In this context the Delhi unit of the human rights platform has demanded the following:

– A Dedicated Hate Speech Monitoring Cell to track rallies, campaign speeches, TV, print and social media.

– Public helpline & complaint mechanism so citizens can report hate speech promptly.

– Immediate legal & electoral action against violations of law and the Model Code of Conduct.

– Accountability of officials who fail or refuse to act on reported hate speech.

– Public awareness campaign explaining what constitutes hate speech and its legal consequences.

Elections must be free from fear, intimidation, communal hatred and violence.

The call was given by T.S. Ahuja, general secretary, PUCL Delhi and advocate Vertika Mani

Secretary (media), PUCL Delhi

Related:

CJP files four complaints over hate speeches at gatherings across Maharashtra

Brinda Karat seeks review of SC verdict in Thakur-Verma hate speech case

Nazia Elahi Khan faces multiple FIRs over alleged hate speech

The post Act Against Hate Speech: PUCL Delhi to ECI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Paul had been arrested on August 7, 2026, in connection with FIR No. 464/2026 registered at Trombay Police Station over an October 12, 2025, event at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). The FIR invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Maharashtra Police Act, with a maximum prescribed punishment of five years. The bail came after Paul spent more than a month in jail.

The case arose from a campus gathering organised to commemorate the death anniversary of former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba. According to the FIR, students participating in the event raised slogans including “Rest in power G.N. Saibaba” and slogans demanding the release of jailed activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Nine people were booked in connection with the incident, with Paul named as accused No. 3.

From campus slogans to allegations of Maoist links

The prosecution sought to portray the gathering as something far more serious than a student commemoration. It alleged that the event was part of a pre-planned conspiracy intended to create ideological divisions among TISS students and disturb law and order. It further alleged that Paul had deleted secret groups, WhatsApp chats and the Signal application from his phone and that he had threatened witnesses and police personnel.

The prosecution also relied heavily on material recovered from Paul’s mobile phone, including PDFs of books concerning Maoism. It argued that these materials demonstrated support for Maoist ideology and suggested the possibility of links with banned organisations. The police went further, alleging that documents relating to the Purba Bangla Maoist Party indicated the possibility of cross-border connections and a larger organised network. The Court, however, did not accept that an ideological or political inference could simply be converted into criminal culpability.

The Magistrate noted that the investigation had sought to connect Paul’s activities to threats against national unity and the possibility of creating hatred in society. Yet, after examining the material placed before it, the Court found no prima facie incriminating material establishing his involvement in activities against the nation. His membership of the Progressive Students Forum, participation in the commemoration and raising of slogans did not, by themselves, provide sufficient material to establish the alleged Maoist connection. Most significantly, the Court rejected the attempt to draw a Maoist connection merely from the presence of Maoist literature in digital form.

“The allegations against the accused as per FIR is prima facie of conducting activity of commemoration of death anniversary and slogan and during investigation, it appears that the investigating officer has made suspicious activities of the accused by connecting with nation and made suspicion that the possibility of creating hatred in the community and in the society. Therefore, the investigation was undertaken on the said aspect, however, prima facie there is no incriminating material on record to justify involvement of the accused against the nation and only because accused is member of Progressive Students Forum of TISS and participation in the activity of commemoration and the uttering slogans along with the investigation carried out by the investigating officer prima facie does not found supporting material that the accused has got benefit of social network and prima facie no material to connect the accused with the mind set of Maoist merely because of finding of pdf books the inference of connection with the mind set of Maoist cannot be drawn.” (Para 15)

Reading books is not evidence of criminal association

The order draws an important line between possession or study of literature and proof of participation in a banned organisation or criminal activity. Relying, among other things, on the Bombay High Court’s reasoning in Jyoti Chorge v. State of Maharashtra, the Magistrate noted that literature which is not itself banned cannot automatically become incriminating merely because of its ideological content. The Court recognised that students may read and collect material as part of their academic engagement and pursuit of knowledge, and that such conduct cannot, without more, establish participation in a Maoist or Naxal movement.

This distinction is crucial in the present case. The prosecution’s case sought to move from what Paul allegedly read, what slogans he allegedly raised and which student organisation he belonged to an inference about his ideological allegiance and, ultimately, his supposed threat to national unity. But the Magistrate found that the evidentiary bridge between those facts and the criminal allegations had not been established.

The Court specifically recorded that there was no material demonstrating that Paul had used social networks to obtain a benefit for, or establish a connection with, a banned organisation. Nor did the material placed before the Court establish that merely possessing the PDFs meant that Paul shared the “mind set” of Maoists.

Custody cannot continue on suspicion alone

The Court also considered the length and purpose of the investigation. Paul had initially obtained interim protection from arrest from the Sessions Court in October 2025, which continued for several months. His anticipatory bail application was ultimately rejected on August 7, 2026, after which he was taken into custody. His mobile phone and laptop had already been seized and he had been interrogated.

The Magistrate found that the investigating agency had already been given sufficient time to investigate the allegations. In the Court’s assessment, the subsequent custodial interrogation had not produced material capable of establishing the alleged Maoist or anti-national connection.

“It is material to note that while consideration of ABA 2071 of 2025 and the aspect of involvement of the accused in the light of investigation was considered and the application of the accused was rejected for custodial interrogation to extract truth, however, prima facie except suspicion there is no material to link the activities of the accused with mindset of Maoist or against the nation or associating with banned organization against the India. The interrogation against the accused is carried out for sufficient period and in such circumstances, no further custody of the accused is required, therefore, in such circumstances, in comparative to the order passed in favour of accused Kamakhya Das by the Hon’ble High Court, the present accused has made out ground to release him on bail with imposing conditions to monitor the activities of the accused and safeguard the objection of prosecution.” (Para 17)

The Court consequently held that further custody was not required. It also took note of the Bombay High Court’s August 14, 2026, order granting protection to co-accused Kamakhya Das in connection with the same allegations. The High Court had, prima facie, considered whether participation in the event and the alleged slogans constituted an offence and granted protection subject to conditions, including attendance before the police for investigation.

Keeping him behind bars would not be just

The Magistrate also placed weight on Paul’s age and educational circumstances, observing that continued incarceration in the absence of incriminating material could adversely affect his career. The Court concluded that, where the investigation had had sufficient time and the material before it remained at the level of suspicion, keeping the young accused behind bars would not be just.

Paul has accordingly been granted bail on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh, with one or two sureties of the same amount. He was also directed to furnish provisional cash security of ₹1 lakh for two weeks and report to the DCB CID Unit-06 every Wednesday between 10 a.m. and noon until the filing of the chargesheet. The order also imposes conditions against influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, committing a similar offence and leaving India without the Court’s permission.

The order is, of course, confined to the question of bail and does not amount to a final determination on the merits of the prosecution case. The Magistrate expressly clarified that the prima facie observations made while deciding the bail application should not influence the final adjudication of the case.

Yet the reasoning is consequential. At least at the stage of bail, the Court has refused to treat political or ideological suspicion as a substitute for evidence. The presence of Maoist literature on a student’s device, participation in a campus commemoration, membership of a student forum and the raising of slogans may invite investigation, but they cannot, without supporting material, automatically establish association with a banned organisation or an offence against the nation.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

They Asked Questions. Then Came the Assault: Shaheen & Nafeesa Khan | Teesta Setalvad

Satya Niketan Collapse: When students and neighbours had to rescue students from a system that had failed them

Days of Demands, Hours of Protest: Swatantra Bhardwaj finally detained in assault case

The post Ex-TISS student gets bail as Mumbai Court rejects Maoist link based on ‘suspicion’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In this context, the NAPM, the NACEJ and the AIRF have stated that they see the recent case registered by CBI against Ms. Bhanu Tatak, as part of a series of repressive measures by the Government over years, to quell democratic resistance by the indigenous communities and farmers. The FIR by CBI against Bhanu, which alleges violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), state the NAPM and NACEJ, “is a means of intimidating, discrediting and weakening a peaceful people’s movement.” The nationwide forums have saluted the Siang Indigenous Farmers Forum Youth Wing (SIFFYW) that has resolutely stood with Bhanu, in the face of intimidation and divisive tactics of the Government, calling her true daughter of the Abor land. 

Instead of dialoguing with the local communities and wider Siang people’s movement, it is unjustifiable that an FCRA investigation has been instituted as an instrument of intimidation against Ms. Bhanu Tatak, a young woman indigenous leader, reads the detailed statement. “The timing and circumstances of this FIR are particularly troubling because they come amidst intensified efforts to advance surveys and pre-feasibility activities for the Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP), in the backdrop of sustained opposition from affected communities.”

Most crucially, the networks of people’s organisations have emphasised that a democratic people’s movement cannot be treated as a ‘security problem’ by the government.  In this context, the much criticised “FCRA is being increasingly weaponised to intimidate people’s organizations and harass their leaders. It is in fact the free flow of foreign funding for toxic infrastructure projects enabled by the Government (for ex. the disastrous SHANTI Act to privatize nuclear power generation) that poses a major risk to the people and environment in India. It is such decisions of the Government that need to be strongly questioned.”

Background: A retrospective amendment to the FCRA Act, 2010 through the Finance Bill, 2016, validated the foreign funds received by political parties after September 26, 2010. To avoid scrutiny before this date, the Government introduced another amendment in the Finance Act, 2018 to cover the period beginning August 5, 1976 – the date the original FCRA law came into existence. These amendments were done to counter a landmark judgement of the Delhi High Court in 2014, in a case filed by EAS Sarma and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The judgement found that the BJP and INC had taken donations from Vedanta & its subsidiaries, registered in England and Wales. 

The central question that people’s movements are asking today is: When a political party illegally takes foreign funds from corporates, is found guilty, amends the law to legalize its actions, and then weaponizes the FCRA to intimidate people’s movements, which are legitimately and democratically protesting the terrible environmental and social cost of ill-conceived projects, which only benefit corporates in the name of ‘development’, who is actually guilty of taking foreign funds to harm the interests of the country?

For years, communities of the Siang valley have raised fundamental objections to mega-dam construction. The proposed SUMP – described as a 12,500 MW project in recent reporting, would have profound implications for ancestral settlements, forests, agricultural land, riverine ecosystems and the cultural landscape of the indigenous Adi people. The opposition to these projects is neither ‘sudden’ nor an ‘externally manufactured phenomenon’. Resistance to large dams in the Siang basin has a history stretching back decades. Academic research published in 2025-26 documents the long-standing conflict between state-led hydropower development and indigenous communities in the valley.

The communities have repeatedly been at the forefront of the opposition. In 2025, villagers and the SIFF protested the deployment of Central Armed Police Forces in and around areas where SUMP-related pre-feasibility activities were being undertaken. Reports documented the presence of armed forces in multiple villages like Beging, Geku, Yingkiong and Boleng, while project-affected communities demanded their withdrawal. In September 2026, SIFF again publicly objected to the deployment of security forces for SUMP-related PFR activities and reported that project-affected families were demanding both the withdrawal of security forces from the villages and reversal of actions against community-level representatives.

Outlining in detail this background to how state power and the deliberate weaponisation of the FCRA law is being used to criminalise legitimate citizen’s protests, interventions and activity, the NAPM, the NACEJ and the AIRF have given detailed reasons for the reasoning behind this statement.

“Villages inhabited by citizens of India should not become militarized spaces simply because their inhabitants oppose a harmful “development” project. The presence of armed personnel around communities resisting a dam creates an unmistakable atmosphere of coercion. It risks transforming a question of democratic consent, indigenous rights, ecological protection and displacement into a question of law-and-order and national security. That is a completely wrong and unconstitutional approach.

“The Siang is not an ‘empty valley’.  For the Adi people, the Siang is not merely a water resource waiting to be converted into electricity. The river, forests, mountains and agricultural landscapes constitute an interconnected living cultural and ecological system. The Adi community has described the Siang as ‘Ane Siang‘ – the sacred river. The Adi Bane Kebang has also demanded the scrapping of SUMP and withdrawal of the Central Armed Police Forces deployed for project-related activities.

“Project-affected communities have repeatedly raised concerns over displacement, loss of ancestral land, destruction of forests, disruption of livelihoods and damage to cultural identity. Independent research also records the profound importance of these territories to indigenous agro-ecological systems and cultural continuity.

“Reports have also documented opposition to other mega-dam projects across Arunachal Pradesh, including projects in the Dibang and Siang/Siyom river systems. The experience of the Dibang Multipurpose Project, where indigenous communities have long resisted the project because of its implications for forests, land and livelihoods, should be a warning against repeating the same model of ‘development’ elsewhere.

“Consent cannot be replaced by force. We strongly reject the proposition that ‘development’ can be secured by deploying military personnel first and seeking people’s ‘consent’ later. If the government claims that local communities genuinely ‘support’ SUMP or similar mega-dam projects (as the govt propaganda states), the answer is simple:  Let the affected communities speak freely. And let their views and rights be respected and given precedence, instead of the vested interests of the dam-builders and corporations.”

Hence the forums have demanded:

• An immediate end to all oppressive measures against the local communities, SIFF, Bhanu Tatak, Ebo Mili and other community leaders and activists, including by misuse of the FCRA law against Bhanu Tatak.

• Immediate withdrawal of all armed forces / military personnel from the indigenous villages, de-militarization and restoration of space for democratic participation by communities in Government decisions that affect their livelihoods, ecology and futures.

• Free, fair and transparent public consultations at the village level must be held in the presence of neutral observers.
• Revocation of all clearances and permissions granted to the hydro-electric and power projects in the region, in violation of law and democratic processes.

Related:

Voices of resistance: Indigenous peoples’ struggle against the Siang Mega-Dam in Arunachal Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh University students join protests against CAB; Show Support to NESO

The post Climate, riverine & indigenous movements from across India express full solidarity with the democratic anti-dam struggle in Arunachal Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hence the alliance of women rights organisations from across the country has rejected the conflation of equality with uniformity and homogeneity. Likewise, ALIFA has ‘refused the criminalisation and surveillance being imposed in the garb of ‘gender justice’. We demand an immediate rollback of these Codes and insist that there must be no rush to enact or impose them without ensuring that all constitutional rights of the affected communities are fully safeguarded and that widespread consultations are held with them.’

‘A week ago, on September 13, 2026, Mr Amit Shah, the Union Home Minister, publicly said that a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) would be implemented in all 21 BJP- and NDA-ruled states before 2029. This renewed push by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to impose a UCC across the country before the 2029 elections demands a firm and clear response from women representing diverse social locations across India, in whose name this monolith project of the BJP-RSS is being orchestrated.

The Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand has been in force since January 27, 2025. The UCC Bills passed by Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh in their Legislative Assemblies are awaiting Presidential assent as of September 2026, and therefore, not yet in force. Neither Uttarakhand’s UCC nor the frameworks contained in the Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh UCC Bills provide a model that incorporates substantive gender equality, let alone gender justice. A critical scrutiny of the UCC Codes across states by ALIFA has revealed the many ways in which these are likely to have adverse impacts on women and vulnerable social groups, while claiming to ‘safeguard women’s rights’.

The All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) elaborates on our key concerns regarding the UCC Law and Bills here:

• The new codes retain and reproduce unjust provisions that push back against hard-won rights, over decades. They retain restitution of conjugal rights equally for men and women, a remedy long denounced by women’s rights advocates for compelling marital cohabitation and for its potential use against women attempting to leave abusive marriages. They restrict access to divorce during the first year of marriage, subject only to narrow exceptions, rather than expanding women’s ability to leave a marriage safely and autonomously and include religious conversion as a ground for divorce. All these provisions are regressive and inimical to constitutional freedoms and rights.
• The new Codes fail to address the gaps already known in the existing Personal and secular laws across the country. Rather than providing a comprehensive family-law framework, many remain largely focused on marriage, divorce, succession and live-in relationships. They do not address issues such as marriage inequality, the absence of a concept of marital property for women, no-fault divorce with safeguards for women, and marital rape, which have been consistently brought before the Supreme Court for redressal or raised by women’s and queer movements, and legal reform campaigns. Nor do they suggest reform of adoption and guardianship to guarantee equal parental rights irrespective of gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or marital status.
• Instead, some of these Codes introduce new criminal penalties into intimate and family relationships without adequate provision for ensuring the matrimonial rights of women. The emerging approach of selectively criminalising certain marriage and divorce practices historically associated with Muslim Personal Law and practices such as Triple Talaq is a glaring example of this. Gender justice does not mean arbitrarily singling out particular communities and practices for penal treatment, while leaving the structural inequalities experienced by women across communities substantially untouched. As feminists, we oppose the substantive inequality and discrimination related to divorce, separation and annulment, inheritance, custody, and guardianship in all communities.
• Most glaringly, the Codes do not address women’s economic inequality within marriage. They do not establish a marital-property regime that recognises women’s unpaid care and domestic labour or guarantees an equitable share in assets accumulated, sustained, or value-added during marriage. Formal equality in marriage and inheritance means little, if women must leave decades-long marriages without an enforceable share in the wealth their unpaid and paid labour helped create.
• The succession provisions in the Codes also require much closer scrutiny than the language of “equal inheritance” suggests. Under the Hindu Succession Act, daughters and sons currently have a birthright in Mitakshara coparcenary property. Uttarakhand’s UCC removes the distinction between coparcenary and other property and permits property to be disposed of by will, potentially removing the limited protection against disinheritance that daughters had in ancestral joint-family property. The Muslim Personal Law provides mandatory shares for legal heirs, including daughters and sons, and restricts testamentary disposition to one-third of the estate. The Goa Succession Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act stipulates one-half of the estate to the “forced heirs” in case of children. The UCC displaces these protections too. A genuinely gender-just succession regime should not merely ask whether formal shares are described as equal, but whether women and other vulnerable heirs remain protected against disinheritance and economic dispossession.
• The UCC Law and Bills empower the State to surveil and arbitrarily intrude into the intimate lives of citizens, including coercive intervention through registration, inquiry, reporting and penal provisions in the name of ensuring equality in marriage, inheritance and other aspects of family law. These provisions are especially dangerous for inter-faith, inter-caste, queer and transgender couples whose relationships are already under extreme scrutiny and stigma. The Gujarat Bill, which makes registers of marriages, divorces and other prescribed records open to inspection, allows certified extracts to be obtained on application, and requires employers, government bodies, companies and other authorities to rely on UCC registration certificates before changing a person’s recorded marital status, typifies this approach. While this may protect women who could be deceived if information regarding their intended marriage is not in the public domain, there are no safeguards for the adverse consequences this can have for inter-faith or inter-caste marriages that face opposition from family or civil society groups.
• The UCC Law and Bills criminalise aspects of consensual adult relationships, creating victims and culprits without a crime. The provisions transform consensual adult intimacy into a matter for administrative verification, third-party complaint, police record and criminal punishment, including imprisonment merely for failure to register a consensual adult relationship. Under Uttarakhand’s UCC Law, adults in a live-in relationship MUST register it within a month or face imprisonment; similar mandatory-registration and penal provisions have now been reproduced in the Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh Bills. In Gujarat, for example, the Registrar may summon the partners or “any other person” as part of an inquiry; records of live-in relationships are required to be forwarded to the local police; parents or guardians are required to be informed where either partner is below 21and non-registration can attract imprisonment. A complaint or information from a third party can trigger proceedings requiring the couple to register as well. The arbitrariness and discrimination are stark, as those in consensual adult live-in relationships are subjected to registration and policing under the garb of protection, while corresponding protections are not included in the Codes for adults in forced marriage, in inter-caste, in inter-faith marriage or queer and transgender couples facing familial coercion or violence.
• The UCC Law and Bills do not apply to all women. One, they explicitly exclude Scheduled Tribe communities, almost 15% of the Indian population. Two, some emerging UCCs continue to organise marriage and family around binary categories of “man” and “woman”, do not recognise same-sex marriage, and fail to create a clear framework recognising queer and trans people’s relationships and families and other forms of CIS families. The Gujarat Bill, for example, contains no reference to transgender persons at all, thereby completely excluding the relationships and marriages of transgender people and other queer people.  Transgender and queer people, as well as Adivasi women, have been demanding gender justice, rights and equality (not UCC) in live-in and marital relationships for a long time. A UCC Law or Bill cannot credibly describe itself as “uniform” while shutting out the lived experiences of entire communities and family forms and/or rendering them legally invisible.
• The new Codes totally ignore Goa’s experience and the complexities and contradictions with its UCC. The Goa ‘UCC’ is hardly uniform when looked at closely. It continues to recognise both canonical and civil registration of marriages, which may not per se be discriminatory, while many discriminatory provisions of the Code of Customs and Usages of Gentile Hindus continue to be applicable. Uniform provisions that are discriminatory for women include empowering the male spouse to manage the marital property. The issues of inadequate access to family law and several other concerns identified in the Goa UCC remain unaddressed in the new UCC Law and Bills.
• The Uniform Civil Code was placed in the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution, under Article 44, a goal that the State should be working towards. But Article 44 does not prescribe what form such a Code must take, nor does it require uniformity to be pursued through the erasure of legal pluralism and social diversity.  Thus, Article 44 clearly enables amendments to existing laws to move towards uniformity of rights. Even the 21^st Law Commission (2018) set up by the BJP government found that a UCC is neither necessary nor desirable. Instead, it recommended amending every Personal Law to remove discrimination within family laws while preserving diversity where difference itself was not discriminatory. Similar demands have been placed by several women’s groups for decades.
• The UCC Law and Bills, by conflating equality with uniformity, miss the point that uniformity does not guarantee equality, nor is non-uniformity necessarily discriminatory. The prescriptive law of monogamy has not ensured justice and equality. This for instance, is the case for women whose husbands enter subsequent relationships or marriages without their consent or knowledge, as also for women who marry not knowing of the prior marriage of their husband, and those who marry in coercive circumstances. Nor does formally identical treatment necessarily address unequal bargaining power, unpaid care work, economic dependence, domestic violence or women’s lack of access to marital assets.
• Notably, despite BJP’s push, UCC is not fully agreeable even to all NDA constituents. Bihar’s ruling JD (U) has ruled out implementing a UCC in the state. Other NDA allies have called for discussion or consultation rather than automatic implementation. Those objections cannot simply be overridden.  BJP cannot and should not manufacture consent by projecting the UCC as an instrument for achieving women’s rights in live-in relationships or marriage.
• BJP deliberately denies the plural Indian reality that all people need not live by ONE prescribed model of family, culture or community and that gender justice does not require erasure of non-discriminatory difference. India has multiple kinds of kin relationships/families that are determined by locality, community, history, geography, religion, caste, sexuality and gender. Customs differ across the country within the same religious community too. Likewise, the communities categorised as scheduled tribes also have diverse customs within. What we require is that women, queer and transgender persons across communities and social locations, enjoy equitable rights, dignity, autonomy and freedom, and the capacity to determine the terms on which they live their own lives.
• In an electoral democracy, lawmaking for citizens in the absence of their significant representation in national parliament and state assemblies is undemocratic. Laws restructuring the intimate and family lives of hundreds of millions of people require meaningful participation by those most affected, including Muslim women, Adivasi women, Dalit and Bahujan women, queer and transgender people, women from indigenous communities, persons with disabilities, single women and women from diverse regional and religious communities. Representation cannot be substituted by governments claiming to speak on their behalf. In fact, without immediate and unconditional implementation of Women’s Reservation (including for women from all disadvantaged and vulnerable groups), such laws having far-reaching implications cannot be legislated on behalf of women. If specific provisions of Personal Laws that are discriminatory in nature require reform, the Government should bring in the reforms only through widespread consultation with women, queer and transgender people from all social and geographical locations.

For all these elaborated and articulated arguments, ALIFA states that it “believes that BJP’s obsession with regulating intimacy – who to marry, form relationships and constitute families belongs to an age-old repertoire of social control, now refurbished in the garb of ‘modernity’, ‘reform’ and ‘women’s empowerment’. The BJP cynically co-opts and turns upside down this language of women’s empowerment and gender justice to advance a much wider project of cultural homogenisation, control, and Hindu Rashtra. We see this pattern across a range of current initiatives, from the politics around NRC and SIR to the High-Powered Demography Mission that proposes demographic surveillance and other measures that seek to define who belongs, who does not, and what constitutes an acceptable citizen and family. We firmly place the UCC within this larger political context, rather than treating it as an isolated question of legal reform.”

Among the demands placed before the government are:

1. The Government of Uttarakhand to immediately repeal rights-repulsive provisions including those that criminalise non-registration of consensual live-in relationships, mandatorily require police and parental notification, and subject adult relationships to State inquiry, and to incorporate provisions that factor in both legal pluralism and enabling rights after due consultative processes.
2. That the Governments of Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh immediately withdraw the Bills passed in the respective state Assemblies.
3. That the governments of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Chhattisgarh, which have set up committees to recommend a draft UCC, do not take any further steps and instead institute widespread democratic consultations with women’s rights and civil rights organisations, queer and transgender persons groups, Adivasi organisations, disability-rights groups, minority organisations and other affected communities.
4. That all the state government’s stop family law legislation in the name of UCC, which is being imposed and accompanied by an Islamophobic diatribe.
5. That any amendments to family laws that are discriminatory should be done only after consultation with women, queer and transgender people across communities and social locations, and should be assessed against the substantive outcomes of equality, autonomy, dignity, economic security and freedom from discrimination and violence rather than against uniformity for its own sake.
6. Any reform of succession law must preserve or strengthen protections against the economic disinheritance of women, rather than replacing existing birthright or mandatory-share protections with unrestricted testamentary power.
7. Any reform of family law must recognise the different consensual relationships, families and parental rights of adult cisgender, queer and transgender people rather than maintaining a formally uniform but substantively heteronormative and gender-binary framework that is effectively discriminatory.
8. The State must address the substantive areas on which women’s, transgender and queer movements have repeatedly demanded reform, including marital property, no-fault divorce with safeguards for women, equal guardianship and adoption rights, marital rape, maintenance, economic security on dissolution of marriage, and meaningful access to family-law justice.
9. Family-law reform must recognise unpaid care work and women’s contribution to assets accumulated during marriage and create enforceable equitable economic rights at separation, divorce and death.
10. Any legal recognition of live-in relationships must be rights-conferring and dignity-affirming rather than surveillance-based, intruding on privacy: access to maintenance, protection from violence, inheritance and other remedies must not depend upon compulsory registration of an intimate relationship.
11. Personal and relationship data collected under family law must be subject to strict necessity, confidentiality and data-protection safeguards, as also upheld by the Supreme Court in the right to privacy judgements and must not be routinely shared with police, families or third parties.
12.  No person’s free choice of partner or intimate relationship should trigger parental notification, police scrutiny or administrative investigation because of their religion, caste, gender identity, sexuality or decision not to marry.
13. Any comprehensive reform must be tested not only for formal equality but for its actual impact on women and people facing social and structural disadvantage, particularly economically poor women, Adivasi and Dalit-Bahujan women, Muslim women, queer and transgender people, persons with disabilities, migrants, single women and survivors of violence.

In conclusion, All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) has stated in this detailed public statement that it “unequivocally rejects the deeply paternalistic, invasive and unwelcome ‘reforms’ being imposed in the name of women and the attempt to homogenise equality for all women, erasing the agency of women across social locations. We refuse to be fooled by the smokescreen of ‘women’s rights’ and seek to expose both the rhetoric and the substantive content of the Uniform Civil Code, including enacted and emerging Codes across India. Through a continuing critical examination of their provisions and underlying political project, we shall strive to engage with and enable women, queer and transgender people across India to see through these UCCs for the falsehoods that they are and collectively resist the exclusionary politics, the conflation of uniformity with equality, and cultural control with women’s empowerment.”

The statement has been issued by both the All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM).

Related:

Assam: Bill on Uniform Civil Code (UCC), a partisan act?

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

Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code: A Majoritarian Code – Neither Uniform nor Civil

The post Strengthen gender justice & secular legal frameworks, No To ‘Uniform Control Code’ in garb of UCC: ALIFA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incident, which took place on September 18 and continued into the early hours of September 19, followed a September 15 kite-flying event organised in solidarity with children in Gaza. The event formed part of the Global Gaza Kite Weekend, an international campaign in which participants flew kites to draw attention to the situation of Palestinian children.

According to the citizens’ collective Indian People in Solidarity with Palestine (IPSP), police personnel arrived at the residence of Harshada Borade, a student, artist and volunteer associated with the group. The organisation alleged that some personnel were in plain clothes and initially did not provide identification, a warrant or written notice explaining the basis for the intervention.

Borade told media organisations that as many as 15 police personnel were present at one point. The search reportedly began at around 5.30 pm and continued until approximately 2.30 am. Scroll reported that five activists who were at the residence were allegedly prevented from leaving while the search was underway, while a sixth person was questioned at Bandra police station and released later that evening.

The allegations go beyond a prolonged search. Borade told Hindustan Times that police examined books, personal diaries and other belongings at her home, while two people accompanying her allegedly had their phones taken and subsequently returned. The group said that books relating to Bhagat Singh and Savitribai Phule were among the material examined by the police.

Borade has also alleged that two friends who were present at the residence were handcuffed, that their phones were confiscated and that officers checked the data stored on the devices. These allegations have also been reported by The Times of India, which said Borade claimed the search lasted from around 5 pm on September 18 until the early hours of September 19.

The police subsequently prepared a panchnama, a record of the observations and material documented during a search. According to IPSP, the panchnama linked the police action to the September 15 kite-flying campaign and recorded material found at Borade’s residence. What makes the episode particularly concerning is the apparent disconnect between the nature of the activity and the intensity of the police response. The activists were participating in a public campaign involving kites, Palestinian flags and posters as a symbolic expression of solidarity with children in Gaza. The police, however, have said that the organisers had not obtained permission for the gathering and that they were investigating the people involved after videos of the event appeared on social media.

Speaking to Hindustan Times, police officials said they had identified videos showing people flying kites and displaying pro-Palestine posters near Otters Club in Bandra West. They said the participants had not obtained permission and were not cooperating with police teams, following which the people involved were questioned and their homes searched for material, including books and other items.

A senior police official subsequently said that an inquiry was underway “as per the procedures established by law” and maintained that nobody had been illegally detained. The police, however, did not immediately clarify whether the searches were principally connected to the alleged absence of permission for the gathering, the display of pro-Palestine material, or both.

The question here is not merely whether police may investigate an event for which they believe permission was required. The more fundamental issue is how far the State can intrude into a citizen’s home, personal belongings, communications and associations in response to an act of political expression. A search of a private residence lasting more than nine hours, coupled with the alleged examination of books and personal diaries and the seizure and inspection of mobile phones, raises serious questions about proportionality, procedural safeguards and the constitutional protection of privacy and freedom of expression. Those questions become particularly significant when the underlying activity consisted of a symbolic act of solidarity rather than an allegation of violence.

IPSP has described the police action as an assault on democratic rights and civil liberties and alleged that it violated Borade’s right to privacy and freedom of expression. The organisation has demanded action against the personnel involved. Siasat reported the group’s allegation that the search was conducted without a warrant or other written authorisation and that those present were intimidated and, in some cases, allegedly manhandled.  The latest reporting has also highlighted the absence, so far, of an FIR against Borade. The Times of India reported on September 21 that Mumbai Police were gathering information and conducting an inquiry, while DCP (West Zone-2) Mohit Garg said the matter was being examined in accordance with established procedures.

The episode therefore raises an uncomfortable question about the threshold at which political expression begins to attract coercive State scrutiny. Flying a kite, displaying a Palestinian flag or possessing books by Bhagat Singh or Savitribai Phule cannot, by itself, establish criminality. If the police believe that an offence was committed during the September 15 gathering, the basis for that belief, the specific offence under investigation and the legal authority for the subsequent searches and seizures ought to be capable of being clearly articulated.

The concern is particularly acute because a police investigation cannot become a substitute for procedural safeguards. Nor should the absence of immediate criminal charges leave citizens uncertain about why their homes were searched, why their personal belongings were examined or why their phones were taken. At the heart of the controversy is therefore not simply a kite-flying event in Bandra. It is the question of how a democratic State responds to dissent, political expression and solidarity with a foreign people, and whether the exercise of police power remains bounded by legality, necessity and proportionality.

The Mumbai Police have said that an inquiry is underway. That inquiry must consequently address not only what the activists did on September 15, but also what legal basis authorised the subsequent searches, whether the required procedural safeguards were followed, what material the police were actually investigating, why personal books and belongings were examined, and under what authority mobile phones were seized and accessed. Until those questions are answered transparently, the nine-hour search of a young activist’s home following a symbolic act of solidarity will continue to raise serious concerns about the expanding reach of police power into the private sphere and the space available for peaceful political expression in Mumbai.

Related:

Women journalists who were attacked prevented from reporting, protest attacks

“If I Believe in Democracy, How Can I Give Up Hope?”| Umar Khalid: 2,190 Days | Banojyotsna | Teesta

‘Subjective Satisfaction’ Cannot Be Built On Conjecture: Allahabad HC quashes NSA detention of Akriti Chaudhary

Anatomy of a Censoring Mob Threatened by Book Reading in Public

Deaths, Denials and Delayed Action: The Balaghat crisis

The post Palestine solidarity kite event followed by nine-hour police search in Mumbai appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The protest, organised at the call of the Sachetana Nagarik Manch, brought together political leaders, environmentalists, human-rights activists, journalists, lawyers, social workers and representatives of various people’s organisations.

Demand for Release of Movement Leaders

One of the major demands raised at the protest was the immediate and unconditional release of Lad Sikaka, president of the Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti; Lingaraj Azad, national president of the Samajwadi Jan Parishad; and Hiramal Nayak, leader of the Maa Mati Mali Suraksha Manch.

The protesters alleged that people involved in movements to protect land, forests, water and other natural resources were being targeted through arrests and criminal cases. They described the alleged action as repression of democratic people’s movements.

Focus on Gram Sabha Rights

The protesters demanded recognition of the constitutional rights of Gram Sabhas in Fifth Schedule areas, particularly in matters concerning land, forests and mineral resources.

They also opposed what they described as a restrictive interpretation of Gram Sabha powers by the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs. The protesters said local communities should have a meaningful role in decisions affecting their land, livelihoods and natural resources.

Opposition to MMDR Amendment

The gathering also expressed opposition to the reported 2026 amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

According to the protesters, the amendment could have implications for the state’s taxation rights and control over mineral-bearing areas. They further alleged that provisions facilitating the export of minerals could encourage greater extraction of Odisha’s mineral resources.

The protesters demanded withdrawal of the amendment and called for greater protection of the rights of mineral-rich communities.

NHPC Communication Raises Concern

The protesters also raised concerns over a communication involving the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC).

They alleged that the communication sought to limit the authority of Gram Sabhas in matters concerning the transfer of land and forests. The protesters argued that any weakening of Gram Sabha powers could affect the rights of tribal and forest-dependent communities.

‘Not Just an Environmental Issue’

Speakers at the demonstration said the ongoing struggles over land, forests and water should not be viewed merely as environmental campaigns.

According to the organisers, the issues are closely connected with the livelihoods of thousands of people, the rights of tribal communities dependent on natural resources and the interests of future generations.

They said protection of natural resources and community rights required wider public participation and democratic mobilisation.

Appeal to Opposition Parties

The organisers appealed to opposition parties in Odisha to raise their voice against what they described as unconstitutional and anti-tribal policies concerning the rights of Gram Sabhas and local communities.

They also called for a broader people’s movement to oppose policies that, according to them, could facilitate large-scale exploitation of the state’s natural resources.

Activists, Journalists and Political Leaders Attend

Several prominent political and social figures, activists, journalists, environmentalists, human-rights campaigners and representatives of various civil society organisations participated in the demonstration.

Those present included senior journalist Rabi Das; senior Congress leader Niranjan Patnaik; noted environmentalist Prafulla Samantara; human-rights activist Bishwapriya Kanungo; researcher Anil Dhir; environmental activist and member of the Organisation for Protection of Democratic Rights, Srimant Mohanty; writer Ranjana Padhi; Narendra Mohanty of the Anti-False-Cases Campaign; Professor Birendra Nayak; Debi Pusti; poet Lenin Kumar; human-rights activist Pramodini Pradhan; Baghambhar Patnaik; Rakesh Kanungo; trade-union leader Mahendra Parida; Pradipta Nayak; senior journalist Sudhir Pattnaik; Rajesh Mahapatra; political leaders Bhajaman Behera, Bansidhar Parida and Siddharth Routray; columnist Rangacharan Pradhan; transgender leader Meghana Sahu; Deb Prasad Ray of the Lohia Academy; members of the Basti Suraksha Manch, along with Narayan Lenka; documentary filmmaker Debaranjan; Dandapani Mohanty of the Jan Adhikar Manch; social activist Siddharth Kar; Kisan Patnaik; Sharat Pal; Sasmita Jena; Malay Tripathy; Akanksha; advocate Gyan Ranjan; Bijay Panda; Subhasis; Rashmi Ranjan Jena; Khirod Rout; Pratima Das; Sharmistha Nath; spokesperson for the people’s movement Prashant Paikaray; tribal leader Chamburu Soren; people’s movement leader Batakrishna Swain; Surendra Tapsu; Rumita Kundu; Debi Prasanna Rath; Mohan Naidu; Bichitra Biswal; Gourachandra Tripathy of the Dandakaranya Suraksha Manch; Laxmi Reddy; Soni Nayak; Shubhashree Pradhan, Swagatika; and RTI activist Prakash Kumar Samant Singhar.

More than a hundred activists, representatives of various organisations and concerned citizens also participated in the demonstration.

Prakash Kumar Samantsinghar (Email: educarexpert@gmail.com) is a Human Rights Defender and RTI activist based in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. He works on the resettlement and rehabilitation of slum dwellers, land and housing rights, environment & climate change, issues affecting SC, ST, and minority communities, and promoting transparency in government welfare programmes.

Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org

The post Mass Protest in Bhubaneswar Against Mining-Linked State Repression appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One of the first conventions was a gathering of over 3,000 women in Dahanu taluka, Thane-Palghar district. Mariam Dhawale, Prachi Hativlekar, Lahani Dauda, and Sunita Shingda addressed and guided the attendees. Similar conventions will be organised across all other talukas of the district, followed by all districts in the state.

When the Janwadi Mahila Sanghatana announced its state-wide decision during this gathering to lead a massive march of thousands of such excluded women to the Mantralaya in Mumbai on November 3, 2026, the thousands of women present welcomed it with resounding slogans.

From the Thane-Palghar district alone, 3,000 excluded ‘Ladli Behna’ beneficiaries from the Dahanu tehsil expressed their strong protest at this arbitrary exclusion and vowed to join the protest march under the AIDWA banner, said the organisation.

The AIDWA in Maharashtra is conducting a state-wide campaign for the nearly 1 crore women who were arbitrarily excluded recently from the BJP Chief Minister’s ‘Ladli Behna Scheme’, by giving flimsy reasons.

It may be recalled that before the 2024 Maharashtra state assembly elections, the BJP-led state government had begun the ‘Ladli Behana Scheme’ of giving Rs 1,500 per month to nearly 2.63 crore women in the state, clearly with a view to induce their votes. After winning the election, the BJP-led regime started a so-called ‘verification’ drive, after which it arbitrarily excluded nearly 1 crore beneficiary women from the Scheme in July 2026 and stopped giving them the amount, leaving only 1.66 crore, many of whom are also not getting their amounts regularly.

That is the rationale behind the AIDWA campaign which started by filling up thousands of forms of the excluded women, and holding large women’s gatherings across Maharashtra from September 20, 2026, onwards.

AIDWA national vice president Mariam Dhawale, state general secretary and national joint secretary Prachi Hatiwlekar, district president and state vice president Lahani Dauda, and district secretary and CEC member Sunita Shingda addressed the gathering. Similar gatherings will be held in all other talukas of the district till September 27 and then in all districts of the state.

At this large Dahanu gathering, the AIDWA leadership announced its decision to organise a massive Struggle March to Mantralaya in Mumbai, bringing together thousands of women from across Maharashtra who have been excluded from the Scheme. This announcement was greeted by thousands of women present with resounding slogans and great support.

Earlier, in July this year, Indian Express reported that the BJP-led Maharashtra State government has sent a list of 25 lakh probable beneficiaries for Income Tax verification. The reason: the deletion of over 92 lakh beneficiaries from the Ladki Bahin scheme — nearly 38 per cent of those enrolled — proved deeply embarrassing for the Maharashtra government and drew sharp political attacks.

As part of a “stricter verification process” before rolling out its flagship farm loan waiver scheme, the first list of around 25 lakh probable beneficiaries under the Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar Loan Waiver Scheme has been sent to the Income Tax Department for verification before it is made public. Farmers who are income taxpayers will be excluded before the final list is published.

Unlike Ladki Bahin, where benefits were released before eligibility checks were completed, farmers shortlisted for the loan waiver will also have to verify details uploaded by banks before the final beneficiary list is notified. The actual waiver process is now expected to begin only by end of July.

Related:

AIDWA Calls for Fight Against Increasing Gender-Based Violence

AIDWA Writes to Parliamentary Panel, Seeks More Time for Views on Personal Law Reforms

Scrap the move to raise the age of marriage of girls to 21: AIDWA

The post Struggle for re-inclusion of lakhs of women ‘deceptively excluded by govt’, march to Mumbai: AIDWA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pooja Mathur set the tone at the meeting held by the Press Club of India, the Delhi Union of Journalists and the Network of Women in Media to protest attacks on women journalists.

Mathur spoke boldly of how she has been targetted by the UP government for her coverage of the bulldozing of a Saharanpur masjid on Sept. 6. Mathur said she was the first to report the demolition on her YouTube channel Red Chili Live. She interviewed the Imam of the mosque and took a video of the rubble. After that she received messages demanding that she delete the videos, followed by threats when she refused. An FIR has been filed against her.

Mathur said courageously, “I was doing my job. I àm not afraid. I will not cry, I will make them cry.” She also pointed out that women journalists like her are the voice and the inspiration of countless other women who dare not step out of home and raise their own voices against oppression.  Mathur also said to the big gathering present, “Do not dismiss us as mere Youtubers. We are serious journalists, we are qualified, we do our research before we go online.”

Divya Srivastava spoke of how she was targetted after she dared to speak at a ‘press conference’ held by UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Sept 12. The CM spoke but took no questions. When Divya loudly called him out, asking him to hear her question, he simply walked away. This smàll incident was blown out of proportion with some fellow journalists warning her to go into hiding as she would now be under fire. She was trolled heavily, with threats, abuse and allegations that she had been sent by a rival political party to ask questions.

“Why should I hide, journalism is not a crime,” Mathur said.

She said her job at a channel was now insecure as the channel owners were afraid of the backlash.

Bindu Romi Gujjar and Monika Singh, both independent journalists based in Delhi, were among the first to reach Balaghat in Madhya Pradesh after several Baiga tribal children died of disease in August 2026. They interviewed parents and relatives of the children.

Gujjar described the trauma of witnessing funeral rites. She said there was only one primary health centre for 25 villages and the nearest hospital is 130 km away. No ambulance is available. She said that the deaths were caused by malaria, a treatable disease. She asked why no malaria vaccines are provided in malaria prone areas. Singh described conditions in the government hospital where three or four children were lying in each bed. The journalists’ documentation of 30 deaths, backed by Aadhar cards and other evidence, embarrassed the local administration which claimed there were only eight deaths. The reporters were shadowed for several days and threatened. The Superintendent of Police wanted them to meet him. They did not go. Two policemen came to their hotel room at 2 a.m. at night, she said. They began to fear for their lives. Eventually they left the hotel in the night and returned to Delhi.

Singh spoke of the conditions in the Baiga villages where there are no facilities, not even clean drinking water. She spoke of the hospital which the District Magistrate, she said, visited several days after the first deaths. She claimed that 34 children were discharged the day before his visit, more beds were supplied, bed linen changed and the entire hospital disinfected. She said the journalists were accused of being Muslim and a doctor at the hospital openly displayed bias.

On Sept 6 the social media accounts of Bindu Gurjar, Lok Singh and Monika were suspended. Monika’s account is still suspended. “We are independent journalists,” she said, “how will we earn and continue to work if accounts are suspended?”

Impassioned testimonies came from Shaheen Khan and Nafeesa Khan of 4 PM News, who were picked up by Saket police on Sept 3, 2026, while standing on the roadside to report the visit of Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Minister Rekha Gupta to Max Hospital to inaugurate a new wing. Nafeesa described in detail their detention at Saket police station and the trauma of being beaten with fists and a lathi by a woman inspector. She said she began to fear for her life after the inspector learnt they were Muslim and began to beat them more viciously. The SHO, she said, had ordered the beating and other police personnel were complicit.

Shaheen said that after the incident became public senior policemen later apologised and admitted there had been a mistake. However, she said, the FIR eventually registered names of only two police personnel, although they have filed a complaint against several personnel. She urged journalists to take up the issue and ensure justice.

The meeting was also addressed by PCI President Sangeeta Baruah Pisharoty, Secretary General Afzal Imam, DUJ President Sujata Madhok, Divya Arya of the Network of Women Journalists in India, journalist Khushbu Akhtar and Caravan Editor Hartosh Singh Bal who expressed solidarity with the media women and applauded them for their courage in speaking out.

Sabrangindia was among the first to interview both Shaheen and Nafeesa Khan. The interview may be watched here. 

Details of these testimonies by women journalists were released by the Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) in a statement, by the organisation’s president, Sujata Madhok and its general secretary, A.M. Jigeesh.

Related:

Press bodies condemn alleged assault on women journalists at Saket Police Station, seek inquiry and action

Two women journalists allege police assault after questioning Delhi CM, say attack intensified after police heard they were Muslim

Two Delhi-based women journalists arrested by Assam police on request from Tripura cops 

The post Women journalists who were attacked prevented from reporting, protest attacks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Sept 16, 2026, a young woman reporter Kavita Bishnoi was reportedly threatened by an angry mob of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) supporters in the Delhi University campus. It was election eve and several reporters were covering the students’ union elections.

Ms Bishnoi has courageously put out a video recounting how a goon came right up to her, yanked at her stole and accused her of being a leftist since her ajrakh scarf had a red border, states the DUJ.

She denied the accusation as did some of her colleagues. She was later accosted again, with two girls demanding to check her mobile phone. She reports that none of the reporters present who saw the mob of over a hundred people armed with sticks and stones were allowed to take photos or videos.

Quoting from Ms Bishnoi’s video, the DUJ statement says that police present on the spot were passive spectators while anyone who dared take pictures were attacked and had their cameras broken. She says that only the fact that she was female saved her from being beaten up.

DUJ regrets the escalation of violence in the city’s once peaceful universities and demands that Delhi police maintain law and order without bias and without infringing on the right of peaceful democratic protest.

Every reporter’s right to freely cover events without undue pressure and every student’s right to vote peacefully must be protected.

The statement has been issued by DUJ president, Sujata Madhok, its vice-president S.K,Pande and general secretary, DUJ, A.M. Jigeesh.

Related:

Attack on journalists in Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha condemned: DUJ

Whither Freedom: The Chhatisgarh attack on journalists

Attack on journalist Nikhil Wagle: Despite evidence, CP, Pune Amitesh Kumar denies attempt to murder charge (S 307)

The post Reporter attacked on DU Campus, DUJ condemns assault appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It’s worth asking because the answer may say less about literature than it does about the way we have learned to read caste. We have, as readers and viewers, built a fairly narrow set of terms under which we are willing to engage with caste at all, and sorrow fits neatly inside those terms. Anger doesn’t.

Sadness is an easier thing to host. A Dalit character suffers, we feel for them, we close the book or leave the theatre a little shaken -quietly proud of ourselves, even, for having felt something at all. It’s a tidy transaction. The pain stays over there, on the page or the screen. We stay over here, safely watching.

But anger doesn’t play by those rules. “Look what was done to me” is a sentence we can pity from a comfortable distance. “You were part of the world that let this happen” is different. It doesn’t ask for our sympathy. It asks what we will do with our discomfort.

Beyond this literary pattern, it played out in real life in July 2016, in a small town called Una in Gujarat. Four Dalit men were skinning a dead cow, their traditional, caste-assigned occupation, when a group of self-declared cow vigilantes accused them of killing it. The men were stripped, tied to a car, and beaten in public with sticks and iron rods while onlookers filmed it. The video spread within hours.

It wasn’t the usual cycle of outrage, sympathy, silence. Thousands of Dalits marched across Gujarat. Tens of thousands eventually joined what came to be called the Dalit Asmita Yatra, the Dalit Pride March. And at the end of it, they didn’t ask to be pitied. They pledged: they would stop removing dead cattle from upper-caste villages altogether. Let the carcasses lie where they fell if no one else would touch them.

That was a refusal. And refusal is harder to watch because it changes the position of the person watching. An entire social order had quietly depended on their silence and that silence had run out.

The instinct to prefer sorrow over refusal has a longer history.

In the 1870s, Jyotirao Phule’s Gulamgiri was asking why a system of oppression had been built in the first place. Later, Dalit writers and theorists would continue to challenge the expectation that Dalit lives should appear on the page primarily through suffering.

The same discomfort appears in the Marathi film Fandry. Jabya, the protagonist, spends the story being humiliated, and the audience is given every reason to feel for him. Then, in the final shot, he picks up a stone and throws it straight at the camera- straight at the viewer. He is no longer simply someone to pity; he is someone looking back. It is harder to sit with than anything that came before it.

That moment matters because the viewer can no longer remain comfortably outside the scene. The stone crosses the invisible distance between the character and the audience.

None of this makes Dalit anger the “right” emotion, any more than suffering ever was. The ask is simple: let people be whatever they actually are, on the page and off it. Let them suffer if that’s true. Let them refuse, the way Una refused, if that’s true too. Nobody should have to stay pitiable to be taken seriously.

Maybe that’s the real thing being asked of all of us: not compassion, which is easy to hand out and feel good about, but the willingness to face Dalit anger without demanding that it make us comfortable. Some voices were never meant to comfort us. They were meant to make us listen.

(The author is a postgraduate student of English Literature with interests in Dalit studies, South Asian Literature, media, cultural identity and representation based in Bengaluru.)

Related:

Thirty years on, justice remains elusive for Dalits in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana

Dalit Justice Demanded: CJP exposes 30 brutal anti-Dalits atrocities, urges NCSC to confront nationwide caste violence under Article 338

No to Dalits who are Christian, Muslim, how the AP HC limits its understanding of caste and faith

The post Outside the World, Outside the Page: Why We Are More Receptive to Dalit Suffering than Dalit Anger appeared first on SabrangIndia.