History

Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva: Book Review

The substantial work is a studied reference from a multitude of sources in the Marathi language as well as a study on the surveillance by colonial powers

SC ends gender discrimination at Sabrimala: Women of all ages can enter temple

In a resounding slap in the face of patriarchy...

Ayodhya Verdict: The Dispute Is Not Settled Yet

The appeal for reference was dismissed by the Supreme...

Dr.Ambedkar’s views on minority rights, democracy and Hindu majoritarianism

Professor Christophe Jaffrelot (King’s India Institute, London) and Prof....

Casteless Collective’s song about Periyar on his 140th birthday

Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy, better known by his honorific title,...

Why Nine-Eleven Matters

Nine-eleven matters because on this date in 1906, Mahatma...

How Brahmins Negated The Progress of India

In my earlier article “Shudras Built The Indus Valley...

Dissenting in a Democracy with draconian Sedition Act

Colonial era law to keep freedom fighters in check,...

How an Indian freedom fighter and Urdu poet expressed his love for Krishna

Hasrat Mohani is known as the person who coined...

Trending

Related VIDEOS

ALL STORIES

ALL STORIES

Ayodhya’s shocking crime: Dalit woman found dead, allegations of sexual violence, police accused of delay

Family slams police inaction, political leaders demand swift justice as investigation deepens into horrific crime; till now, 3 have been arrested in the case

Strengthening safeguards against arbitrary arrests, Supreme Court bars WhatsApp & Email notices under Section 41A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS

The Supreme Court, on January 21, 2025, reiterated that the Police does not have the authority to serve notice upon accused persons via WhatsApp, email, SMS, or any other electronic mode. This recent order of the Supreme Court was passed on a plea related to the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI. The Court held that notices must strictly only be served as per the prescribed procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva: Book Review

The substantial work is a studied reference from a multitude of sources in the Marathi language as well as a study on the surveillance by colonial powers

Uttarakhand implements Uniform Civil Code (UCC) attracting criticism and concerns

Uttarakhand has become the first state in independent India to enact a comprehensive Uniform Civil Code (UCC), taking a step towards uniformity in personal laws, affecting matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption across all religions. The move has reignited debates regarding the balance between individual rights, religious freedoms, and the constitutional vision of a secular and egalitarian society. While supporters of the step view the UCC as a progressive reform that upholds gender justice and national unity, concerns have been expressed by various critics over its impact on religious diversity and personal autonomy.

Tapan Bose: A Man and a Life to Remember

He was a true leader with his invincible blend of wisdom, vision, courage, conviction, humility and immense warmth.

Noise Pollution Ban: Unequal standards for diverse practices?

The recent Bombay High Court judgment (23rd January 2025) addresses the contentious issue of the use of loudspeakers at places of worship and their legal standing under Article 25 of the Constitution. The case was initiated following complaints by residents about persistent noise pollution caused by loudspeakers from religious institutions (masjids), particularly during early morning and late-night hours. The court examined whether such practices constituted an essential religious function or merely a cultural practice subject to regulation under existing noise pollution laws. The court ruled that loudspeakers are not an essential part of religious practice and directed the Maharashtra government and police to take strict action against violations of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. This ruling aligns with past judicial pronouncements while also raising questions about unequal enforcement of noise regulations across different religious communities.