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.

The recent assault on the Editor of New Age and Editors’ Council President Nurul Kabir, and the mob attacks on the offices of the widely circulated Bangla daily Prothom Alo, and leading English-language publication Daily Star, in particular, mark a serious and deadly escalation in the ongoing cycle of violence against and intimidation of the media in Bangladesh.

The Guild has also noted with the gravest concern reports of death threats on social media against media persons, and has called on the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government in Bangladesh to immediately ensure the physical safety and well-being of journalists, and for quick action against the perpetrators of such violence.

These attacks constitute a clear violation of media freedom in South Asia and are an attempt to silence independent media voices and constrain civic discourse. The Guild calls on the authorities in Bangladesh and elsewhere to ensure that immediate action is taken to ensure that the media is allowed to function in an atmosphere free of threats, intimidations and violence.

The statement has been issued by the Guild president, Sanjay Kapoor, general secretary Raghavan Srinivasan and general secretary, Teresa Rehman.

Related:

Chaos in Bangladesh provides opportunity to right-wing social media to spread misinformation regarding Hindus, temples being attacked in the country

Kerala: BJP activists attack MediaOne TV headquarters during victory celebrations

One more attack on the Media: Local journalist thrashed and urinated upon by railway police, UP

The post Bangladesh: Assault and mob attack on journalists condemned by EGI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Academy chairman Resul Pookutty confirmed that the films will be screened as per schedule. “We are going ahead with all the film screenings as scheduled. We will fight this out. We want the IFFK and its spirit to be saved,” Pookutty told Onmanorama.

For the first time in the history of the prestigious film festival, the Central government had insisted on MEA sanction to screen a select bunch of films at IFFK. The pending censorship exemption for 19 films has prompted cancellations and schedule revisions, sparking protests.

On Tuesday, December 16, four films were given exemption, but clearance for 15 films was put on hold. Academy officials said the films for which clearance is being withheld include old classics, restored versions, Palestinian movies, Sri Lankan films, and previous winners at the IFFK.

In the first instance, on December 16, Marian Alexander Baby, the general secretary of the state’s ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist) told the media that The Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry has denied the 2025 International Film Festival of Kerala permission to screen 19 films. The list includes films about Palestine. The event in Thiruvananthapuram began on December 12 and will conclude on December 19.

According to rules it is reported that, films without a censorship certificate require an exemption from I&B to be screened at film festivals. The procedure outlined is that festival organisers submit applications with a synopsis and get an exemption certificate. IFFK organisers said they submitted applications with film summaries 10 days prior to the start of the festival. Pookutty had earlier told Onmanorama that he had reached out to Minister for External Affairs S Jaishankar to find a solution.

Four films given exemption after an initial ban:  Beef, Eagles of Republic, Heart of the Wolf, once upon a time in Gaza. Palestine 36, an Arabic and English language movie, was the inaugural film of the event. On December 12, at the inauguration ceremony, Kerala’s Cultural Affairs Minister Saji Cherian had spoken about the state’s support for the Palestinian cause. Palestinian Ambassador to India Abdallah M Abu Shawesh was a guest at the event.

At the inauguration of the festival on December 12, while paying tribute to director Shaji N Karun, who was associated with the festival until his death in April 2025, Cherian also said that the festival was a platform that “resists fascism and autocracy while celebrating freedom of speech and creative expression”. Reported Scroll.in.

Films to be screened without censorship exemption

1. A Poet: Unconcealed Poetry
2. All That’s Left of You
3. Bamako
4. Battleship Potemkin
5. Clash
6. Palestine 36
7. Red Rain
8. Riverstone
9. The Hour of The Furnaces
10. Tunnels: Sun In the Dark (Địa Đạo: Mặt Trời Trong Bóng Tối)
11. Yes
12. Flames
13. Timbuktu
14. Wajib
15. Santosh

Background

Among the other films that were denied permission are A Poet: Unconcealed Poetry, Bamako, director Sergei Eisenstein’s 1925 classic Battleship Potemkin, Spanish film Beef, Clash, Eagles of The Republic, Heart of The Wolf, Red Rain, Riverstone, The Hour of The Furnaces, Tunnels: Sun In The Dark (Địa Đạo: Mặt Trời Trong Bóng Tối), Flames, Timbuktu, Wajib and Santosh.

Battleship Potemkin and director Abderrahmane Sissako’s 2006 docudrama Bamako have been widely shown at film festivals in India. Sissako was honoured by the IFFK with a Lifetime Achievement Award this year. MA Baby, General Secretary of the ruling CPI-M said that the film Beef had been denied permission “ostensibly because of its name, even though it has nothing to do with food choices”. The former minister said that the permissions being denied to screen the films was an “absurd and lunatic attempt to derail IFFK” and the “latest example of the neo-fascist tendencies of the extreme authoritarian rule” under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat.The RSS is the parent organisation of the BJP. “Artists, filmmakers and all democratic-minded citizens must raise their voices against this disgraceful move,” he said.

The Democratic Youth Federation of India, the youth organisation affiliated to the CPI(M), held a protest at one of the main venues of the film festival.

Meanwhile Veteran filmmaker and Dadasaheb Phalke awardee, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, commenting on the attempted censorship of 19 films at the IFFK, including Battleship Potemkin, Beef and some Palestinian film was scathing in his comment, “This shows the ignorance of those making these decisions. Battleship Potemkin is an important study on the grammar of cinema.

VIDEO | Kerala: Veteran filmmaker and Dadasaheb Phalke awardee Adoor Gopalakrishnan, commenting on the hold on the screening of 19 films at IFFK, including Battleship Potemkin, Beef, and some Palestinian films, says, “It shows the ignorance of those making these decisions.… pic.twitter.com/TOCQCiElS9

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) December 15, 2025

Kerala Minister for Cultural Affairs Saji Cherian has directed State Chalachitra Academy to screen all the films at IFFK @iffklive, including the remaining 15 films for which the Union I&B ministry has not yet provided censor exemption.

Kerala Minister for Cultural Affairs Saji Cherian has directed State Chalachitra Academy to screen all the films at IFFK @iffklive , including the remaining 15 films for which the Union I&B ministry has not yet provided censor exemption.

— S.R.Praveen (@myopiclenses) December 16, 2025

Kerala refuses to bow down before the whimsical rulings of Central Board of FilmCertification that denied exemption for 19 films including classic film of Battleship Potemkin in a bid to disrupt the film festival. CM declares that all the19 films will be screened at IFFK .#IFFK

— Thomas Isaac (@drthomasisaac) December 16, 2025

Related:

TWO WAY STREET gets selected at the Pune Short Film Festival

First ever Dalit Film Festival to be held in New York in February

Terrorism at the Taj: ‘Hotel Mumbai’ pulls no punches at film festival

The post Kerala’s LDF govt to defy Centre’s diktat, to screen all films as per schedule at IFFK appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court also directed a special court to conduct trial on a day-to-day basis to record the statements of the nine remaining witnesses. Langa has been ordered to extend full cooperation with the proceedings and seek no adjournment on the ground that his petition seeking the case be quashed is pending. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been directed to file a status report on compliance with these directions. The matter has been listed for further consideration on January 6.

Langa had been arrested by the Gujarat Police last year in a case involving allegations of Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud and was subsequently booked in multiple cases. The ED later registered a case against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It was senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Langa. Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta alleged that Langa had extorted money, claiming that threats were made to publish adverse material if payments were not made. “A journalist is found to be extorting money… We want to file an additional counter,” Mehta told the court.

Sibal objected to the move, stating that the ED was seeking to change its stand. He argued that allegations of “Rs 68-crore fraud” were exaggerated, asserting that “it is not even Rs 68 lakh.” Sibal further pointed out that no charge sheet had been filed in the predicate offence forming the basis of the PMLA case. “I have been in custody since October 2024. For what offence? It is not murder,” he submitted, calling allegations of influencing witnesses “shocking”.

Sibal also alleged that crucial documents had not been furnished to the defence, stating that there was no supplementary complaint and that the prosecution could not “have it both ways”. Finally after heated exchanges in court and taking note of the fact that only nine witnesses remain to be examined, the court granted interim bail. During a brief exchange after the order, Mehta reiterated the allegation of extortion, to which Sibal responded by suggesting that industrialists were targeting journalists. Mehta denied any political motive, stating that the prosecution was acting purely in a professional capacity. When the exchange escalated, the CJI intervened, stressing that the trial must not be delayed and cautioning Langa against misusing his position as a journalist. Sibal responded that any such violation would be grounds for cancellation of bail.

The Gujarat high court had denied bail to Langa following which he had approached the Supreme Court.

Related:

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

One more attack on the Media: Local journalist thrashed and urinated upon by railway police, UP

SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency

The post Interim bail to Gujarat journalist Mahesh Langa: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

NBDSA’s review of the broadcast revealed that the anchor relied on stereotypes about Bengali-speaking Muslims—particularly the Miya community—misrepresented demographic and political data, and even connected the protest song to an entirely unrelated rape case with no causal link. The Authority noted that this narrative expansion could not be justified as news reporting; rather, it demonstrated that the anchor “had a particular agenda in mind.” By weaving isolated incidents into a communal narrative and introducing ideas like a “Jihadi syndicate” or a conspiracy to undermine Hindu traditions, the programme violated the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics and Specific Guidelines for Anchors, which bar generalisation, sensationalism, and the vilification of any community.

In its direction, the Authority has ordered Times Now Navbharat to remove all “offending portions” from the programme and submit a modified version within seven days. It also instructed that the order be circulated to all member broadcasters and uploaded on the NBDA website and in the next Annual Report. For CJP, the decision marks a significant regulatory affirmation of its consistent efforts to challenge communalised media narratives. For the wider media landscape, the order serves as a critical reminder that the authority to question and critique cannot be exercised through distortion, stereotype, or the manufacturing of communal fear.

The Complaint: CJP flags communal narrative, distortion, and fear-mongering

CJP’s complaint dated September 9, 2024 focused on a Times Now Navbharat programme titled: “Desh Ka Mood Meter: सनातन संस्कृति…कट्टरपंथियों के लिए सॉफ्ट टारगेट? | CM Himanta Biswa Sarma News” that aired on 2 September 2024. The show revolved around the arrest of Altaf Hussain, a Bengali-speaking Muslim singer from Assam, who had released a protest song highlighting discrimination against the Miya community. Following his arrest, the Chief Minister og Assam made a Facebook Live appearance calling the song “an attack” and alleging an attempt to “change Bihu into Miya Bihu”.

The Times Now Navbharat broadcast then used these remarks to spin a sweeping communal narrative.

CJP pointed out that the anchor:

• Presented the incident as part of a nationwide conspiracy against Hindu culture—linking Assam, Kerala, and Kashmir in a manufactured war-like narrative.
• Used dangerous phrases such as “Jihadi syndicate”, communal conspiracy, and “invasion”.
• Equated the term ‘Miya’ with illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, misrepresenting an entire community.
• Suggested that Muslims controlled 30 Vidhan Sabha seats and posed a demographic threat.
• Linked an isolated rape case to an entire community to insinuate collective criminality.
• Wove these disparate incidents into an overarching narrative that Hindus were under “attack”.

CJP also highlighted how the broadcast manipulated imagery, language, and tone to sharply polarise viewers and turn a cultural controversy into a nationwide Hindu-Muslim conflict.

The complete report may be read here.

Broadcaster’s Defence: ‘We only reported facts’

Times Now Navbharat denied all allegations:

• It claimed the show was only reporting the arrest and the Chief Minister’s views.
• It argued that it had differentiated between “Miya” Muslims and indigenous Assamese Muslims.
• It insisted that the depiction of demographics and electoral influence was factual.
• It refuted claims of fear-mongering, stating that the anchor was merely posing uncomfortable questions in the national interest.
• It accused the complainant of “selectively quoting snippets”.

Hearing Before NBDSA: CJP demonstrates how the anchor crafted a false national conspiracy

At the hearing held on February 22, 2025, CJP meticulously demonstrated that:

• The anchor’s opening monologue itself framed the entire show as an attack on Hindu festivals “from Assam to Kerala”.
• This was not reportage but a deliberate, pre-set narrative.
• The anchor bundled unrelated issues—the singer’s arrest, a rape case, Onam interpretations, and alleged temple name changes—to craft a false story of Hindus under siege.
• The rhetoric used was not factual journalism but fear-inducing, divisive, and ethically unsound.

NBDSA’s Findings: “Anchor had an agenda in mind”

• Reporting the arrest itself was legitimate—but the anchor went far beyond facts

The Authority noted that reporting the arrest and discussing the Chief Minister’s criticism of the song was well within the channel’s rights. But the problem was everything that followed.

• “The narrative built by the anchor went much beyond that”

NBDSA found that:

• The anchor introduced communal stereotypes, generalisations, and insinuations against a specific community.
• He linked the singer’s song to an unrelated rape case, despite “no causal connection”.
• He used the incident as an opportunity to push an agenda-driven narrative.

• “The anchor had a particular agenda in mind”

This is one of the strongest observations NBDSA has made in recent orders. The Authority stated that the anchor appeared to seize the incident as a chance to craft a pre-decided, communal storyline.

“In the process, the anchor brings a stereotype in respect of a particular community which could clearly have been avoided. The anchor also connects the song with an incident of rape, though there was no causal connection and the two things arc altogether separate and distinct. It seems the anchor had a particular agenda in mind and got this opportunity to build his narrative, bearing in mind the said agenda. It is this generalisation which falls foul of the BDSA’s Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards as well as the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes including Debates.”

• This violates the Code of Ethics and the Specific Guidelines for Anchors

NBDSA held that the broadcast breached:

• requirements of impartiality,
• fairness,
• neutrality,
• and the mandates for non-sensational, non-communal reporting.

The Direction: Remove offending content, re-publish edited version

NBDSA issued a clear directive:

• Times Now Navbharat must modulate the programme by removing all offending portions.
• The broadcaster must submit the edited link to NBDSA within 7 days.
• The order will be circulated internally to all NBDA member channels, editors, and legal heads.
• It will be hosted publicly on NBDA’s website and included in the Authority’s Annual Report.

Why this order matters

For CJP: It validates months of rigorous, evidence-driven media accountability work and strengthens future interventions against hate speech and communal propaganda.

For media regulation: The order sets a clear precedent that anchors cannot camouflage communal narratives under the guise of “uncomfortable questions”.

For newsroom ethics: The order draws a sharp line between reporting and communal agenda-setting, holding anchors accountable—not just for factual accuracy but for narrative construction.

For public discourse: It recognises how dangerous and corrosive it is when mainstream news links isolated crimes to entire communities or constructs conspiracies around minorities.

The complete order may be read here.

Image Courtesy: Youtube.com

Related:

When Erosion Stole Her Home, a Foreigners’ Notice Tried to Steal Her Citizenship: Hamela Khatun triumphs over foreigner tag

CJP files complaint over Malabar Hill incident involving Aadhaar checks and targeting of Muslim vendors

Two Hate-Filled Speeches, One Election: CJP complaints against Himanta Biswa Sarma and Tausif Alam for spreading hate and fear in Bihar elections

The post NBDSA Raps Times Now Navbharat for communal, agenda-driven broadcast; orders removal of inflammatory segments appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This CCG visit came in the wake of the Union Territory legislative assembly elections and Operation Sindoor which followed a terrorist attack at Pahalgam, and the havoc caused by the heavy rains, floods, landslides in Jammu division but also in Kashmir. These major significant incidents that followed one after the other have taken a huge psychological and economic toll on people and communities in both regions of Jammu-Kashmir. The visit also came at a time when the statehood promised by the Centre at an “appropriate time” still seemed a distant dream despite an elected government, albeit a non-Bhartiya Janata Party led one, in place and dyarchy continued to prevail in Jammu and Kashmir — the chief minister still did not enjoy full powers and the Lieutenant Governor controlled much of the administrative and law and order structure.

During its most recent visit, the CCG members met leaders of political parties (including former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah, current Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Kumar Choudhary of the National Conference, Mohammad Yusuf Tarigami of the Communist Party of India (Marxist),Tariq Hamid Karra President of the J&K State Pradesh Congress Committee, G. A. Mir, Secretary General and Nizam Uddin Bhat, Congress MLA and chief whip from Bandipora, Kashmir’s foremost religious cleric and political leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Kashmiri Pandit leader Sanjay Ticku, civil society leaders, representatives of the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industry, student activists from the J&K Students’ Association and journalists.

In sum, the CCG after its end October 2025 visit found that the situation on the ground, especially in the Kashmir Valley is much farther from the truth than the one presented by the Government of India or its media in Delhi.

Sullen Silence, Building anti-India sentiment

From the Jammu-Kashmir Report of the CCG:

The overwhelming sense in Srinagar was that of sullen silence. During the meetings with all those that the CCG met from civil society, they realised that the alienation had deepened, resentment and anger against the Central Government had increased but it was also partly directed now against the popularly elected Omar Abdullah government.

Different sections of Kashmiri society seemed angry over different issues. The student community was upset over the new reservation policy (which the present government had inherited) as that had reduced the general category reservation in higher educational institutions. People were also upset over the issues of the introduction of electricity metres and the non-restoration of Statehood.

When members of the CCG asked whether installing electricity metres was not a good measure, a senior Kashmiri retorted, “Sure but at least give us electricity. We are paying high electricity bills without uninterrupted electricity supply. These meters were supposed to prevent interruptions. Why are we paying such high bills when we produce hydro power here and yet have long hours of power cuts.”

This anger against the Abdullah government at times, stated the CCG report, seemed misplaced. In the last six months the local government has faced the war that caused casualties in the border areas and destruction of nearly 850 houses in Poonch district alone. Then there were unprecedented natural calamities. The Chief Minister was seen in the media visiting every disaster hit area within hours, inspecting the damage caused, giving instructions to the local civil authorities for steps to be taken to rescue victims to safer places, and providing shelter and compensation and meeting victims.

This year’s natural calamity, a result of climate change and possibly a recurring feature in the near future, is much discussed in both the regions of the UT. The road widening projects, reckless cutting down of trees and blasting of mountainsides was blamed for the landslides, mudslides and roads being washed away in Jammu region. There are, however, no signs yet of this emerging public concern converting itself into sustained civil society movement pushing for government action for mitigation of climate change impact.

Crucially, there is a pervading fear of voicing any dissenting views or opinions by civil society members. Repression by the police on this front is real that does not spare public intellectuals, media persons and others.

Meanwhile, anti-India sentiment is spreading widely. Public sentiment that had largely turned away from Pakistan has shifted since Operation Sindoor, we were told. While militancy remains at a slow burn, a churning among youth seems to be motivating them to enter spaces of greater radicalisation, possibly supported by forces across the Line of Control.

“We have been silenced”, said a prominent doctor of Srinagar speaking to members of the CCG, “But the eerie silence does not mean all is hunky-dory.” The volcano of suppressed anger and frustration bordering on hatred could erupt any time, he felt as “all it needs is a trigger.”

A retired professor claimed that there was “no protection for Kashmiri identity today” and on top that there was a sense of economic disempowerment. Another prominent civil society member claimed, “We Kashmiris are rebuked and abused at every occasion. The national media plays dirty and projects all Kashmiris as villains.” He also objected to the concert of Bollywood singer Sonu Nigam, which was only attended “by security personnel and their families” as ordinary Kashmiris boycotted it. “He reportedly has problems with the call for prayer, Azaan. He was sponsored by a corporate TV channel close to the government and people saw it as cultural invasion. We have our own cultural traditions. We don’t need people like him.”

The dominant civil society view –states the CCG report–was that India was moving towards majoritarian rule under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). “We oppose the BJP because of what it is doing to the Constitution of India. We are dedicated to the Constitution because it gives us our rights as citizens of India. Our loyalty is to the Constitution and not to any political party,” a prominent civil society leader said.

Another public intellectual, a prominent academic, recalled that “Sheikh Abdullah agreed to join Nehru’s India but wondered quite often what might happen if Hindu majoritarianism came to power in India” suggesting that that scenario had come true. This was not the India, Sheikh Abdullah and the Kashmiris had joined, “As a Muslim in India today I am denigrated by those with a Hindu majoritarian mindset,” he claimed.

He went on to say, “nobody here talks of India’s need to engage with Pakistan. That is for the Indian state to figure out. Nor are we in a position to say what kind of dialogue should be held with those Kashmiris who are in jail. But we had an identity as Kashmiris. That was a protection against Pakistan’s designs on Kashmir. And now even that has been taken away.”

People were apprehensive about the constant anti-Pakistan statements by the senior ministers of the Modi Government and repeated visits of senior Army officers to the border areas.

Others told us that the lack of jobs, uncertainty about the future, general societal anger and alienation were producing two types of negative reactions in some of the youth: they are either turning to drugs or, increasingly, towards radicalisation. Both these trends worry the Kashmiris who feel that they are destructive for the Kashmiri society. However, they also feel helpless over how to address these negative trends.

A senior editor said, “This silence of the Kashmiri society is unsustainable. It has to explode and we cannot say anything about its timing. But when it does, it would be dangerous.”

A political leader sensing the mood at Ground Zero warned the CCG team, “Kuch bada hone wala hai (something ‘big’ is going to happen)”. One had heard the same apprehension in August. Was it a foreboding of the horrific terrorist attack of November 10 that took place after our Group returned and smothered 11 innocent lives? One does not know.

1. Overall political situation

From the CCG Report: A year after the National Conference led alliance won AN overwhelming majority in the 2024 Assembly elections and Omar Abdullah Government was sworn in, the government is struggling. The public is unhappy that the promises made to the electorate are not being fulfilled fast enough.

However, Omar Abdullah also presides over a powerless government. He is not able to take any major decisions, as most of the decision-making powers are with the Lieutenant Governor, including appointments of civil servants and police officers. All this is only adding to the people’s frustrations. People are resentful that hardly any Kashmiri Officers are posted as administrative heads at the districts and are effectively sidelined. The officers from outside the UT, they claim, neither understand the language nor the local situation, resulting in a gap in public connect.

The internal strain within the National Conference and disagreement between the Chief Minister and the party’s very popular Lok Sabha member from Budgam are played out publicly. This is having its negative fallout as both sides have hardened their respective stands over issues which has now turned into personal battle. As a result of this, there was public perception that National Conference would lose the by-election in Budgam constituency, which was vacated by Omar Abdullah. (The NC lost the election and PDP won it, giving the latter much needed boost).

There is speculation in a section of the public that the National Conference’s Budgam MP is being instigated to weaken the National Conference and eventually destabilize Omar Abdullah government. However, there seems TO BE no evidence to support such a claim.

The Rajya Sabha elections for the four J&K seats that took place just before CCG’s visit, showed how skilfully the BJP managed to get the four extra votes, above its number of MLAs, in the Legislative Assembly. These elections have also widened the fissures between the governing alliance partners – the National Conference and the Congress. Each side holds the other responsible for this.

Former CM, Mehbooba Mufti is slowly growing in strength politically. She is raising issues that are of people’s concerns, holding demonstrations on different issues that are agitating the public. Recently she had filed a PIL in J&K High Court regarding those held for several years without trial in jails in different parts of the country, demanding that they be shifted to local jails as most families were unable to visit them due to lack of financial resources. She was herself present in the court for the hearing. This has struck a positive chord with the public as this has been a major issue of concern among the Kashmiris since 2019.

This issue of young people in prisons as well AS political leaders who are imprisoned since 2019, was also raised by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq during his meeting with our group. He told us that many parents come to him pleading that something be done to have their sons released from jails.

The Mirwaiz also told us about the kind of intimidation and surveillance he faces. Sometimes the senior cleric is allowed to give Friday sermons and then suddenly prevented from going to Jama Masjid for weeks without any reason. He is asked to show written text of his Friday sermons the night before for scrutiny. He is also asked to show his appointments for conducting marriages and even the Nikah Namas to the police.

The government, however, did allow him to go to Delhi to depose before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf Bill. During the visit he met people in Delhi and had hoped that some political process would be initiated. He is a strong advocate of dialogue between Delhi and Srinagar and also feels that the tensions between India-Pakistan can be addressed through dialogue as lack of diplomatic relations was having a negative impact on the ground. He told us he was willing to play his part in this process, as he had done earlier.

One of the promises that were fulfilled by the Abdullah government was the Darbar Move for six months to Jammu. On November 1, government offices shifted to Jammu. This was in response to the demands of the Jammu public to bring the government closer to them, as well as bring the Kashmiris and Jammuites closer and allow greater economic interaction between the small traders and businessmen of the two regions. However, this alone was unlikely to overcome the sentiments of the Hindus of Jammu. Since the Assembly elections polarization has increased in Jammu plains against Muslims of Kashmir Valley. There are isolated incidents of social boycott of Muslims in the outskirts of Jammu city and in rural pockets. For the first time Jammu city saw war come close to them during Op Sindoor. Many Hindus migrated from Jammu city during the short war to neighbouring Himachal or Delhi. Some have even bought properties there. One public intellectual said, “We in Jammu also feel like an occupied colony. We are nowhere in the scheme of things. Only Kashmir is talked about”. Anger and alienation against New Delhi seem to be building up AMONGST Jammu’s Hindus too.

2. Statehood denial and its implications

From the CCG Report: Resentment on the non- restoration of statehood continues to be massive and overwhelming. Our Group witnessed at first hand the anger, frustration and disillusionment on this issue during our interactions with members of civil society, trade and industry representatives, businessmen, educationists, media-persons and Kashmiri Pandit leaders among others. While statehood is a significant and serious issue in the Valley, our Group learned that the Jammu region also continues to nurse anger over the loss of statehood and many related issues impacting them post-2019.

A senior political leader indicated the “root-cause” of the statehood denial to J&K saying, “Elections happened but the results were not to the expectations of the BJP government at the Centre. They could not get a BJP-led or a BJP-dependent government in Srinagar. It has been a year since the popular protest mandate given to Omar Abdullah. But the Centre has not been able to digest it.”

At the CCG meeting with Farooq Abdullah, President of the ruling National Conference (NC), Chief Minister (CM) Omar Abdullah, Deputy CM Surinder Choudhary, Lok Sabha MP Gurvinder Singh ‘Shammi’ Oberoi and Political Advisor to CM Nasir Wani were present among others. The double whammy of denial of statehood and existential diarchy and its consequential impact came out in bold relief during the discussions.

Terming himself as “half a CM”, despite having an overwhelming public mandate (41 out of 47 seats in the Valley and absolute majority in the J&K UT Assembly), Omar Abdullah lamented that in the prevalent diarchy–a sharp democratic regress–the Lt Governor exercises meaningful and effective power while he and his elected government are helpless in meeting peoples’ needs, address their grievances and strive to fulfil their aspirations. The existential structure of governance, it is useful to recall, resembles the colonial-type diarchy of 1919-1920 under which the British denied political power to elected governments of states in India by implementing strict repressive measures.

A young professional speaking to the CCG, averred: Kashmir is a colony of the Viceroy; the elected government is seen as completely toothless. It is the civil bureaucracy that exercises vast untrammelled power on behalf of the LG. In such a scenario people gravitate towards civil servants for their needs and grievances in effect bypassing the Cabinet Ministers they elected.

In its first sitting in October 2024, the newly elected Assembly had passed a resolution for speedy restoration of statehood. But even after over a year there has been no progress. A degree of political engagement by the Centre of people across multi-dimensional vectors would have calmed matters somewhat. The need for restoration of statehood on an urgent basis was also conveyed to us during our meetings with Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Hurriyat leader and Kashmir Valley’s Chief Cleric, Tariq Hameed Karra, President J&K Congress and its Secretary General GA Mir and Chief Whip Nizamuddin Bhat, NC’s Lok Sabha MP Syed Ruhullah, CPI (M) leader MY Tarigami and others. It hardly merits emphasis that non-restoration of statehood means the Human Rights Commission, Consumer Commission and appellate authorities—that routinely operate in a state—cannot function in a UT, leading to denial of redressal mechanisms to people in J&K who are already indignant and feel disempowered and alienated.

During the several conversations that visiting members of the CCG had with cross sections of society, A deep sense of loss felt by people of Kashmir—of identity, sub-identity, dignity and honour—found repeated mention. Exasperation and estrangement emanating from the humiliating nullification of Article 370, Article 35A and bifurcation of J&K into two UTs still persist. These hurt sentiments, sections of political leadership and civil society told our group, have compounded distrust towards the Centre with the non-restoration of statehood fanning the bitterness and feeling of political neglect even more. Omar Abdullah was forthright and categorical: no political entity, not least leaders of non-BJP parties in the rest of India have any sympathy and concern for the people of J&K. As to the ruling dispensation—aside from not fulfilling the promise of restoration of statehood made repeatedly by the Prime Minister and the Home Minister over the last seven years—when did it last convene an All-Party meeting on the situation in J&K?

During discussions, a view was expressed that the J&K Reorganisation Act (2019) provided the BJP ideology an opportunity to leverage the UT status of J&K not only to impose repressive policies but also initiate attempts to cobble together a BJP-led government. In such a situation, restoration of statehood would have found greater traction at the Centre. But with the Assembly elections putting paid to such a prospect, chances of early restoration are remote. A leading politician also ascribed the delay to the huge disconnect between Kashmir and its understanding in the rest of India.

It would be useful to recall that in the Supreme Court’s verdict on Article 370 petitions, the Bench said it would not adjudicate on the issue (of demoting and bifurcating an existing state into two UTs) because the Solicitor General had assured it that statehood would be restored. Significantly, in a separate note attached to the SC’s 370 judgement, Justice Sanjiv Khanna (who later became the Chief Justice of India) had stated that the demotion of a state to two UTs was “unconstitutional and should be summarily reversed.” It is this assertion that has sought to reinforce the views of the many we met that the reversal must happen without further delay.

When some petitioners that included Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak (retd) a member of our Group moved the Supreme Court again for fulfilment of the promise of restoration of statehood to J&K, the Court made oral observations that what happened in Pahalgam (April 22, 2025 terror attack) cannot be ignored. The alleged Red Fort terrorist attack of November10 (after our Group returned from Kashmir) may serve to further dissuade the Supreme Court. But it must render justice on the issue strictly on legal merits and not allow Pahalgam and now Red Fort terror attacks overshadow the urgent need for restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.

3. Reservations time-bomb

From the CCG Report: The youngsters of Kashmir are upset with the reservations policy in the UT and they are demanding ‘rationalisation’ of the policy – reservation according to a community’s share in the population. What seems to have upset them most is that the additional 10% reservation given to the Pahari community by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government at the Centre which cuts into the share of the general category.

Overall reservations in J&K have, therefore, gone up to nearly 60%, the highest in the country when the broad Constitutional limit is 50%.

The formal reservation structure in J&K is as follows: Open Merit 50%; Scheduled castes 8%; Scheduled Tribes 20% (used to be 10% but Paharis have been given 10% ST reservation as well); Socially and economically backward classes 22% (residents of backward areas 10%; residents of areas adjoining Line of Actual Control/international border 4%, other OBCs 8%); horizontal reservations 6% (Children of defence personnel 3%, children of paramilitary and police personnel 1%, candidates possessing outstanding proficiency in sports 2% 0; and economically weaker sections (EWS) 10%.

However, since the horizontal reservations (defence, police, paramilitary and sports quota) and the EWS quota are from the Open Merit category, the effective reservation in that Open Merit category goes down.

The J&K Students’ Association which has been spearheading the demand that reservations be rationalised argues, “Reservations should be based on population ratios. According to the 2011 census, 69% of the Jammu and Kashmir population falls under the general category, yet the opportunities for open merit have been shrinking.” Therefore nearly 70% of the population competes for less than 40% of the job opportunities because of the expanded reservation quotas.

The immediate provocation for the students’ demand for rationalisation of reservations is the 10% ST reservation given to the Pahari speaking people of Jammu. While they clarify that they have got nothing against the Pahari community, they are against ST status being given for the first time in India on linguistic basis to Pahari speakers. “It was an appeasement measure. The BJP hoped that the Pahari community would vote for it if it were given ST reservation but that did not happen in the assembly election,” a student leader said.

The student leaders said that the ST reservation was given to the Pahari community by an Act of Parliament. “However, we are making a demand on the state government to rationalise the reservation issues which are in their domain. For example, looking at the definition of creamy layer, regional distribution of reservations, making EWS reservations J&K specific, and re-examining whether Reservation for Backward Areas makes any sense or needs to be scrapped when all the areas of J&K are well connected through road and other infrastructure.”

CCG Report:

The students feel that an overwhelming majority of the reservations have gone to Jammu and “Kashmir is proportionately discriminated against.”  According to figures provided by the state’s minister for revenue in the UT assembly on October 27, in the last two years, of the reservation certificates issued Jammu residents received 99% of the SC, 87% of the ST, 57% of OBC, 88% of EWS, 32% of Resident of Backward Area (RBA), 85% of resident of Actual Line of Control and 100% of “other” category certificates.

Except in the case of RBA category, Jammu seems to have been the overwhelming beneficiary of reservation certificates issued in the last two years, underlining the deep regional imbalance that is emerging. This data is bound to reignite the debate on the new reservation policy and further fuel the anger of the students. The issue is already being agitated in the J&K High Court and the students have as yet put forward their demands peacefully without taking to the streets.

The J&K government did set up a three-member House Committee to look into the reservations issue and its report, accepted by the government, is now laying with the Lt. Governor’s office. The students are not happy with the Committee which apparently did not organise stakeholder consultations before finalising its report and has only members from the ST community. “So, how can we expect any justice from it?” asked a student leader. However, the details of the report are not as yet in the public domain and therefore its recommendations are purely in the domain of speculation as of now.

The students, meanwhile, demand that, among other things, the government rationalise EWS eligibility to reflect ground realities and make it less urban-centric, re-classify backward area designation, periodic review of the reservations policy every five years, eliminate ‘politically motivated’ and arbitrary inclusion in reservation lists, create a unified Backward Classes Commission for J&K, and protect the rights of the Open Merit (general) category.

However, Kashmiri students are not the only ones agitated about the reservations issue.

The 1947-48 Hindu refugees of Poonch districts now settled in Jammu are not included in the Pahari reservation although they are Pahari and Pahari-speaking. This group has a grievance that they have been arbitrarily excluded. Similarly, the Pahari-speakers of Ramban district have been excluded while reservation applies to the adjoining Poonch and Rajouri districts.

N.B.: The Gujjars who were angry and protested when Pahari reservation was announced have now calmed down as their 10% reservation is intact and not affected by the new reserved category. However, there is anger among them as the Indian Administrative Service and Kashmir Administrative Service Gujjar officers have allegedly been sidelined completely and are not in positions of decision making, not dissimilar to many Kashmiri officers. A Gujjar public intellectual said that one would not find any Gujjar even as SHO in the 10 districts of Jammu division. According to him, this is not just creating disquiet but also building up anger in the community. Gujjars point out that as Indian nationalists they have played a significant role in defending border areas. But are now sidelined. They feel alienated and this will have an impact on the security situation.

4. Media continues to be under threat

From the CCG Report: Contrary to expectations, despite the UT assembly elections of 2024, there has been no meaningful restoration of media autonomy. Ongoing censorship, surveillance and intimidation of media practitioners continues, restricting media freedom severely.

Although internet shutdown is now infrequent, harassment of journalists, revocation of press credentials and pressure to publish administration friendly narratives continue. Operation Sindoor placed severe restrictions on media reportage and most Kashmiri journalists were not able to report about the developments on the ground. Some were summoned by the police about their attempts to report. Reports that had been filed were pulled down under pressure because it went against the government’s narrative. Things, however, seem to have eased a bit in the last three months, journalists claim.

The head of Directorate of Information and Public Relations (DIPR) has been given additional charge in the Raj Bhavan (Lt. Governor’s residence) and he sits there. This, journalists claim, shifts the media control to the Lt. Governor’s office, which already has a media adviser, who has gained notoriety for capricious decisions about giving out government ads to selected news platforms and denying it to others. Media accreditation has been denied to prominent national publications like the Times of India, Economic Times, NDTV and The Hindu. The media accreditation of the Economic Times was inexplicably revoked.

Journalists are denied press passes even for covering the legislative assembly proceedings on the whims of the powers that be. Journalists in Kashmir complain that by not allowing them to cover public events organised by the government is akin to deliberately sabotaging their careers.

Meanwhile, the J&K administration has introduced a new verification process to identify “real” journalists by asking for submission of salary slips as well as detailed background information from those who want to be included in the list of “bona fide” media professionals.

In a directive issued on October 31, the District Information Officers have been instructed to collect the background information of the media personnel operating in their jurisdiction, request them to submit salary slips for the last six months and maintain a regularly updated “verified list” of accredited and bona fide media persons.

The justification for such a directive is the “repeated complaints” received about the misuse of media credentials, curbing impersonation, blackmail and extortion and circulation of defamatory content. Officials argue that the move was necessitated by the rise of social media platforms and locally trusted digital outlets. These, they claim have, blurred the lines between professionals and self-styled journalists.

Journalists have opposed the move calling it intrusive and a potential crackdown on press freedom.

The Lt. Governor, the journalists claim, keeps talking of tackling the over ground workers (OGWs) and the terrorist eco-system and apprehend that any one of them can be designated as part of that ecosystem and prosecuted. A journalist Irfan Mehraj has been in Rohini Jail in Delhi for over 1,00 days now they point out and each time he applies for bail, he finds the judge has changed and the hearing has to begin afresh.

5. Trade and business after Pahalgam

Tourism:

Post-Pahalgam terror, Kashmir was emptied of tourists overnight. The tragedy struck at the beginning of the promising tourist season in which thousands of Kashmiris are involved – Hoteliers and their staff members, taxi operators, houseboat owners, shopkeepers and scores of other businesses. The tourism industry was hit badly. As weeks stretched into months without any tourist traffic, thousands who depended on their livelihoods on tourism were left without work and prospects of no earnings, so necessary for the harsh winter months when tourist traffic is reduced.

During our visit several hoteliers also told us that many had to lay off some of their staff. During the Diwali vacation there was some tourist traffic which increased to about 30% but we also heard another hotelier saying the increase in tourist traffic was hardly 10-15%. Perhaps different categories of hotels were hit differently. However, the total loss to tourism industry is hard to estimate as no one has calculated the loss of revenue so far.

One of the other issues bothering the hoteliers of Kashmir (and also of Jammu), is the Union Territory’s new Land Policy. Most leases are expiring or have expired. But instead of renewing these, as happens in rest of India, the UT government as per the New Act decided to auction the land on which the hotels have been built.

Gulmarg has been a special focus for implementation of the policy. Although the land leases of hotels in Srinagar and Jammu too have expired, these are not the focus of government action. The current owners who have invested substantial amounts in constructing and running these hotels, are not given any preference in the auctions conducted. The hoteliers have been demanding that the same rules be applied to expired land leases in Delhi which is also a Union Territory, as well as the other states in the rest of India.

Horticulture:

From the CCG Report: This sector generates major revenue for Kashmir and Kashmiris. Almost every family in South Kashmir has a small or big orchard and earn something out of it. This sector of THE economy too suffered badly in 2025.

Just as the apples were being harvested, there were heavy rains in the Jammu region. This caused landslides with some stretches of Srinagar-Jammu Highway being washed away. For about 20-22 days, around 4,000 trucks laden with fruits were stranded on the highway. This transportation delay completely damaged the fruit. During that period the harvested apples remained in the orchards and could not be shipped out. Although Kashmir has now cold storage facilities for apples, it is not adequate to store all the harvested apples. Some of the fruit was also damaged when heavy rains came to Kashmir.

According to the President of the Pulwama Fruit Mandi, the orchardists have suffered losses of over Rs. 2000 crore this year. At the Pulwama fruit Mandi, every day during the harvest season, 50 trucks with an average capacity of 25-30 tons of fruits, are loaded. Each truck is worth around Rs 7 lakhs – amounting to a daily profit of Rs 3.5 crore. This activity goes on for about two and half months.

The Central Government and the J&K government did respond to the crisis by sending goods trains from Srinagar to ferry Apples to the Indian markets in Delhi and elsewhere to address the crisis but not before substantial losses had already incurred. Some smaller trucks also took the fruit via the Mughal Road to the Jammu Mandi. The Fruit growers want crop insurance for fruits as well. They also feel that the J&K Government does not give as much support as the Himachal government gives to the fruit growers there.

The launching of goods trains directly from Delhi and Punjab has, however, upset the Jammu traders and transporters, who transported goods including fruit, to the Jammu and Delhi markets. They fear that Jammu would suffer further economic loss because of this, as the entire transport sector – truck owners, loaders and others in Jammu Mandi would see job and income losses. A member of the Jammu Chamber of Commerce commented, “The government is not consulting traders here before implementing important decisions that will affect trade here.” He was very bitter about this.

Disclaimer: The CCG does not claim to do present a situation perfectly as it is virtually impossible to meet the representatives of all groups, communities, ethnicities and interests. Often the administration itself makes it impossible for the group to meet people, such as advising them not to meet us as happened this time when the CCG members wanted to visit Shopian to meet the apple traders in the local mandi (wholesale market). Earlier, the group members have been confined to their hotel premises by the police, locked up at the Srinagar airport lounge and one of its members even deported to Delhi. While with the advent of a democratically elected government the group expected that its movement would not be restricted, this time around the people we were supposed to meet were told not to meet the group.

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

Related:

From Prison to Uncertainty: After Battling for Bails, Kashmiri Journalists Battle Stigma, Financial Crisis and Isolation

Syncretic Dreams, Shattered Realities: Kashmir in “The Hybrid Wanderers”

The post Pervasive fear, surveillance of media, spiral of anti-India sentiment in Kashmir: CCG appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Free Speech Collective

With Bihar in the midst of Vidhan Sabha elections, 2025, this media tracker exposes the illusion of free speech and independent journalism in the state. The last five years have been marked with assaults on journalists, with six killings and eleven instances of attacks. The general climate for free speech has also been affected by detention and arrest of journalists and threats to editors of prominent dailies, coupled with defamation and censorship of social media posts.

(Visit the Free Speech Tracker or scroll to the end for more details.)

By 2015, when Nitish Kumar was re-elected as Chief Minister, several independent journalists began using social media platforms to publish stories, and alongside began facing reprisal. By 2020, when the Nitish Kumar government was re-elected as part of the JDU-led NDA along with the Bharatiya Janata Party, repression on the media continued unabated, this time targeting social media.

Bihar struggles with low socio-economic indicators. It consistently throws up high unemployment rates and there is an abject lack of facilities for health and education. In the NITI Aayog 2019-20 State Health Index, Bihar was ranked 18th out of 19 large states. In March 2025, Niti Aayog’s Macro and Fiscal Landscape of the State of Bihar said that the sex ratio is lower than the national average. Low literacy levels and low per capita income and high unemployment, forces lakhs of youth to migrate every year. With little or no industries, agriculture is a mainstay and government employment is a desperate struggle for thousands of youth. In NITI Aayog’s SDG India Index of 2023-24, Bihar was adjudged the worst performer in terms of social, economic and environmental parameters.

The large-scale deletion of voters in Bihar in the run up to the Assembly election, ostensibly to revise the electoral rolls, is bound to have an impact on the polls. But the slow erasure of an independent media that can question and hold its government accountable can only further weaken the foundations of a democracy.

Details of Free Speech Violations in Bihar, November ’20-’25:

Read FSC’s special features:

Wanted: A Responsible Media in Bihar, by Kiran Shaheen.

Criminalisation of politics in Bihar, by C P Jha.

Related:

From Welfare to Expulsion: Bihar’s MCC period rhetoric turns citizenship into a campaign weapon

Bihar Elections Build-up: ‘Won’t allow namaz’, ‘namak haram’, BJP MPs’ communal hate-filled remarks draw fire

Caste and Indifference: Two separate incidents of rape against minor Dalit girls in UP and Bihar receive no media coverage, protest or outrage

The post Bihar & the Delusion of Independent Journalism: A Free Speech Record of Five Years appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A calculated campaign of vilification: CJP

In its complaint, CJP alleges that a “coordinated campaign of caste-based vilification, violent provocation, and criminal intimidation” directed at CJI Gavai—India’s second Dalit Chief Justice. It asserts that the content uploaded by Ajeet Bharti’s channel is not merely hate speech but “digital violence designed to demean a constitutional authority through caste-based insult and explicit threats.”

“This is not just abuse,” the complaint states, “but a direct and calculated assault on the dignity and personal safety of India’s highest judicial functionary, and consequently, a grave threat to the independence of the Indian judiciary itself.”

Factual background: Documented pattern of hate

The complaint highlighted that the creator of these videos, Mr. Ajeet Bharti, is a person with known antecedents of disseminating hateful and divisive statements. His broader social media profile is already under active surveillance and investigation by Indian law enforcement for similar offenses. As per complaint, the criminal nature of the content in question is not a matter of CJP’s interpretation but is confirmed by direct police action. On October 8, 2025, police in the state of Punjab have officially booked Ajeet Bharti in over a dozen First Information Reports (FIRs). The official grounds for these criminal proceedings are his “casteist” and “provocative” remarks made on social media targeting Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai.

The majority of the accused are from outside Punjab and have been charged under non-bailable sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, along with other relevant laws.

The videos hosted on the YouTube platform are not isolated incidents but are part of a wider, documented campaign of hate by an individual whose activities are already subject to serious legal action by multiple state authorities i.e. Punjab and Noida Police. This established profile of spreading hate speech adds profound gravity to the content and heightens the urgency for its immediate removal.

Shoe hurled at CJI B.R. Gavai during live court proceedings

Tensions rose after October 6, 2025, when Advocate Rakesh Kishore hurled a shoe at the CJI during a Supreme Court hearing, shouting “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahega.” The Bar Council of India immediately suspended Kishore, calling his act “prima facie inconsistent with the dignity of the court.”

Despite the outrage, the complaint notes that Ajeet Bharti amplified the aggression. This episode came just a week after Bharti’s earlier broadcast on September 29, where his panel had already invoked open calls for violence against the Chief Justice.

Deleted Post by Ajeet Bharti

Detailed legal examination of the videos by CJP

In its complaint, CJP has very carefully examined the transcript of this podcast, premiered on September 29, 2025, and October 6, 2025 from the Ajeet Bharti’s YouTube channel [@ajeetbharti] and highlighted their relevant timestamps and context, unequivocally establishing grounds for immediate action against the channel.

The first video, “S2E2: CJI Gavai Vs Sleeping Hindus | Sonam Wangchuk A Deep State Project | Kaushlesh, Anupam, Ajeet,” was uploaded on September 29, 2025.

Barely a week later, on October 6, Bharti livestreamed “Shoe Attack on CJI Gavai: Leftist Baying for Ajeet Bharti Blood | Ajeet Bharti LIVE.”

The videos are called “a continuous chain of hate speech, culminating in physical aggression and social intimidation.”

Timeline of incitement:

• September 29, 2025 – Bharti’s podcast calls for explicit violence against the CJI: “One Hindu lawyer should grab Gavai ji’s head and smash it against the wall.”
• October 6, 2025 – A week later, a lawyer physically attacks the CJI in the Supreme Court, proving, the complaint says, “that YouTube’s inaction turned speech into assault.”

The complaint situates this within a historic pattern—where dehumanising propaganda precedes violence against Dalit and Adivasi communities. “This hate speech,” it warns, “is not isolated; it draws from India’s long history of caste oppression, social boycotts, and pogroms fuelled by rhetoric portraying Dalits as subhuman.”

The flashpoint of incitement

At in the first video, one of the speakers says: “If Gavai ji bumps into someone somewhere… one Hindu lawyer should grab Gavai ji’s head and smash it against the wall with such force that it breaks into two pieces.”

The complaint calls this a “direct call to commit assault”—not metaphor but provocation. Moments earlier, another participant had sneered: “What is the punishment in the IPC for spitting on Gavai’s face? Hindus can’t even do that.”

The complaint observes that such remarks “normalise public humiliation of a sitting Chief Justice and encourage copycat behaviour.” Later, at, a panellist declares: “The amount of inherent inferiority I have seen in Gavai… you have reached the topmost post and you still have it.”

In the complaint, this line “weaponises caste psychology to demean Dalit achievement” and qualifies as an offence under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

“He (CJI) drinks Neel in the morning”, derogatory remark against CJI

The October 6 livestream, the complaint argues, crossed every boundary of legality and decency. At, Bharti sneers that “The judge doesn’t understand the dignity of his post and reaches court after drinking ‘neel’ and distributing ‘Ambedkar Neel Vachanamrit’ instead of giving orders.”

Here, “neel” (blue)—the emblem of Dalit and Ambedkarite assertion—is distorted into a slur. Minutes later, Bharti escalates to grotesque caste imagery: “He dried the leather of a dead cow in the scorching sun of the slum, smeared it with sewer blackness, and while picking garbage, joined pieces of ‘L’ and ‘V’ to make Louis Vuitton shoes.”

The complaint describes these lines as “abhorrent, dehumanising, and a deliberate resurrection of the language of untouchability.” The complaint stresses that such statements insult not just Justice Gavai but the entire Dalit community, reducing symbols of dignity into “the vocabulary of filth and servitude.”

By broadcasting and monetising this content, YouTube, it argues, has “hosted, profited from, and algorithmically promoted material amounting to cognisable offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.”

From digital hate to real violence

When, days later, the lawyer hurled a shoe/object at the CJI, Bharti’s livestream turned the assault into spectacle. At in second video on October 6, he remarked “If judges continue to make such anti-Hindu statements, then what happened in court today can happen on the streets tomorrow.”

CJP calls this “not commentary but endorsement”—a public justification of violence.

“The sequence of events provides a stark and undeniable correlation between specific incitement broadcast on YouTube platform and the subsequent act of violence,” the complaint stated, warning that such narratives normalise courtroom desecration and seek to punish judicial independence—particularly when embodied by a Dalit judge.

Police action, platform silence

CJP alleges that despite multiple FIRs and legal summons against Bharti, YouTube has taken no suo-moto actions.

“By continuing to host these videos,” the complaint writes, “YouTube is facilitating the spread of content from an individual under investigation for caste-based offences.”

The complaint alleges YouTube of “double standards”—acting swiftly against hate speech in Western contexts but remaining inert when the target is a Dalit Chief Justice in India. Under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, intermediaries must remove unlawful content upon notice—an obligation the Complaint says YouTube has ignored.

Legal and ethical violations

The complaint cites violations under multiple Indian laws—including Sections 109, 117, 152, and 342 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the SC/ST Act, as well as Supreme Court precedents which recognise hate speech as a precursor to violence.

Failure to act, the complaint warns, “undermines India’s constitutional promise of equality and the independence of its judiciary.”

“The continuous dissemination of derogatory and inciting content against the Chief Justice of India,” the complaint asserts, “is not merely an attack on an individual, but a direct and insidious assault on the very foundation of India’s constitutional democracy—the independent judiciary.”

Global standards, local silence

CJI reminds YouTube of its international responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the EU Digital Services Act, which demand swift removal of hate and incitement.

“YouTube cannot adhere to one set of standards in Europe and another in India,” the complaint notes. “Corporate self-regulation must not end where profit begins.”

CJP’s four-point prayer to YouTube

CJP’s complaint concludes with a clear four-point prayer to YouTube, asserting that failure to comply would be treated as complicity in the alleged offences, the complaint demands the immediate removal of both inflammatory videos and the permanent suspension of the @AjeetBharti channel to halt the dissemination of further hate; furthermore, CJP calls for an internal investigation into the platform’s moderation failures and a compliance response within 72 hours detailing the steps taken to address the grave legal and ethical violations cited in the complaint.

The complete complaint may be read here:

Related

CJP approaches Twitter over sexually violent content against Muslim women

CJP Impact: YouTube responds to CJP’s complaint, takes down hate filled content!

CJP Impact: Twitter suspends 21 accounts threatening Muslim women with sexual violence

The post CJP flags casteist, anti-Dalit videos on YouTube targeting CJI Gavai; seeks urgent takedown appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Busted! The Delhi High Court strongly questioned the lack of empirical evidence for these claims, pointing out that the government’s decision to bury them inside was a sensitive law-and-order call that could not be challenged over a decade later on mere “personal views.”

Background

On September 24, 2025, the Delhi High Court heard a PIL seeking the removal of the graves of two Kashmiri separatist leaders: Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) founder Mohammad Maqbool Bhatt and Parliament attack convict Mohammad Afzal Guru. Both were sentenced to death and executed in Tihar Jail – Guru in February 2013 and Bhatt in February 1984. They were both buried in the jail premises after performing the last rites according to the Islamic principles, a sensitive decision taken by the government to prevent law-and-order disturbances that may have arisen from public burials.

The petition, filed by Hindu right-wing organisation ‘Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh’ argued that Bhatt and Guru, acting under the influence of “extremist Jihadi ideology,” orchestrated acts of terrorism that gravely threatened India’s sovereignty. The Sangh President, Jitendra Singh Vishen, had previously written to President Droupadi Murmu, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, urging them to shift the graves “to the depths of the Atlantic Ocean or to a secret place in the jungles of Amazon” in order to curb “Jihadi mentality” and free the “holy land of India” from the graves, dargahs, and mausoleums of terrorists.

Their plea sought directions to the authorities to remove the graves from Tihar or, as an alternative, to relocate the mortal remains to a secret location to prevent “glorification of terrorism.”

What is the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh? What purpose does its petition serve? And what larger narrative does it seek to construct? The answers begin to emerge once we look closely at the claims made in their plea.

Claim #1:

The presence of these graves, the petition stated, has turned Tihar jail into a site of “radical pilgrimage” where extremist elements gather to pay homage and venerate convicted terrorists.

Busted – a wild claim without evidence!

In the aforementioned letter, Vishen wrote that the two convicts have become “heroes of the society with a jihadi mindset” and are worshipped as religious leaders by young men who bow before their graves. “People of Jihadi society make fun of the law and order of the country by doing criminal activities day in and day out to offer prayers at the graves of the above two terrorists, and are also popularizing Central Jail Tihar as the graveyard/mausoleum/dargah of the above two terrorists,” the letter claims.

The Delhi High Court pressed the petitioner to produce data showing that people visit the graves to pay homage. Observing that no material had been produced to support the claim aside from stray social media posts, the Court asked, “Where is the empirical data? We cannot act on news clippings.”

Claim #2:

The construction and continued existence of the graves inside a state-controlled prison, counsel for the petitioner argued, was a ‘health hazard’ and a ‘nuisance’ as people are committing crimes to go to the jail and pay homage. 

Busted – legally and factually wanting! 

The Court rejected the argument that there was a ‘nuisance’ within the meaning of Section 398 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (1957). Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya said, “This provision is made for any kind of nuisance to be removed. Not for the removal of a grave if that grave has been put in with the consent of the authority which owns the land. Jail is not a public place. Jail is a place owned by the State established for a specific purpose of incarceration.”

The Court further emphasised that the government’s action to bury the bodies within the prison was based on a sensitive political and law-and-order situation. The Court could not overturn a policy decision made by the State in an area of its specific and sensitive competence, especially not 12 years later and on unsubstantiated grounds.

Claim #3:

 The graves are unlawful and violate Delhi Prisons Rules 2018, which states that the remains of executed prisoners must be disposed of in a manner that prevents glorification and maintains prison discipline, argued the petition.

Busted – no law prohibits cremation or burial inside the jail!

The Bench corrected the misinterpretation of Rules 895 to 897, remarking that, “if a body has to be transported outside the prison, it has to be done with all solemnity. It doesn’t say that each body has to be taken outside prison.”

Claim #4:

The existence of the graves not only “undermines national security and public order,” but also “sanctifies terrorism in direct contravention of the principles of secularism and rule of law under the Constitution of India,” the petition states.

Busted – no constitutional rights or fundamental rights infringed!

The Court dismissed such a broad constitutional claim. “Tell us which law has been infringed and which fundamental rights of yours have been infringed by this. Something you wish cannot become the subject matter of a PIL,” the Court said, underscoring that the judiciary’s role is to address rights and statutes, not to legislate on personal views. “I like this, you like something else. These are not matters to be taken in courts.”

The High Court further maintained that such policy decisions lay with the government, not the judiciary. “Government decided to have the burial in jail keeping these issues in mind. Can we challenge that 12 years later?” the Bench asked.

“Somebody’s last rites are to be respected.”

Pattern of Post-Mortem Erasure

The petition frames its demand for grave removal as a continuation of an “established state practice,” asking the court to treat the graves of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt the same way as those of Ajmal Kasab and Yakub Memon, “where every precaution was taken to prevent glorification.”

However, these earlier episodes do not add up to a clear, uniform practice, but a patchwork of administrative choices driven less by due process and more by political spectacle. Administrative powers, court orders and enforcement measures are deployed unevenly, creating a de facto policy that singles out sites linked to Muslim history for agitation, removal, demolition or public shaming.

The petition’s insistence the state follows an “established practice” is undercut by its own example. In September 2022, BJP MLA Ram Kadam shared photos showing marble slabs and LED lighting “adorning” the grave of 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Yakub Memon. A political row erupted: the BJP accused the erstwhile Maha Vikas Aghadi coalition and Shiv Sena leadership of having “beautified” the grave and warned it could become a ‘mazar;’ Shiv Sena leaders countered that the cemetery was privately managed and charged the BJP with trying to divert attention and inflame communal tensions ahead of civic polls. The episode illustrates how these disputes are rarely about procedure, law, or even history – rather, they are exercises in narrative-building and political opportunism.

The same year, a few months later, the spotlight shifted from Mumbai to Satara where the administration demolished structures around the 17th-century tomb of Afzal Khan, the Adil Shahi general slain by Chhatrapati Shivaji. Officially, the drive was framed as the removal of “unauthorised constructions,” with Hindu nationalist groups alleging that the Hazarat Mohammad Afzal Khan Memorial Society was expanding the tomb and glorifying an “enemy of Swaraj” in “Shivaji’s own land.” The demolition was carried out on the 363rd anniversary of Khan’s death and was seen as a major “win” for the Hindutva groups. The Supreme Court later sought reports on whether due process had been followed, but by then the demolition was over. Again, we see how the graves, memory, and history of Indian Muslims are but props in electoral theatre.

In March 2025, following the release of Bollywood film Chhava, a far-right campaign demanded the demolition of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar with VHP-Bajrang Dal warning of a “Babri-like” repeat if the tomb was not removed. The agitation set off communal riots in Nagpur, leaving over 30 injured and 40-year-old welder Irfan Ansari dead.

Is it possible to tell history as the story of one side, while erasing the other? What happens when stories are pared down to black and white, heroes and villains, holy and savage, us and them? Do they still hold memory, or do they begin to serve a purpose beyond remembering? When history is stripped of its layers, nuance, and its many voices, when what remains is defaced textbooks and demolished tombs, are we left with memory — or with propaganda?

Conclusion

The Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh has been party to over 170 cases linked to Hindu majoritarian causes across the country, including the Gyanvapi mosque dispute. Its litigation is driven by an ideology of historical revisionism – recasting India’s past as a story of continuous “foreign aggression” by Muslims and Christians, against the “native” Hindus (a claim categorically debunked by the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory). The purpose is to erase every trace of “foreign” (“enemy”) religious groups in order to establish the Hindu Rashtra.

In the end, demands for post-mortem erasure are not grounded in law, empirical evidence, or constitutional principle. They are acts of disinformation and political theatre, designed to delegitimise the cultural and historical existence of India’s largest religious minority. The campaign to target graves of Indian Muslims – rulers or convicts (or, most frequently, of ordinary citizens and local communities) – is a campaign to deny dignity even in death, and to eternally remember the deceased, and by extension their entire community, as the “perpetual other.”

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this Hate Buster has been worked on by Raaz)

Related:

Hate Buster: Muslims and the Myth of Polygamy in India

Hate Buster: Was every Muslim previously a Hindu?

Were all Muslims previously Hindus?

Why is the right-wing so scared of Shirdi Sai Baba?

Muslims and the Myth of Polgyamy

India’s Struggle for Social Harmony: Challenges Amidst Surge in Hate Speech

The post The Politics of Memory: Controversy over graves of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This is not only a vindication of CJP’s relentless media watchdog efforts but also an institutional acknowledgment that prime-time news debates can fuel communal hatred when stripped of neutrality and balance.

The Spark: Bahraich Violence and its media afterlife

The case traces back to events of October 13, 2024, when communal violence erupted in Bahraich’s Maharajganj area during a Durga Puja immersion procession. Loud music played near a mosque led to clashes, gunfire, and the death of 22-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra, sparking retaliatory violence across the area. Shops, homes, hospitals, and vehicles were vandalised or set ablaze.

Just two days later, India TV aired Coffee Par Kurukshetra, ostensibly to discuss the incident. But instead of sober reportage, the show sensationalised the tragedy, demonised Muslims, and presented the violence as part of a larger “civil war” allegedly being prepared by Muslims against Hindus.

The episode was hosted by Sourav Sharma, with panellists including Professor Sangeet Ragi, Pradeep Singh, and Shantanu Gupta — all of whom used the platform to make sweeping, inflammatory claims against Muslims.

The complete complaint may be read here.

The Complaint

On October 21, 2024, CJP filed a complaint, later escalated on November 6, 2024, underlining the show’s dangerous narrative and violation of broadcasting standards.

CJP pointed to several troubling aspects:

• Loaded language and visuals: The anchor introduced the show with terms like “stone-pelter army”, “extremist Muslims”, “civil war” and “conspiracy”. Aggressive visuals and background music heightened the fear-driven narrative.
• Vilification of Muslims: The broadcast portrayed Muslims as perpetual aggressors and “outsiders,” even invoking Partition to argue Hindus had historically suffered because of Muslims.
• Misuse of religious practices: The Azaan was singled out as disruptive; panellists questioned why Hindus should tolerate it. Muslim festivals were painted as threats to Hindu ways of life.
• Distortions of historical figures: Gandhi and Ambedkar’s words were misquoted or wrenched out of context to argue that they too had warned against Muslims.
• No counter-voices: No Muslim speakers or neutral voices were invited. The discussion was entirely one-sided, with the host tacitly endorsing the communal tone.
• Dangerous calls to action: Guests openly suggested Hindus should “come out with sticks” to defend themselves, with rhetoric escalating to cosmic metaphors of “gods versus demons.”

CJP stressed that airing such a programme without any verified police investigation or neutral reporting amounted to spreading disinformation, promoting hostility, and abandoning journalistic neutrality.

The Broadcaster’s Defence: Freedom of press or abdication of duty?

India TV, in its reply dated November 5, 2024, defended the programme by arguing:

• The show was live, unscripted, and based on free debate; responsibility lay with guests, not the broadcaster.
• The channel did not endorse guest views, which were “diverse perspectives.”
• Freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) protected the airing of controversial opinions.
• CJP’s complaint had “selectively quoted” panellists and distorted context.

India TV insisted the host had asked probing questions — such as whether Ram Gopal’s removal of a flag justified his killing — and claimed that presenting historical parallels and references to riots was legitimate.

The Hearing: CJP vs. India TV

The matter was heard by NBDSA on May 29, 2025. CJP reiterated that the show, aired at a time when no official police findings were available, had irresponsibly created an “us vs. them” dichotomy, depicted Muslims as violent conspirators, and stripped the broadcast of neutrality.

The broadcaster doubled down, arguing that controversial views cannot be censored in a democracy, and the complainant had failed to show factual misquotations.

NBDSA’s Findings: A one-sided, communal narrative

After reviewing the broadcast and submissions, NBDSA made several critical findings:

1. Deliberate theme and panel selection

• • The broadcaster had pre-selected a divisive theme and only invited speakers supporting that narrative.
  • No dissenting or balancing voices were included, making the debate fundamentally biased.

The order noted “The Authority found that a particular theme was chosen and thereafter only those persons who have strong views in support of that theme were invited to express their views.”

2. Violation of neutrality

• • Anchors are obliged to moderate and prevent communal provocation.

The order noted “The broadcaster did not include the speakers who could express other side of the picture, and thus the discussion was not balanced and was one-sided. This is clear violation of principle of neutrality under the Code of Conduct. The broadcaster is advised to have such discussions in the programmes keeping in mind the principles of neutrality.”

The Order: Strong directions against India TV

NBDSA’s order issued the following directions:

• Content removal: India TV must delete the impugned broadcast from its website, YouTube channel, and all online links. Written confirmation of compliance must be submitted within 7 days.
• Institutional circulation: The order will be circulated among all NBDA members, Editors, and Legal Heads.
• Public record: The order will be hosted on NBDSA’s website, included in its Annual Report, and released to the media.

The Authority clarified that while its findings apply to broadcasting standards, they do not determine civil or criminal liability — keeping the scope strictly within media regulation.

The order noted that “NBDSA further also directed the broadcaster to remove the videos of the impugned broadcasts, if still available from the website of the channel, or YouTube, and remove all hyperlinks, including access, which should be confirmed to NBDSA in writing within 7 days of the Order.

NBDSA decided to close the complaint with the above observations and inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

NBDSA directs NBDA to send:

• A copy of this Order to the complainant and the broadcaster;

• Circulate this Order to all Members, Editors & Legal Heads of NBDA;

• Host this Order on its website and include it in its next Annual Report and

• Release the Order to media.”

Why this is a victory

The importance of this order lies in:

• Explicit recognition of one-sided narratives: The order highlights how “debates” can be structured to push communal agendas by excluding balancing voices.
• Anchor accountability: By holding the host responsible for failing to intervene, the NBDSA sets a precedent that anchors cannot hide behind guest opinions.
• Content removal, not just warning: The directive to remove all online traces of the show is stronger than usual, signalling zero tolerance for such broadcasts.
• Validation of civil society monitoring: CJP’s meticulous monitoring, complaint drafting, and legal follow-through stand vindicated, showcasing the role of civil society in holding powerful broadcasters to account.

Conclusion

The NBDSA’s decision reaffirms that freedom of the press cannot be a licence to vilify minorities or erode communal harmony.

For CJP, this win represents the power of consistent vigilance, evidence-based complaints, and commitment to secular values. At a time when hate speech in mainstream media is often normalised, this order proves that institutions can still deliver accountability when pushed with precision and persistence.

This is, without doubt, a small but vital step towards reclaiming media as a forum for truth, balance, and harmony — not hate.

The complete order may be read here.

Image Courtesy: jiotv.com

Related:

Assam BJP’s AI video a manufactured dystopia, Congress files complaint, myths exposed

NBDSA issued advisory to news channels that tickers and thumbnails should conform to the actual version of the discussion

NBDSA cautions Times Now Navbharat to avoid presumptions in sensitive religious reporting for broadcast on “Madrasas Teachings”

NBDSA cracks down on biased anchors: Orders content removal from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News based on CJP’s complaints

The Cost of Clicks: how thumbnails encourage misleading and hate news consumption

Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news

The post NBDSA pulls up India TV for communal, one-sided broadcast; upholds CJP complaint against broadcast appeared first on SabrangIndia.