition: When the Indian State succumbed to majoritarian propaganda

November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly

NCERT’s ‘Partition Horrors’: A brazen exercise in white-washing the ‘crimes’ of the Hindu Mahasabha & RSS

The post Busted: ‘Hindu’ Narratives of Desecration of Somnath, Buddhist & Jain Temples in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Why the agitation at all? Because. Because. How can Muslim students –that too 42 of the 50 admissions!–study in a college bearing this name! On streets, within official corridors, the voices were shrill and focussed, cancel these admissions, No Muslims in this “Holy Medical College!” they said.

A strident and crude local unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) joined in as part of a neatly scripted plan, visible, vocal and crass pitching its demand to snatch away legitimately procured admission and ensure that ‘only Hindus’ study in that medical college since the Jammu-based medical institute funded by Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board! The BJP also sought the L-G’s intervention to reserve all the seats at the varsity for Hindus because “it has come up over donations of Hindu devotees”. Only seven Hindus had made it past the test in a batch of 50. The fact that this august institution, had also been funded by public money from the state exchequer, Rs 24 crores last year and Rs 28 crores this year was immaterial to the protestors drunk on prejudice and power.

The agitation that had been launched in late November 2025–as visible on the streets as on social media was backed by the Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha— who responded, we are reportedly told—and ensured that the “National Medical Commission” issued a saffron fatwa to the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence (SMVDIME). Following a hasty inspection carried out on site four days prior (around January 4), orders were given to “shut down” the MBBS Course for which, after due process, permission had been granted four months ago.On January 6, 2026, the NMC’s Medical Assessment and Rating Board withdrew the Letter of Permission granted to the varsity for running the MBBS course with 50 seats for the academic year 2025-26. No show-cause notice was given to the college, there is no room for appeal or due process.

Do we not believe in instant (in) justice in this version of a Hindu rashtra?

The turnaround intervention by the NMC, guided, is not only a tale of gross violation of fundamental rights of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution. Worse or as bad is how openly credits were distributed by the victorious. The Hindu reported on January 7, how members of the Sangarsh Samiti in Jammu distributed sweets and played loud music to celebrate the “victory” of their agitation, which began on November 22, 2025 precisely.  These images were played out on the ever visible and intrusive social media too. “We have come to celebrate the victory of our agitation. We especially thank the Union Home Minister and Health Minister for respecting our sentiments. We believe the decision took longer because of the legal process. We also thank the prominent personalities who joined us in our protests,” convener of the Sangarsh Samiti Sukhvir Mankotia is reported to have said.

Moreover, what does this means for the region? Kashmir, Ladhakh and Jammu have seen and witnessed multiple levels and layers of betrayals by the Indian state and officialdom. This latest is, above all else, an abdication of this government’s own hollow promises and rhetoric that it has used since the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019. Any efforts at return to participative, representative rights-based citizenship by Kashmiris is thwarted by a prejudiced and exclusivist governance by the centre’s representatives and other institutions influenced by the Centre. This augurs ill on principle and also in terms of the social peace of the state and region given the overall fragility of the Valley and Jammu.

Alienation has been the tale that most Kashmiris grow up with, real, not imagined. When 42 students pass a gruelling NEET test for the MBBS Course and are told –after they are horrifyingly witness to crude slogans of protests and shoddy dances of victory in the streets–that they cannot exercise their Right to Education (now a fundamental right under article 21a of the Constitution) because of the colour of their faith, and because they are Kashmiris, it is not only alienation that they will once again have been forced to feel. There will be anger too.

Today the NMC justifies its unjustifiable step citing ‘shortage of teachers/tutors, lecture theatres and library resources’, unconvincing as an argument as all these facilities had been scrutinized and passed when permission was obtained four months ago. Key to the inevitable fallout out is whether out of any last grain of shame, the SMVDIME will appeal the NMC’s unjust scrapping of its MBBS permission in court and fight on constitutional principle. If this college succumbs, as have others to the might of a majoritarian agenda, we can again say with bitter conviction that India is now almost completely deep down into an abyss of its own making!

Related:

Racist, casteist and communal, when will we as Indians reclaim that lost charade of constitutional decency?

Is India’s unique experiment on people’s democracy with the right to universal franchise being lampooned by a compliant Election Commission?

When the state turns rogue even protests dry up, Salutes & Apologies Professor Saibaba!

The post Partitioned minds, a Saffron Fatwa & Denial of Fair Opportunity: Mata Vaishno Devi University, Jammu appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There was a section of political opinion consisting of mainly conservative Hindus and those arguing that India should become a Hindu nation; who opposed the Constitution right from the start. The views of these leaders of Hindu nationalist politics, supported by a conservative section of society were articulated in an article in Organiser, the RSS mouthpiece, which opposed the Indian Constitution; saying that there is/was nothing Indian about it and that it will not be accepted by Hindus. Savarkar, went on to (CNBC TV18) say that Manusmriti is the Constitution today. In this spirit Swami Avimukteshwaranand recently stated (Navbharat Times) that Manusmriti is “above” the Indian Constitution.

This stream is not the only one within India to undermine the Constitution by showing the primacy of ‘word of God’ or sacred scriptures as above its docrine. Maulana Mufti Shamail Nadwi made a similar statement recently. This Maulana has come to prominence in the last few days after his debate with Javed Akhtar on “Does God exist?”. In a viral clip, he asserts that “Muslims erred by accepting secularism and the supremacy of national institutions over Shariah, criticises democracy and the notion of placing the nation (desh) above religion. He questions whether believers should passively accept court verdicts conflicting with Islamic law. These statements (The Chenab Times), while presented as theological opinions, have been interpreted by critics as undermining India’s constitutional secularism and promoting religious supremacy.”[1]

While Manusmriti is a scriptural compilation representing the values of Brahmanism, the dominant stream within Hinduism, Sharia is based on multiple things. Sharia (Arabic: the path) is the Islamic legal-ethical system derived from:

“Qur’an, Hadith (sayings/actions of Prophet Muhammad), Ijma (consensus of scholars) and Qiyas (analogy)” It guides personal conduct and law, not just punishments. In practice, Sharia is interpreted through schools of jurisprudence (Sunni: Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, Hanbali; Shia: Ja‘fari), so there is a diversity within the legal system of Sharia.

Out of nearly 55 Muslim majority countries it shapes the laws etc. only in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan fully. It is partly i implemented in a few other Muslim majority countries. In India it forms a base in matters of Muslim personal laws only.

So, what does one do with changing times and the social patterns, which have occurred over a period of centuries when these laws were devised? Those indulging in politics in the name of religion in India harp on bringing in the Manusmriti and countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are implementing the Sharia in entirety. In many Muslim countries it is not implemented or implemented only in part.

Can Sharia be above the Constitution as the Mufti claims? The legal luminary Faizan Mustafa in a video https://youtu.be/T8BCr27fA24 argues that in every country the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution does consider Sharia in many countries and integrates some aspects of that in the Constitutions.

So, what is the status of democratic institutions in Muslim majority countries? There are different degrees of ‘democracy’ in these countries.  At the moment many social media accounts have been criticizing Shamail for encouraging Muslims not to follow the Constitution, as an anti-patriotic act. On the other hand, many are praising the Mufti for upholding the Sharia! It is interesting to note that during the medieval period of Indian History, the Muslim Kings did not make the Sharia law obligatory for the state.

While Mufti Shamail has one opinion there are others like Asghar Ali Engineer, the foremost scholar of Islam in India; who have different idea about the role of Sharia viv a vis the Constitution. Dr. Engineer harps on Shura (Mutual consultation); to argue that democracy and related principles are possible in the contemporary World. Dr. Engineer says a Quranic concept – and modern-day representative democracy – merely a human concept – may not be exactly similar. However, “the spirit of modern democracy and the Qur’anic injunction to consult people is the same”.

As per him “New institutions keep on developing and human beings, depending on their worldly experiences, keep on changing and refining these institutions. And in the contemporary world, the concept of Shura should mean democratic process and constitution of proper democratic institutions of which elections are a necessary requirement.” The Qur’anic text not only gives the concept of Shura (democratic consultation) but “does not support even remotely any concept of dictatorship or authoritarianism”.

During India’s freedom struggle, which was based on democratic principles and aimed at democratic institutions, a very highly regarded Islamic scholar Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and a dedicated Muslim leader Khan Abdl Gaffar Khan (to name but a few) strove for the values and institutions of democratic secular country. Just a few years ago the Muslim women through the Shaheen Baug movement showed their democratic strength in protecting the community from the fear of disenfranchisement.

What is needed in contemporary times? In India as Muslims are being targeted by Hindutva politics, they have become a besieged community. The conservatism among Muslim community is on a sharp rise. The major issue confronting them is enforcement of their rights using the law and its instruments, asserting representation and accountability from modern institutions.

Even in Islam there are various streams of laws and systems of jurisprudence. Since this is part of Sharia, in that case what Sharia recommends will be another contentious issue. Since Muslims are a minority in this country, they already have Personal laws, which are again under opposition.

Today within the extreme Hindu right wing there is a dominant retrograde tendency trying to bring to fore the values of Manusmriti. Such assertions which want to bring inequality in the garb of religion are not welcome. We need to also look to some European countries where religion is on the back foot.

We are living in contradictory times. On one side human society has developed the principles of dignity and equality as represented in the UN charter and on the other religious right-wing has become stronger during the last few decades. While the Mufti may be knowledgeable in concepts of Islam, we also need to know what are the trends of contemporary society and values of democratic institutions.

[1] This controversial debate has been sharply questioned by political observers, funded as it was by the Maulana himself and his Wahyain Foundation (based in Kolkata) and the Delhi based “Academic Dialogue Forum” reportedly associated with social activist Shabnam Hashmi.

Related:

India 2025: Plight of the Christian minority

Identity issue to the fore: Vande Mataram controversy

Hindu Nationalism’s sectarian nationalism and its concept of ‘duties and rights’

The post Sharia, Manusmriti or the Indian Constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On January 3, 1831, 176 years ago Savitribai Phule, arguably India’s first woman teacher and forgotten liberator was born. With the first school for girls from different castes that she set up in Bhidewada, Pune (the seat of Brahmanism) Krantijyoti Savitribai as she is reverentially known, by the Indian Bahujan movement, blazed a revolutionary trial. There have been consistent demands to observe January 3 as Teachers Day. Without her, Indian women would not have had the benefits of education.

To mark the memory of this remarkable woman we bring to you her letters to life partner Jyotiba. Jyotiba and Savitribai were Comrades in Arms in their struggle against the emancipation of India’s disenfranchised people.

Translated from the Original Marathi with an introduction Sunil Sardar Reproduced here are the English translation of three important Letters – (originally in Marathi and published in MG Mali’s edition of her collected works, Savitribai Phule Samagra Wangmaya) – that Savitribai wrote to her husband Jyotiba in a span of 20 years.

The letters are significant as they write of the wider concerns that drove this couple, the emancipation of the most deprived segments of society and the struggle to attain for them, full human dignity and freedom.

This vision for a new and liberated society – free from ignorance, bigotry, deprivation, and hunger – was the thread that bonded the couple, arching from the private to the personal.

Theirs was a relationship of deep and shared concerns, each providing strength to the other. When large sections of 19^th century Maharashtrian society was ranged against Phule’s reconstructive radicalism, it was the unfailing and shared vision and dedication of his life partner that needs have been emotionally sustaining.  In our tribute to this couple and the tradition of radical questioning that they harboured, we bring to our readers these letters.

1856. The first letter, written in 1856, speaks about the core issue: education and its transformative possibilities in a society where learning, had for centuries been the monopoly of the Brahmins; who, in turn, used this exclusive privilege to enclave, demoralize and oppress. Away at her parental home to recuperate from an illness, Savitri describes in the letter a conversation with her brother, who is uncomfortable with the couple’s radicalism.

October 1856
The Embodiment of Truth, My Lord Jyotiba,
Savitri salutes you!

After so many vicissitudes, now it seems my health has been fully restored. My brother worked so hard and nursed me so well through my sickness. His service and devotion shows how loving he really is! I will come to Pune as soon as I get perfectly well. Please do not worry about me. I know my absence causes Fatima so much trouble but I am sure she will understand and won’t grumble.

As we were talking one day, my brother said, “You and your husband have rightly been excommunicated because both of you serve the untouchables (Mahars and Mangs). The untouchables are fallen people and by helping them you are bringing a bad name to our family. That is why, I tell you to behave according to the customs of our caste and obey the dictates of the Brahmans.” Mother was so disturbed by this brash talk of my brother.

Though my brother is a good soul he is extremely narrow-minded and so he did not hesitate to bitterly criticize and reproach us. My mother did not reprimand him but tried instead to bring him to his senses, “God has given you a beautiful tongue but it is no good to misuse it so!” I defended our social work and tried to dispel his misgivings. I told him, “Brother, your mind is narrow, and the Brahmans’ teaching has made it worse. Animals like goats and cows are not untouchable for you, you lovingly touch them. You catch poisonous snakes on the day of the snake-festival and feed them milk. But you consider Mahars and Mangs, who are as human as you and I, untouchables. Can you give me any reason for this? When the Brahmans perform their religious duties in their holy clothes, they consider you also impure and untouchable, they are afraid that your touch will pollute them. They don’t treat you differently than the Mahars.” When my brother heard this, he turned red in the face, but then he asked me, “Why do you teach those Mahars and Mangs? People abuse you because you teach the untouchables. I cannot bear it when people abuse and create trouble for you for doing that. I cannot tolerate such insults.” I told him what the (teaching of) English had been doing for the people. I said, “The lack of learning is nothing but gross bestiality. It is through the acquisition of knowledge that (he) loses his lower status and achieves the higher one. My husband is a god-like man. He is beyond comparison in this world, nobody can equal him. He thinks the Untouchables must learn and attain freedom. He confronts the Brahmans and fights with them to ensure Teaching and Learning for the Untouchables because he believes that they are human beings like other and they should live as dignified humans. For this they must be educated. I also teach them for the same reason. What is wrong with that? Yes, we both teach girls, women, Mangs and Mahars. The Brahmans are upset because they believe this will create problems for them. That is why they oppose us and chant the mantra that it is against our religion. They revile and castigate us and poison the minds of even good people like you.

“You surely remember that the British Government had organised a function to honour my husband for his great work. His felicitation caused these vile people much heartburn. Let me tell you that my husband does not merely invoke God’s name and participate in pilgrimages like you. He is actually doing God’s own work. And I assist him in that. I enjoy doing this work. I get immeasurable joy by doing such service. Moreover, it also shows the heights and horizons to which a human being can reach out.”

Mother and brother were listening to me intently. My brother finally came around, repented for what he had said and asked for forgiveness. Mother said, “Savitri, your tongue must be speaking God’s own words. We are blessed by your words of wisdom.” Such appreciation from my mother and brother gladdened my heart. From this you can imagine that there are many idiots here, as in Pune, who poison people’s minds and spread canards against us. But why should we fear them and leave this noble cause that we have undertaken? It would be better to engage with the work instead. We shall overcome and success will be ours in the future. The future belongs to us.

What more could I write?

With humble regards,

Yours,

Savitri

The Poetess in Savitribai

The year 1854 was important as Savitribai published her collection of poems, called Kabya Phule (Poetry’s Blossoms).
Bavan Kashi Subodh Ratnakar (The Ocean of Pure Gems), another collection of what has come to be highly regarded in the world of Marathi poetry was published in 1891. (The Phules had developed a devastating critique of the Brahman interpretation of Marathi history in the ancient and medieval periods. He portrayed the Peshwa rulers, later overthrown by the British, as decadent and oppressive, and Savitribai reiterates those themes in her biography.)
Apart from these two collections, four of Jyotiba’s speeches on Indian History were edited for publication by Savitribai. A few of her own speeches were also published in 1892. Savitribai’s correspondence is also remarkable because they give us an insight into her own life and into the life and lived experiences of women of the time.

1868. The Second letter is about a great social taboo – a love affair between a Brahman boy and an Untouchable girl; the cruel behavior of the ‘enraged’ villagers and how Savitribai stepped in. This intervention saves the lives of the lovers and she sends them away to the safety and caring support of her husband, Jyotiba. With the malevolent reality of honour killings in the India of 2016 and the hate-driven propaganda around ‘love jehad’ this letter is ever so relevant today.

29 August 1868
Naigaon, Peta Khandala
Satara
The Embodiment of Truth, My Lord Jotiba,
Savitri salutes you!
I received your letter. We are fine here. I will come by the fifth of next month. Do not worry on this count. Meanwhile, a strange thing happened here. The story goes like this. One Ganesh, a Brahman, would go around villages, performing religious rites and telling people their fortunes. This was his bread and butter. Ganesh and a teenage girl named Sharja who is from the Mahar (untouchable) community fell in love. She was six months pregnant when people came to know about this affair. The enraged people caught them, and paraded them through the village, threatening to bump them off.

I came to know about their murderous plan. I rushed to the spot and scared them away, pointing out the grave consequences of killing the lovers under the British law. They changed their mind after listening to me.

Sadubhau angrily said that the wily Brahman boy and the untouchable girl should leave the village. Both the victims agreed to this. My intervention saved the couple who gratefully fell at my feet and started crying. Somehow I consoled and pacified them. Now I am sending both of them to you. What else to write?
Yours
Savitri

1877. The last letter, written in 1877, is a heart-rending account of a famine that devastated western Maharashtra. People and animals were dying. Savitri and other Satyashodhak volunteers were doing their best to help. The letter brings out an intrepid Savitri leading a team of dedicated Satyashodhaks striving to overcome a further exacerbation of the tragedy by moneylenders’ trying to benefit.  She meets the local District administration. The letter ends on a poignant note where Savitribai reiterates her total commitment to her the humanitarian work pioneered by the Phules.

20 April, 1877
Otur, Junner
The Embodiment of Truth, My Lord Jyotiba,
Savitri salutes you!
The year 1876 has gone, but the famine has not – it stays in most horrendous forms here. The people are dying. The animals are dying, falling on the ground. There is severe scarcity of food. No fodder for animals. The people are forced to leave their villages. Some are selling their children, their young girls, and leaving the villages. Rivers, brooks and tanks have completely dried up – no water to drink. Trees are dying – no leaves on trees. Barren land is cracked everywhere. The sun is scorching – blistering. The people crying for food and water are falling on the ground to die. Some are eating poisonous fruits, and drinking their own urine to quench their thirst. They cry for food and drink, and then they die.

Our Satyashodhak volunteers have formed committees to provide food and other life-saving material to the people in need. They have formed relief squads.
Brother Kondaj and his wife Umabai are taking good care of me. Otur’s Shastri, Ganapati Sakharan, Dumbare Patil, and others are planning to visit you. It would be better if you come from Satara to Otur and then go to Ahmednagar.

You may remember R.B. Krishnaji Pant and Laxman Shastri. They travelled with me to the affected area and gave some monetary help to the victims.

The moneylenders are viciously exploiting the situation. Bad things are taking place as a result of this famine. Riots are breaking out. The Collector heard of this and came to ease the situation. He deployed the white police officers, and tried to bring the situation under control. Fifty Satyasholdhaks were rounded up. The Collector invited me for a talk. I asked the Collector why the good volunteers had been framed with false charges and arrested without any rhyme or reason. I asked him to release them immediately. The Collector was quite decent and unbiased. He shouted at the white soldiers, “Do the Patil farmers rob? Set them free.” The Collector was moved by the people’s plights. He immediately sent four bullock cartloads of (jowar) food.

You have started the benevolent and welfare work for the poor and the needy. I also want to carry my share of the responsibility. I assure you I will always help you. I wish the godly work will be helped by more people.

I do not want to write more.
Yours,
Savitri

(These letters have been excerpted with grateful thanks from A Forgotten Liberator, The Life and Struggle of Savitrabai Phule, Edited by Braj Ranjan Mani, Pamela Sardar)

Bibliography:

Krantijyoti : Revolutionary flame
Brahmans: Priestly “upper” caste with a powerful hold on all fairs of society and state including access to education, resources and mobility (spelt interchangeably as Brahmins)
Mahars:The Mahar is an Indian Caste, found largely in the state of Maharashtra, where they compromise 10% of the population, and neighboring areas. Most of the Mahar community followed social reformer B. R. Ambedkar in converting to Buddhism in the middle of the 20th century.
Mangs: The Mang (or Matang -Minimadig in Gujarat and Rajasthan) community is an Indian caste historically associated with low-status or ritually impure professions such as village musicians, cattle castraters, leather curers, midwives, hangmen, undertakers. Today they are listed as a Scheduled Castes a term which has replaced the former the derogatory ‘Untouchable’
Satyashodhak Samaj:  A society established by Jyotirao Phule on September 24, 1873. This was started as a group whose main aim was to liberate the shudra and untouchable castes from exploitation and oppression
Shudra: The fourth caste under the rigid caste Hindu system; these were further made more rigid in the Manu Smruti
Ati Shudra: Most of the groups listed under this category come under the untouchables who were used for the most venal tasks in caste ridden Hindu society but not treated as part of the caste system.
Jowar: The Indian name for sorghum

How the Education for girls was pioneered

The Phule couple decided to start schools for girls, especially from the shudra and atishudra castes but also including others so that social cohesion of sorts could be attempted in the classroom. Bhidewada in Pune was the chosen site, a bank stands there today. There is a movement among Bahujans to reclaim this historic building. When the Phules faced stiff resistance and a boycott, a Pune-based businessman Usman Shaikh gave them shelter. Fatima Shaikh Usman’s sister was the first teacher colleague of Savitribai and the two trained teachers who ran the school. The school started with nine girl students in 1848.

Sadashiv Govande contributed books from Ahmednagar. It functioned for about six months and then had to be closed down. Another building was found and the school reopened a few months later. The young couple faced severe opposition from almost all sections. Savitribai was subject to intense harassment everyday as she walked to school. Stones, mud and dirt were flung at her as she passed. She was often abused by groups of men with orthodox beliefs who opposed the education for women. Filth including cow dung was flung on her. Phule gave her hope, love and encouragement. She went to school wearing an old sari, and carried an extra sari with her to change into after she reached the school. The sheer daring and doggedness of the couple and their comrades in arms broke the resistance. Finally, the pressure on her eased when she was compelled to slap one of her tormentors on the street!

Once the caste Hindu Brahmanical hierarchy who were the main opponents of female education realized that the Phule couple would not easily give in, they arm-twisted Jyotiba’s father. Intense pressure was brought by the Brahmins on Phule’s father, Govindrao, to convince him that his son was on the wrong track, that what he was doing was against the Dharma. Finally, things came to a head when Phule’s father told him to leave home in 1849. Savitri preferred to stay by her husband’s side, braving the opposition and difficulties, and encouraging Phule to continue their educational work.

However, their pioneering move had won some support. Necessities like books were supplied through well wishers; a bigger house, owned by a Muslim, was found for a second school which was started in 1851. Moro Vithal Walvekar and Deorao Thosar assisted the school. Major Candy, an educationalist of Pune, sent books. Jyotirao worked here without any salary and later Savitribai was put in charge. The school committee, in a report, noted, “The state of the school funds has compelled the committee to appoint teachers on small salaries, who soon give up when they find better appointment…Savitribai, the school headmistress, has nobly volunteered to devote herself to the improvement of female education without remuneration. We hope that as knowledge advances, the people of this country will be awakened to the advantages of female education and will cordially assist in all such plans calculated to improve the conditions of those girls.”

On November 16, 1852, the education department of the government organised a public felicitation of the Phule couple, where they were honoured with shawls.
On February 12, 1853, the school was publicly examined. The report of the event state: “The prejudice against teaching girls to read and write began to give way…the good conduct and honesty of the peons in conveying the girls to and from school and parental treatment and indulgent attention of the teachers made the girls love the schools and literally run to them with alacrity and joy.”

A Dalit student of Savitribai, Muktabai, wrote a remarkable essay which was published in the paper Dyanodaya, in the year 1855. In her essay, Muktabai poignantly describes the wretchedness of the so-called untouchables and severely criticizes the Brahmanical religion for degrading and dehumanizing her people.

The post Love-Letters like no other appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Love Letters like no other. Letters from Savitribai to Jyotiba appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This debate was, at its core, a philosophical exercise, not a theological trial. Even if we accept Mufti Nadvi’s logical arguments for a Creator, they do not automatically validate the specific beliefs of his religion. To confuse a philosophical “First Cause” with a religious “Personal God” is a leap of faith, not logic. Here is a breakdown of why this debate cannot be claimed as a victory for organized religion, based on a scientific and critical review of the proceedings.

1. The “First Cause” is Not a Religious Victory

The central pillar of the Mufti Nadvi’s argument was the “Argument from Contingency” (or the Cosmological Argument)—that the universe is contingent and thus requires a “Necessary Being” or a First Cause to exist. While this is a powerful philosophical concept, utilizing it to prove a specific religion is a bait-and-switch tactic.

• The Trap of the “First Cause”:Proving that a “Necessary Being” exists only leads us to Deism—the belief in a creator who set the universe in motion. It does not lead us to Theism—the belief in a God who sends books, prophets, and laws.
• Javed Akhtar’s Real Contention:As noted in the debate, Akhtar’s primary objection is not necessarily against a distant, abstract “First Cause” (which he dismisses as irrelevant). His intellectual battle is with the character of God as portrayed by religions—a God who demands worship, intervenes in human affairs, and allows massive suffering.
• The Metaphysical Reality:Both debaters agreed that God is not a physical entity. If the “Necessary Being” is a metaphysical reality not subject to physical proof, then it is equally not subject to religious anthropomorphism.

2. The Flaw of Imposed Rules

A significant procedural flaw in the debate was the framing of the rules.

• Unilateral Rule Setting:At the outset, the mufti set the parameters: no scriptural evidence, only logic. In a fair debate, one participant cannot unilaterally impose the epistemology. By restricting the debate to “logic only,” the Mufti Nadvi attempted to shield religion from the scrutiny of history and

morality, arenas where religious dogmas often falter.

• Breaking His Own Precedent:The most critical breakdown occurred when Javed Akhtar raised the logical problem of evil and suffering (e.g., children dying in Gaza).

The mufti, unable to answer this strictly through the “logic” he demanded, retreated into religious apologetics. He invoked concepts of “divine wisdom,” “tests,” and “afterlife justice”—all of which are religious beliefs, not logical proofs. This violated his own rule that religious arguments were inadmissible.

3. The Problem of Evil: Logic vs. Apologetics

The clash over the existence of evil was the debate’s turning point, and it highlights why the “religion won” narrative is flawed.

• Logic, Not Just Poetry:Critics often dismiss Javed Akhtar’s arguments as emotional poetry. However, the Problem of Evil is a rigid logical argument. If God is All-Powerful and All-Good, evil cannot exist. Since evil exists, God is either not All-Powerful or not All-Good. This carries as much logical weight as Mufti Nadvi’s “First Cause” argument.
• The Logical Fallacy of “The Test”:The mufti attempted to argue that God and Evil coexist simultaneously, and while God created Evil, He is not responsible for it (attributing it to free will or tests). This is a logical fallacy. If a “Necessary Being” is the source of all reality, it cannot absolve itself of the reality it created.
• The Atheist’s Conclusion:For Javed Akhtar, the existence of suffering is not just a complaint; it is positive evidence that a benevolent, intervening God does not exist.

4. The False Binary of Theist vs. Atheist

The debate also suffered from the rigid binary through which both sides view the world.

• Religious Blindness:Religious apologists tend to view every non-religious individual as a hard core atheist. They fail to recognize deists, agnostics, or spiritual seekers who reject organised religion but accept a higher power.
• Atheistic Blindness:Conversely, atheists often group all believers into the category of “religious fundamentalists,” ignoring those who view God philosophically rather than dogmatically.

The real issue facing humanity is not the abstract existence of a deity, but the concrete existence

of suffering. While the Mufti Nadvi offers religious belief as the solution and Javed Akhtar offers secular values and collective human effort, the debate highlights that since suffering is a universal human experience, it demands a universal, secular framework for integration rather than a solution limited to the boundaries of a single faith.

5. The Irony of “Western” Arguments

Perhaps the greatest irony of the debate lies in the tools used by Mufti Nadvi.

• Imported Philosophy:The “Argument from Contingency” and the “Cosmological Argument” are deeply rooted in Western philosophy (Aristotle, Plato) and later adapted by Muslim philosophers (like Avicenna).
• Theological Contradiction:Historically, orthodox religious authorities often opposed these philosophical methods, tagging supporters of logic, science, and philosophy as heretics orkafirs. It is paradoxical that modern religious apologists now rely on the very same “Western philosophical arguments” their predecessors despised to defend their faith.

6. From Indoctrination to Education

Ultimately, the discussion shouldn’t be about which specific religious God supposedly

revealed, but rather acknowledging that the greatest divine gift is the human capacity for reason. If we rely on this reasoning rather than the ‘ready-made’ arguments of religious doctrine, we can identify the actual, tangible causes of human suffering. The way forward requires a shift from indoctrination to education—moving humanity from the comfort of unquestionable beliefs to the scrutiny of accountable facts.

7. The Paradox of “Universal” Religion

While many might accept the spiritual concept of ultimate accountability before God, the problem arises when religion oversteps this boundary. Organized religion rarely stops at spiritual accountability; it intervenes in logic, scientific development, and politics. Furthermore, there is a fundamental contradiction in its claim of ‘universal acceptability.’ In reality, every religion is bound by its own regional characteristics—specific nomenclature, dressing styles, ‘godly’ languages, and cultural practices. A system that is so deeply rooted in a specific regional culture cannot truly claim to be universal without imposing that culture on others.”

Conclusion

The debate was a collision of two different worlds: the philosophical search for a First Cause and the humanistic demand for justice. While Mufti Nadvi may have presented a coherent argument for a Deistic Creator, he failed to bridge the gap to a Theistic God who cares about human worship.

Javed Akhtar’s critique remains unanswered: We do not need to prove the existence of a Creator as much as we need to question the silence of that Creator in the face of human suffering. Until religion can solve the problem of evil without resorting to circular belief, it cannot claim victory over reason.

The post Beyond Victory and Defeat: Why the ‘Does God Exist’ Debate Was Not a Win for Religion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On October 28, the Modi-led BJP government attempted, much like Lord Curzon during colonial rule, to muzzle the democratic and federal character of Panjab University by dissolving its Senate. Under the Panjab University Act of 1947, the Senate is the highest democratic body of the university, responsible for its management, property, and governance. It consists of 91 members—47 elected, 36 nominated by the Chancellor, 2 from the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, and 6 ex-officio members. Punjab has direct representation through 15 graduate seats, with graduates eligible both to vote and contest elections. The Senate functions as the “parliament” of the university, while the Syndicate, its executive body, is elected from among Senate members.

Ironically, in 1904, Lord Curzon had introduced amendments to the Punjab University Act precisely to curb anti-colonial sentiment by weakening the Senate and increasing imperial control. Today, the Modi government appears to be following a similar path—seeking to abolish the Senate to undermine Punjab’s historical claim over Panjab University, erode its autonomy, centralise control, and pave the way for privatisation. However, the historic and organic movement led by students and supported by broader democratic forces shattered the BJP–RSS dream of turning Chandigarh into a “small Nagpur”.

The dissolution of the Senate sent a clear message: Panjab University was being taken away from Punjab, its democracy murdered, and its autonomy destroyed. This sparked widespread outrage across Punjab. Even opportunist electoral parties—many of which had previously betrayed people’s struggles—were compelled to join the protest. Conscious sections of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and other regions also recognised this as an attack on autonomy and democratic institutions and extended their support.

The Panjab University struggle has once again highlighted the urgency of addressing unresolved questions of federalism—particularly Punjab’s claim over Panjab University and Chandigarh, issues of river water sharing, other federal rights, and the systematic daylight assassination of democracy.

At its core, neoliberal policy directly undermines federalism by centralising power to facilitate large-scale privatisation. International institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and WTO actively promote this centralisation to enable the exploitation of resources and labour. Thus, the erosion of federalism and democracy is not accidental but structural to the neoliberal project.

Indian rulers have historically preferred a highly centralised state rather than a genuinely federal one. During the anti-colonial struggle, the Indian National Congress promised linguistic federalism. However, after Independence, the Nehru–Patel–Sitaramayya (JVP) Committee rejected the Dhar Commission’s recommendations, arguing that state formation on linguistic lines would threaten “national unity”. In reality, greater state autonomy was seen as an obstacle to imperialist exploitation. Hence, a “strong Centre” was prioritised over true federalism.

Although popular struggles eventually forced the government to create linguistic states, this process lacked a sincere federal spirit. Punjab faced particularly harsh discrimination. After a prolonged struggle, the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966 created a truncated Punjab, carving away Punjabi-speaking areas, undermining Punjab’s river-water rights, and snatching Chandigarh—constructed by demolishing more than 28 Punjabi Puadhi villages. The three-language formula was imposed, and the religious and cultural demands of Sikh minorities were ignored.

Sections 72, 78, 79, 81, 84, and 87 of the same Act placed Panjab University, Punjab Agricultural University, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, the Bhakra Beas Management Board, and Chandigarh under central control. Despite widespread protests, betrayal continued. Although the Rajiv–Longowal Accord promised Chandigarh to Punjab in 1986, the Centre reneged. Central control over the BBMB, the increased presence of the BSF, and the appointment of a centrally controlled administrator in Chandigarh continue to erode Punjab’s federal rights.

The assault on federalism intensified with the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, which transferred key subjects like education, forests, and minerals from the State List to the Concurrent List. The neoliberal reforms of the 1990s further weakened states’ political and financial autonomy. With GST, states have been reduced to little more than municipalities, facing centralised revenue collection, decentralised expenditure responsibilities, and constant administrative interference.

Under the BJP–Sangh’s Hindi–Hindu–Hindutva project—embodied in slogans like “one nation, one language,” “one nation, one tax,” “one nation, one election,” and “one nation, one education policy”—the fascist bulldozer has moved from vote theft to Senate theft. When the Centre attempted to snatch Panjab University, the people rose up and forced Modi to retreat once again.

The struggle also firmly rejected attempts to pit Punjab against Haryana. Protesters consistently emphasised that the Centre deliberately foments inter-state conflicts to push privatisation and allow corporate plunder of natural resources across Ladakh, Himachal, Kashmir, Manipur, and central India. This is not the time for people to fight among themselves; the real struggle is against a centralised state serving imperialist interests.

The dissolution of the Senate was carried out under the NEP 2020, which explicitly eliminates elected Senates, student unions, and teacher unions, replacing them with nominated bodies. Universities are being forced to raise fees, rely on loans instead of grants, generate profits, and submit to centrally imposed curricula and regulations. This is the BJP’s idea of “federalism”.

While the Centre strangles federalism, state governments and political parties have largely failed to resist. The Bhagwant Mann-led Punjab government neither provides adequate funding to Panjab University nor actively participates in Senate meetings. Universities across Punjab face acute financial crises, student and Senate elections are avoided, and the NEP 2020 is implemented without resistance.

Ultimately, no mainstream political party appears genuinely committed to federalism. History shows that the struggle for true federalism cannot be led to its logical conclusion by opportunist electoral forces. It must be led by the people themselves—by workers and peasants—through the uprooting of parasitic neoliberal imperialist policies.

Today, as centralisation and privatisation obstruct the development of emerging nationalities from Kashmir to the North-East and push Centre–State relations to a dead end, there is an urgent need for a united national struggle of working people for true federalism. Such federalism is impossible without complete democratisation of society, including the uprooting of feudalism and imperialism. The historic struggle at Panjab University can become a powerful starting point.

Sandeep Kumar PhD, Panjab University, Chandigarh, Member, Panjab University Bachao Morcha

Courtesy: Counter Currents

The post Historic Victory at Panjab University, but Federalism Remains at Stake appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report identifies the reported disappearance and killing of journalist Mukesh Chandrakar in Bastar in early January as emblematic of the dangers faced by those who speak truth to power. Chandrakar had reported on poor-quality road construction in the region shortly before he went missing; his body was later found in a septic tank. The FSC notes that this incident set the tone for a year in which nine people were killed for exercising their right to free speech, including eight journalists and one social media influencer. It underscores that violence against journalists—particularly those working in rural and semi-urban districts—remains one of the most visible and brutal forms of silencing.

Journalists as primary targets

The FSC report records 40 attacks on free speech actors in 2025, of which 33 targeted journalists. It notes that reporters covering local corruption, illegal mining, liquor mafias, and administrative failures were especially vulnerable. In several cases, the police initially attempted to attribute killings or deaths to personal disputes, accidents, or intoxication, even when the journalists had recently published sensitive stories. The report highlights the case of Uttarakhand-based YouTuber Rajeev Pratap, whose body was recovered from the Bhagirathi, river days after he aired a video exposing liquor consumption inside a local hospital. Despite colleagues raising serious doubts, police claimed he had driven into the river while drunk.

The FSC further draws attention to the continued incarceration of journalists Irfan Mehraj and Rupesh Kumar under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, noting that their prolonged detention without trial exemplifies the use of counter-terror laws to suppress journalism. Threats and harassment accompanied physical violence: at least 14 of 19 harassment incidents and 12 of 17 recorded threats were directed at journalists engaged in professional work. The report cites, as illustrative, a threat by TDP MLA Gummanur Jayaram to force journalists “to sleep on railway tracks” if they published allegedly false information about him.

The return of sedition and criminal lawfare

One of the most troubling findings of the report is the resurgence of sedition prosecutions, despite repeated assurances that colonial-era speech offences had been rendered obsolete under the new criminal codes. The FSC documents multiple sedition cases filed in 2025 against satirists, journalists, and political commentators for online posts questioning state action.

The report details how satirists Neha Singh Rathore, Madri Kakoti (Dr Medusa), and Shamita Yadav (Ranting Gola) were charged with sedition for social media commentary following the Pahalgam attack. It flags the Allahabad High Court’s rejection of Rathore’s anticipatory bail as a significant departure from earlier judicial reluctance to allow sedition prosecutions for speech. The FSC also records the filing of sedition FIRs by Assam police against the leadership and columnists of The Wire, including founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan and consulting editor Karan Thapar, as well as against journalist Abhisar Sarma for a YouTube programme that relied on publicly available judicial observations.

According to the report, these cases exemplify “lawfare”—the strategic use of criminal law not necessarily to secure convictions, but to intimidate, exhaust, and silence critical voices through prolonged legal processes.

Mass censorship and platform control

The largest category of violations documented by the FSC in 2025 relates to censorship and internet control, with 11,385 instances recorded. The report highlights mass government takedown requests to social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter). In May and July 2025 alone, over 10,000 accounts were withheld in India. Citing X’s submissions before the Karnataka High Court, the report notes that the platform received 29,118 takedown requests from the Indian government between January and June 2025 and complied with the overwhelming majority of them.

The FSC identifies the Sahyog portal as a key institutional mechanism enabling decentralised censorship by allowing state agencies, district officials, and local police to issue takedown notices directly to platforms. Following the Pahalgam attack, numerous accounts belonging to journalists, news organisations, and international media outlets—including The Wire, Maktoob Media, Reuters, and many senior journalists—were withheld without public disclosure of reasons. The report notes that the Karnataka High Court’s decision upholding the Sahyog portal effectively legitimised large-scale, opaque censorship of online speech.

The ‘Hidden Hand’: Self-censorship and corporate influence

Beyond formal orders, the FSC report devotes significant attention to what it terms the “hidden hand” of censorship: informal pressures, verbal directives, and institutional intimidation that rarely leave a documentary trail. The report cites instances of journalists receiving “friendly calls,” media houses quietly dropping stories, and investigative platforms being financially crippled through regulatory action, such as the revocation of The Reporter’s Collective’s tax-exempt status.

Corporate power, the report notes, increasingly intersected with state censorship. It documents the September 2025 ex-parte injunction obtained by Adani Enterprises leading to the takedown of over 200 pieces of online content critical of the company, as well as sustained attempts to suppress reporting on the Vantara wildlife project linked to Reliance Industries. Even where courts later set aside gag orders, the report observes that the chilling effect on media coverage persisted.

Academia, cinema, and the right to think

The FSC records at least 16 serious instances of censorship in academia, including the cancellation of conferences, denial of permissions, deportation of visiting scholars, and the revocation of OCI status of academics critical of the government. In Kashmir, the report notes, authorities banned 25 books on the region’s history and politics and raided bookstores.

In cinema, the report documents excessive cuts, prolonged certification delays, and outright denial of certification to films addressing caste violence, state abuse, or social injustice. It notes that even internationally acclaimed films and centenary classics were barred from screening, underscoring how certification had become a tool of prior restraint rather than classification.

An uneven judicial response

While acknowledging some notable judicial interventions in favour of free speech, the FSC concludes that the judiciary’s overall response in 2025 was inconsistent. The report contrasts strong Supreme Court observations protecting poetry, satire, and art with orders that imposed gag conditions, endorsed expansive censorship mechanisms, or demanded apologies from artists. This inconsistency, the report argues, has failed to provide a stable constitutional shield for free expression.

A shrinking democratic space

In its concluding assessment, the Free Speech Collective warns that the cumulative impact of violence, lawfare, mass censorship, corporate pressure, and regulatory overreach has fundamentally altered the conditions under which speech is exercised in India. The report cautions that free expression has not been extinguished outright, but increasingly conditioned, surveilled, and constrained, creating a climate in which self-censorship becomes a rational act of survival.

As the report starkly concludes, the “hidden hand” shaping India’s speech landscape in 2025 is no longer subtle—it has become structural.

The complete report may be read here.

Related:                                                            

The ‘Shastra Poojan’ Project: How the ritual of weapon worship is being recast as a tool of power and hate propaganda

MP, Odisha, Delhi, Rajasthan: Right-wing outfits barge into 2 churches ahead of Christmas, attack vendors selling X’mas goodies, tensions run high

No right to live, or die: Christians in Chhattisgarh, and India under attack

Kerala: Protests erupt after RSS-BJP man’s alleged attack on children’s Christmas carol group in Palakkad

‘Brutal intimidation of Christians’ all India condemned: Bombay Catholic Sabha

The post Free Speech in India 2025: What the Free Speech Collective report reveals about a year of silencing appeared first on SabrangIndia.