The gun-wielding terrorists and conspirators who assassinated Gandhiji not only shared the ideological world-view of the Hindu Mahasabha (HMS),  led by VD Savarkar and the RSS’ own brand of Hindu nationalism but were also closely connected with these organisations. Instead of being ashamed of such this heinous crime, the inheritors of this worldview resort to lies —the pot calling the kettle black!

Let us compare the RSS’ claim of innocence in Gandhiji’s assassination with the views of the first home minister and deputy Prime Minister (PM) of Independent India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on the perpetrators of this crime. It needs no reminding that Sardar continues to be a favourite of both the RSS and the present prime minister, Narendra Modi. Modi got Patel’s statue erected in Gujarat, the tallest in the world. Modi did not ever think Gandhi befitting of such a monument. Though a vocal proponent of ‘atma-nirbhar Bharat’ (self-relying India, ‘Make in India’) Sardar Patel’s statue was moulded in an iron foundry of China!

Following is the compilation, in chronological order, of the communication between the Indian Home Ministry under Sardar Patel, to Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, Syama Prasad Mookerjee (the then head of Hindu Mahasabha) and MS Golwalkar (the then Supremo of the RSS) on and after Gandhiji’s assassination.

This chronological presentation clearly reveals how Sardar Patel developed his understanding (based on facts supplied by his officials) on the Role of the Organisations Involved/Responsible for Gandhiji’s Assassination:

(1) February 4, 1948, Government of India Communique Banning the RSS

The order banning the RSS issued by Sardar’s Home Ministry was unequivocal in holding the former responsible for terror activities.

It read:

“Undesirable and even dangerous activities have been carried on by members of the Sangh. It has been found that in several parts of the country individual members of the RSS have indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity, and murder and have collected illicit arms and ammunition. They have been found circulating leaflets exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods, to collect firearms, to create disaffection against the government and suborn the police and the military.”

[Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp. 65-66.]

(2) February 27, 1948: Sardar Patel letter to Prime Minister Nehru

In the early days of investigation when not all facts were known Sardar told Nehru:

“All the main accused have given long and detailed statements of their activities. In one case, the statement extends to ninety typed pages. From their statements, it is quite clear that no part of the conspiracy took place in Delhi…It also clearly emerges from these statements that the RSS was not involved at all. It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through. It also appears that the conspiracy was limited to some ten men, of whom all except two have been got hold of.” [Bold for emphasis]

The RSS and its supporters quote a part of the above letter, which read: “It also clearly emerges from these statements that the RSS was not involved at all” but hides the following text of the same letter, which is very significant. The letter continues:

“In the case of secret organisation like the RSS which has no records, registers, etc. securing of authentic information whether a particular individual is active worker or not is rendered a very difficult task.”

[Shankar, V., Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence 1945-50, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977, p. 283-85.]

How does one identify a member of the RSS?

Sardar Patel raised a highly significant question about knowing whether a criminal or terrorist is a member of RSS or not. Whenever a linkage between a criminal activity and RSS is exposed, the latter comes out with the patent answer that the criminal is not RSS member. How do we know it? Is there an authenticated list of RSS members, which can be perused for such an investigation by the State? If it is not there, how RSS can file cases against those who find RSS members indulging in the assassinations and terrorist activities.  In such cases, the police and judiciary should demand from RSS proof that such persons were not its members.

(3) July 18, 1948: Sardar Patel’s letter to Shyama Prasad Mookerjee

As investigation progressed, Sardar found that Hindu Mahasabha and RSS were jointly responsible for the murder of Gandhiji, which was corroborated by him in a letter to a prominent leader of Hindu Mahasabha, Syama Prasad Mookerjee. On July 18, 1948, Sardar wrote:

“As regards the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, the case relating to Gandhiji’s murder is sub judice and I should not like to say anything about the participation of the two organisations, but our reports do confirm that, as a result of the activities of these two bodies, particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in the conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of Government and the State. Our reports show that those activities, despite the ban, have not died down. Indeed, as time has marched on, the RSS circles are becoming more defiant and are indulging in their subversive activities in an increasing measure. ”

[Letter 64 in Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence1945-1950, volume 2, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977, pp. 276-77.]

(4) September 19, 1948: sardar Patel letter to MS Golwalkar, RSS Sarsanghchalak

By September 19 (1948), exactly 214 days after the murder of Gandhiji when Sardar wrote this letter, the role of the organisations in the assassination of Gandhiji was clearer to him. Without mincing words, he told Golwalkar:

“Organising the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing…Apart from this, their opposition to the Congress,that too of such virulence, disregarding all considerations of personality, decency or decorum, created a kind of unrest among the people. All their speeches were full of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of the sympathy of the Government, or of the people, no more remained for the RSS. In fact opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death. Under these conditions it became inevitable for the Government to take action against the RSS…Since then, over six months have elapsed. We had hoped that after this lapse of time, with full and proper consideration the RSS persons would come to the right path.” But from the reports that come to me, it is evident that attempts to put fresh life into their same old activities are afoot.”

[Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp. 26-28.]

Do we need more proof to prove the RSS involvement in the murder of Gandhiji?

Another contemporary, a senior member of the Indian Civil Service (ICS)–predecessor of IAS– who was the first home secretary of Uttar Pradesh corroborated the fact that RSS was involved in this anti-national heinous crime. According to him:

“Came January 30, 1948 when the Mahatma, that supreme apostle of peace, felt to a bullet fired by an RSS fanatic. The tragic episode left me sick at heart.”

[Rajeshwar Dayal, A Life of Our Times, Orient Longman, 94.]

Hatred for Gandhiji is a fundamental element in the Hindutva-RSS discourse

The RSS’ hatred for Gandhi is as old as the formation of the RSS itself. Dr K.B. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, was a Congress leader but parted company with the latter in 1925. After meeting the Hindutva icon V.D. Savarkar, he realised that Gandhi was the biggest hurdle in the Hindutva project of organising Hindus separately. According to an RSS publication, since Gandhi worked for Hindu-Muslim unity,

“Doctorji sensed danger in that move. In fact, he did not even relish the new-fangled slogan of ‘Hindu-Muslim unity”. Another RSS publication corroborates the fact that the main reason behind Hedgewar’s parting with the Congress and formation of the RSS was because the “Congress believed in Hindu-Muslim unity”.

[Seshadri, H.V. (ed.), Dr Hedgewar, the Epoch-Maker: A Biography, p. 61. & Pingle, H.V. (ed.), Smritikan: Parm Pujiye Dr Hedgewar ke Jeevan kee Vibhinn Ghatnaon kaa Sankalan, p. 93.]

The RSS launched its English organ, Organiser, in July 1947 and a perusal of its issues until the murder of Gandhi on January 30, 1948 shows a flood of articles and sketches full of hatred for Gandhiji. The RSS seemed to be competing with the Hindu Mahasabha leader, Savarkar, and the Muslim League English organ, The Dawn, in denigrating Gandhi.

Modi as Chief Minister, Gujarat sent congratulatory messages to Janajagruti Hindu Samiti, Goa Conference held with the Objective of turning India into a Hindu State. The Conference celebrated ‘Vadh’ –Killing of Gandhiji.

Modi was in Goa in June 2013 for the BJP executive committee meeting. He as Gujarat CM sent a message to the ‘All India Hindu Convention for Establishment of Hindu Nation’ organized by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) at Goa from June 7. Modi’s message lauding the conference for establishing a Hindu nation read:

“It is our tradition to remain alert and raise a voice against persecution…Only by protecting our culture, can the flag of ‘dharma’ and unity be kept intact. Organisations inspired by nationalism, patriotism and devotion for the Nation are true manifestations of people’s power.”

[ORIGINAL LETTER REPRODUCED AT THE END]

On the third day from the same podium in this convention from where Modi’s felicitation message was read, one of the prominent speakers, K.V. Sitaramiah, a seasoned RSS cadre declared that Gandhi was ‘terrible, wicked and most sinful’. Rejoicing the killing of M.K. Gandhi, he went on to declare,

“As Bhagwan Shri Krishna said in the Gita, Paritranaya SadhunamVinashaya Cha Dushkritam/ DharamasansthapnayaSambhavamiYuge-Yuge (For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age) On…30th January 1948 evening, Shriram came in the form of Nathuram Godse and ended the life of Gandhi.”

[ORIGINAL DOCUMENT REPRODUCED AT THE END]

It is to be noted that K.V. Sitaramaiah has also authored two books titled ‘Gandhi was Dharma Drohi [anti-religion] and Desa Drohi [anti-religion]’ and ‘Gandhi was Murderer of Gandhi’ in which the back cover text of the first book, quoting from the epic Mahabharat, demands “Dharma Drohis must be killed“, “Not killing the deserved to be killed is great sin” and “where the members of Parliament seeing clearly allow to kill Dharma & truth as untruth, those members will be called dead“.

The death-knell of democratic-secular India, established after a rigorous and robust freedom struggle, is to be ruled by those very forces that militate against inclusive nationalism, values that Gandhiji lived, and eventually died for. The forces that rule today were born out of a hatred for him, many played a lead role in Gandhiji’s assassination and continue to celebrate his ‘vadh’; sacrifice done for a good cause.

Let us take a firm vow on the 78^th martyrdom anniversary of Gandhiji. That all of us will rise up to challenge this Hindutva juggernaut.

January 30, 2026

Documentary Evidence

Before Gandhi’s assassination, Hindutva organizations, in their publications, especially through cartoons, portrayed him as anti-Hindu and a stooge of Muslims. This created an atmosphere of hatred and violence against him, a fact Sardar Patel also mentioned in his letter mentioned above. Some examples of these cartoons:

Related:

Busted: ‘Hindu’ Narratives of Desecration of Somnath, Buddhist & Jain Temples in India

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

On the 50th anniversary of India’s formal ‘Emergency’, how the RSS betrayed the anti-emergency struggle

The post 78th Martyrdom Anniversary of Gandhi & Identity of his Assassins: Sardar Patel appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dr Patil was questioned on January 21, 2026 for six hours and this was the third time that he was being interrogated by the authorities after being suddenly and summarily detained on his arrival from the United Kingdom (UK) on January 10, 2026 while on a visit to his family in Erandol, Maharashtra.

He had first been summoned for interrogation on January 16. He participated in the questioning and while, on the same day, he formally requested and appealed for the withdrawal of the LOC, as he was scheduled to return to the United Kingdom on 19 January there was no clear response from the authorities. Thereafter when he arrived at the airport on the scheduled date of departure, he was informed that the LOC had not been quashed. Notably, no prior intimation regarding the continuation of the LOC was provided to him. Dr Patil was accompanied by his wife on his trip to India.

Besides Dr Patil has stated that he has incurred financial loss as he missed his flight and the opportunity cost of working at his destination workplace. The continuation of LOC is a continuation of harassment by way of using the procedure as punishment. In any case, the FIR that has sought to be quashed, the Petition states, “an instance of misuse of criminal law to achieve a political vendetta and suppress any kind of different political view or opinion.[Read more about this on our page]

Single Judge Bench Justice Ashwin Bhobe is hearing Patil’s petition which sought to quash the FIR and cancel the LOC. The next hearing is posted on February 4. Senior Adv Sudeep Pasbola is appearing for the petitioner while Adv general Milind Sathe is appearing for the state.

Details of his detention and the FIR against him including his petition in the High Court challenging both the LOC and FIR may be read here.

Legal Analysis of the case

Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita under which the FIR has been registered provides that:

“Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

For the offence under Section 353(2) to be made out, the following elements must be established:

A] Publication or circulation of false or alarming information

B] Intent or likelihood to promote enmity or hatred;

C] Such enmity must be between identifiable groups based on religion, caste, language, race, or community

Since the original social media post is presently inaccessible, it is not possible to make definitive contentions regarding its contents. The actions taken appear arbitrary and unjust.

This raises a crucial legal question: whether criticism of the existing government, in and of itself, can amount to the circulation of false information within the meaning of the applicable penal provision.

The FIR lodged against Dr. Sangram Patil alleges that his social media post had the potential to generate hatred and friction between individuals who support the BJP and those who do not. It is contended that the post was intended to promote enmity between persons holding differing political ideologies.

Such an allegation, however, raises a serious constitutional concern. Mere expression of political opinion, even if sharply critical, does not by itself amount to the promotion of enmity between legally recognisable groups as contemplated under the penal law. The expression of one’s opinion is protected as an essential facet of personal liberty and freedom of expression under Articles 19(1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The FIR alleges that Dr Patil made statements against current BJP leaders and attempted to create political friction through his Facebook post. It also vaguely alleges derogatory remarks against an unknown woman, though the content of such statements remains unavailable.

In the words of justice K Subba Rao himself in the judgement in the Satwant Singh case [Satwant Singh Sawhney vs Ramarathnam Assistant Passport Officer, Government Of India 1967 SCR (2)] case, “ personal liberty’ within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law.” [excerpt from Priya Parameshwaran Pillai vs Union Of India And Ors. on March 12, 2015]

The Constitution of India extends the protection of Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, to foreign nationals as well.

As affirmed in the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,1978 SCR [2]621, the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 is not confined to citizens alone but applies to all persons, subject only to a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law. “Freedom to go abroad incorporates the important function of an ultimum refunium liberatis when other basic freedoms are refused. Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents a basic human right of great significance. It is in fact incorporated as inalienable human right in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Spirit of Man is at the root of Art. 21 Absent liberty, other freedoms are frozen. Procedure which deals with the modalities of regulating, restricting or even rejecting a fundamental right falling within Article 21 has to be fair, not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate, not to subvert, the substantive right itself. Thus, understood, ‘procedure’ must rule out anything arbitrary, freakish or bizarre.’ (Para D, Page 336). What is fundamental is life and liberty. What is procedural is the manner of its exercise Fairness.

Dr. Sangram Patil’s prevention from returning to his home country amounts not only to a violation of his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also to a breach of Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which India is a signatory. India has supported the UDHR since its drafting and played a significant role in shaping its framework. The principles embodied in the UDHR are also reflected in, and have informed the interpretation of, the Constitution of India.

LOC stands for Lookout circular, it’s a document issued by the government as directive to immigration authorities to restrict and regulate physical movement of a person. This oft-used restrictive step in present times is not governed by any statutes but certain office memorandums which are released from time to time to lay down the rules concerning the same. The latest LOC Consolidated Guidelines were released in the 2021 Office Memorandum by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreign Division.

According to the Guidelines the recourse of LOC’s can be taken by investigating agencies in any cognizable offence under BNS or any other Penal Laws when the accused was deliberately evading arrest or may not be appearing in the trial court despite Non Bailable Warant(NWB) and other coercive measures and there was a likelihood that the accused leaving the country to evade arrest. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued it or can be rescinded by the trial court. The request for issuing an LOC must be invariably issued with the approval of Originating Agency of an officer not below the rank of –

1. Deputy Secretary to the Government of India; or
2. Joint Secretary in the State Government;or
3. District Magistrate of the Concerned District;or
4. Superitendent of Police of the District concerned;or
5. SP in CBI; or
6. Zonal Director of NCB;or
7. Deputy Commissioner;or
8. Assistant Director of Intelligence Bureau;or
9. Deputy Secretary of Research;or
10. SP of NIA;or
11. Chairman/ Managing Director / Chief Executive of PSU’s;or
12. Designated Officer of Interpol;or
13. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate;or

Several judgements, for instance(Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and vs The State Of Madras And Others 1960 AIR 1080) have laid down that any provisions which restraint upon on the liberty of locomotion must take into account processual provisions which accord with fair norms, free from extraneous pressure and, by and large, complying with natural justice. Unilateral arbitrariness, police dossiers, faceless affiants, behind-the-back materials oblique motives and the inscrutable face of an official sphinx do not fill the ‘fairness,’ bill.

The evaluation of fairness of the restrictions applied upon locomotion of a person are extremely important. The curbing of the right to travel which comes under right to life should not be arbitrary in the words of Justice PN Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi vs UOI 1978 SCR [2]621

                 “Hearing is obligatory-meaningful hearing, flexible and realistic, according to circumstances’ but not ritualistic and wooden. In exceptional cases and emergency situations, interim measures may be taken, to avoid the mischief of the passportee becoming an. escape before the hearing begins. “Bolt the stables after the horse has been stolen” is not a command of natural justice. But soon after the provisional seizure, a reasonable hearing must follow, to minimise procedural prejudice. And when a prompt final order is made against the applicant or passport holder the reasons must be disclosed to him almost invariably save in those dangerous cases, where irreparable injury will ensue to the State. A government which revels in secrecy in the field of people’s liberty not only acts against democratic decency but busies itself with its own burial. That is the writing on the wall if history were a teacher, memory our mentor and decline of liberty not our unwitting endeavour. Public power must rarely hide its heart in an open society and system. – maneka gandhi Like stated in miss pillai judgement ‘Espousing a cause of a particular section of people could not be considered as anti-national or creating disaffection amongst people at large.” (Para- B, Page 637).

Similarly, the Court, in Priya Parameshwaran Pillai vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 March, 2015 states that,

“Espousing a cause of a particular section of people could not be considered as anti

national or creating disaffection amongst people at large.”

Likewise, speaking against a particular ideology or leaders of a particular party cannot be the sole cause to detain anyone let alone detaining a foreign national, it can in no way be considered to be inciting hatred amongst people of different ideologies.”

The court in the Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621 case has observed that it was only exceptional cases that required the issuance of an LOC.

“Spies, traitors, smugglers, saboteurs of the health, wealth and survival or sovereignty of the nation shall not be passported into hostile soil to work their vicious plan fruitfully. But when applying the Passports Act, Over-breadth, hyper-anxiety, regimentation complex, and political mistrust shall not sub-consciously exaggerate, into morbid or neurotic refusal or unlimited imponding or final revocation of passport, facts which, objectively assessed, may prove tremendous trifles. That is why the provisions have to be read down into constitutionality, tailored to fit the reasonableness test and humanised by natural justice. Whether the holder of the passport was heard ? A passport may be impounded without notice but before any final order is passed, the rule of audi alteram partem, would apply and the holder of the passport will have to be heard.

Maneka Gandhi vs UOI, 1978 SCR [2]621, Purtabpur v. Cane Commissioner, Bihar [1969] 2 SCR 807 and Schmidt v. Secretary of State, Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch. 149 referred to in that case.

Recently Justice N Seshasayee of Madras High Court observed that Look Out Circulars should not end up violating a person’s fundamental right to grow and prosper.

Conclusion

The detention of Dr. Sangram Patil raises grave and interlinked legal concerns, including the questionable invocation of Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, the curtailment of his right to travel abroad/or back to his home country, serious procedural irregularities, violations of the principles of natural justice, and non-compliance with India’s international consular obligations toward a foreign national. Taken together, these actions point to a disturbing departure from constitutionally mandated standards of fairness, proportionality, and due process.

At its core, this case exemplifies a troubling trend of criminal law and executive mechanisms being deployed in response to political expression, rather than to address any demonstrable threat to public order or national security. The continued restraint on Dr. Patil’s liberty, despite cooperation with the authorities and the absence of transparent justification,underscores the urgent need for strict judicial scrutiny. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the exercise of state power, particularly where personal liberty is at stake, must remain accountable, reasoned, and firmly tethered to constitutional principles.

As stated by judges in the Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621

“In Many countries the passport and visa system has been used as a potent paper curtain to inhibit illustrious writers, outstanding statesmen, humanist churchmen and renowned scientists, if they are dissenters, from leaving their national frontiers. Things have changed, global awareness has dawned. The European Convention on Human Rights and bilateral understandings have made headway to widen freedom of travel abroad as integral to liberty of the person. And the universal Declaration of Human Rights has proclaimed in Article 13,”that every one has the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country.” (Para D, Page 717)

Lord Denning, on the theme of liberty, observed in [Schmidt v. Secretary of State, Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch. 149 referred to]”

“Where a public officer has power to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is that it is not to be done without hearing.

It is a mark of interpretative respect for the higher norms our founding fathers held dear in affecting the dearest rights of life and liberty so to read Art. 21 as to result in a human order lined with human justice. And running right through Arts. 19 and 14 present this principle of reasonable procedure in different shades. A certain normative harmony among the articles is thus attained, and holds Art. 21 bears in its bosom the construction of fair procedure legislatively sanctioned. No Passport Officer shall be mini-Caesar nor Minister incarnate Caesar in a system where the rule of law reigns supreme.”

“Establishment and passport legislation must take processual provisions which accord with fair norms, free from extraneous pressure and, by and large, complying with natural justice. Unilateral arbitrariness, police dossiers, faceless affiants, behind-the-back materials, oblique motives and the inscrutable face of an official sphinx do not fill the ‘fairness’ bill-subject, of course, to just exceptions an

to just exceptions and critical contexts. This minimum once abandoned, the Police State slowly builds up which saps the finer substance of our constitutional jurisprudence. Not party but principle and policy are the key-stone of our Republic.”

(Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621) (Para B, Page 726)

Freedom to air one’s views is the lifeline of any democracy and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death-knell to its fundamentals. It cannot be gainsaid that modern communication media advance public interest by informing the public of events and developments that take place. Free and critical expression educates citizens, a crucial component of a functional democracy. A citizen who enjoys the fundamentals of free expression also enjoys the right for the free and open propagation of his or her ideas, a right to publicise these in periodicals, magazines and journals or through the electronic media. Any such attempt to thwart or deny the same gravely offends Article 19 (1) (a).

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Natasha Darade)

Related:

Bombay HC: Notice to Maharashtra state, police on UK doctor, Sangram Patil’s petition seeking quashing of LOC & FIR | SabrangIndia

Dr Sangram Patil detained by Mumbai Crime Branch, move sharply condemned | SabrangIndia

Priya Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India and Others | CJP

CJP & PUCL, M’tra release a Citizens Human Rights Manifesto for India 2024, demand a free and just India for all | CJP

Kalicharan delivered speech espousing a hard, right-wing, exclusionist ideology in Maharashtra, CJP urges Maha Police to take action | CJP

UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos | SabrangIndia

The post British Citizen of Indian Origin detained in India: A Legal Analysis of Dr Sangram Patil’s Detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When the Court sought the stand of the petitioner, the request was strongly opposed by Advocate Dr. Ujjwalkumar Chavhan, appearing for the petitioner, Dr. Sangram Patil, a UK-based doctor and YouTuber. Counsel submitted that the petitioner continues to be illegally restrained within India due to a Look Out Circular (LOC) that remains in force, despite no final adjudication on its legality. He further pointed out that during the previous hearing, the February 4 date had been fixed after confirming the availability and convenience of the Advocate General, Mr. Sathe, yet the State had failed to file its reply till date.

Emphasising the grave consequences of delay, Dr. Chavhan informed the Court that the petitioner is an MD in Anaesthetics and is employed in the United Kingdom, and that prolonged pendency of the matter is jeopardising his professional career and livelihood. He argued that continuing to restrain the petitioner’s travel without timely hearing effectively amounts to turning the legal process itself into punishment, a practice that runs contrary to established principles of criminal jurisprudence. In view of these submissions, he urged the Court not to entertain any further adjournment.

Accepting the objections raised by the petitioner, the Bombay High Court rejected the State’s request for adjournment, directing that the matter proceed as scheduled.

The case arises from an FIR registered against Patil at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai, based on a complaint filed by Nikhil Bhamre, head of the BJP’s Media Cell. The FIR, lodged on December 18, 2025, alleges that Patil shared or amplified “objectionable” content on social media that amounted to “disinformation” against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its senior leaders. The content was allegedly hosted on a Facebook page titled “Shehar Vikas Aghadi.”

Based on the complaint, police invoked Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), which penalises acts intended to spread false information so as to incite enmity between groups. The offence is classified as non-bailable.

Patil, a British national of Indian origin, had travelled to Mumbai from London on January 10, where he was detained by Mumbai Police upon arrival at the international airport. Subsequently, on January 19, immigration authorities prevented him from boarding a return flight to the UK, citing the existence of a Look Out Circular. He was eventually permitted to record his statement before the police on January 21, but continues to remain in India due to the travel restrictions.

On January 22, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Ashwin Bhobe, issued notice to the State of Maharashtra on Patil’s plea challenging both the FIR and the LOC. The Court directed the State to file its reply by the next date of hearing.

Patil has approached the High Court through Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, seeking quashing of the FIR and the Look Out Circular. He has also prayed for interim relief, urging the Court to stay the investigation and restrain the prosecution from taking any coercive steps, including filing a chargesheet, until further orders. Additionally, Patil has sought permission to travel back to the United Kingdom, where he is employed.

The matter is scheduled to be taken up next on February 4, with the High Court having made it clear that no further delay will be entertained.

Related:

Bombay HC: Notice to Maharashtra state, police on UK doctor, Sangram Patil’s petition seeking quashing of LOC & FIR

Dr Sangram Patil detained by Mumbai Crime Branch, move sharply condemned

When Genocide is provoked from the Stage: Raebareli hate speeches, Bhagalpur dog whistles, and a delayed FIR

From Purola to Nainital: APCR report details pattern of communal violence in Uttarakhand

The post Bombay High Court rejects State’s adjournment plea in Sangram Patil case; hearing to proceed on February 4 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Draft Electoral Roll, released on December 16, 2025, revealed the scale of the disruption as over 58.2 lakh names were deleted and more than 1 crore voters flagged for verification, including more than 31 lakh “unmapped” entries that do not link to the 2002 baseline. Citizens have been asked to justify age gaps, parental details, and other historical data, effectively shifting the burden of proof onto individuals and forcing them to produce decade-old documentation.

Challenged in the Supreme Court under Mostari Banu vs Election Commission of India [W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025], the process has been criticised as arbitrary, opaque, and burdensome. On January 19, 2026, the Court has already intervened, directing the ECI to ensure transparency: publish lists of excluded categories at local offices, allow authorised agents to submit documents on behalf of voters, and minimise travel and inconvenience.

Professor Amartya Sen: a noble laureate received SIR notice

One of the most discussed cases was the notice issued to the noble laureate Professor Amartya Sen at his Santiniketan residence in Bolpur. The official notice, written in Bengali, stated that “the age difference between you and your parents is less than 15 years, which is not generally expected and this needs to be clarified,” and directed him to appear for a hearing on January 16 at 12 PM at his Bolpur residence with the “original documents prescribed by the Election Commission of India.”

SIR Notice issued to Prof. Amartya Sen

For Sen, who is in his 90’s and globally recognised for his academic work, the matter drew immediate public attention. All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC) questioned the logic behind the notice to Amartya Sen.

On January 7, the party posted on X that “A Nobel laureate should be above any suspicion, right? But what if he’s a Bengali? Then he’ll be slapped with hearing notices as if he were some common criminal. Amartya Sen, whose ground-breaking works form the bedrock of modern economics, who has brought unparalleled glory to Bengal and the entire nation, and whose ideas are studied in universities across the world, has been issued a SIR hearing notice.”

TMC further added that “This is the cynical, shameful farce of @BJP4India and  @ECISVEEP‘s SIR process. They will drag our icons through the mud, tarnish our pride, and stoop to any low if it serves their Bangla-Birodhi agenda of division and degradation.”

Sen would not need to appear for the hearing: ECI

However, days later, the Election Commission clarified that the case involved minor spelling errors and that Sen would not need to appear for the hearing. Officials added that such discrepancies could be corrected locally by Booth Level Officers without summoning the voter and that the issue had “no bearing on eligibility”, as The Hindu reported.

Unjust to voters and unfair to Indian democracy: Amartya Sen

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has expressed concern over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, saying the exercise is “being done in a hurry” and risks becoming “unjust to voters” ahead of the state assembly elections. According to the Times of India, Sen said that while revising rolls can strengthen democracy, “a thorough review done carefully with adequate time can be a good democratic procedure, but this is not what is happening in West Bengal at this time.”

He added that the SIR gives “inadequate time” for citizens to submit documents and that this is “both unfair to the electorate and unfair to Indian democracy.” Recalling his own case, Sen noted he was questioned about his right to vote from Santiniketan and highlighted documentation challenges, saying, “Like many Indian citizens born in rural India, I do not have a birth certificate.” He warned the poor and underprivileged are most at risk of exclusion.

“Unjust to voters and unfair to Indian democracy.”

After the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Nobel Laureate and eminent public intellectual Amartya Sen has now condemned the SIR process, flagging the UNDUE HASTE with which it is being bulldozed, denying rightful voters the time and… pic.twitter.com/QfG2tMlkaZ

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) January 25, 2026

Admiral Arun Prakash: when the ECI summons a war hero

Former Navy Chief Admiral Arun Prakash, a 1971 war veteran and Vir Chakra recipient, received an SIR notice in Goa. His enumeration form did not include EPIC numbers, roll details, or constituency information, leaving him classified as “unmapped.”

The Election Commission said notices were system-generated and that the process applied uniformly to all citizens. Prakash’s case highlighted that even individuals with notable public service records are included in automated verification if documentation is incomplete.

The #ElectionCommissionofIndia has issued a notice to former chief of #navalstaff Admiral Arun Prakash, asking him to attend a meeting to establish his identity as part of the ongoing #SpecialIntensiveRevision (SIR) of #electoralrolls.
https://t.co/pywWO07xyc

— Deccan Herald (@DeccanHerald) January 12, 2026

SIR notice to Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami

Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami was also summoned for an SIR hearing in Kolkata’s Rashbehari constituency after officials flagged discrepancies in his voter enumeration form. At the time, Shami was in Rajkot representing Bengal in the Vijay Hazare Trophy, prompting him to seek a fresh date on account of his sporting commitments. The Election Commission of India rescheduled the hearing between January 9 and 11, with officials terming the process a “routine verification” necessitated because the form had been “incorrectly filled out.”

However, after appearing for the hearing, the India fast bowler said that, “I am a proud Indian and Bengal citizen. If called 10 times, I will come and prove my citizenship on every single occasion.”

#CricketWIthTOI | “I am a proud Indian and #Bengal citizen. If called 10 times, I will come and prove my citizenship on every single occasion,” said Indian fast bowler #MdShami, who has 462 wickets across formats, after appearing for an SIR hearing on Tuesday to protect his vote.… pic.twitter.com/94YsaMy4OR

— The Times Of India (@timesofindia) January 21, 2026

ECI targeting citizens of West Bengal through SIR: TMC

Moreover, on January 6, TMC general secretary Abhishek Banerjee accused the BJP-led Centre and the Election Commission of jointly “insulting the people of Bengal” and targeting the state ahead of the assembly elections.

Addressing a rally in Rampurhat, Banerjee claimed that Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen had been served an SIR hearing notice and urged party workers to “un-map the BJP from Bengal,” setting a target of winning 250 of the state’s 294 seats. “Many eminent people like actor Dev and cricketer Md Shami were also served notices,” he said, arguing that the exercise reflected a “Bangla-Birodhi” mindset.

Deepak Adhikari aka Dev

Actor and TMC Member of Parliament Deepak Adhikari, also known as Dev, received SIR notices for himself and his family members. TMC councillor Moushumi Das described the notices as unnecessary, noting that a three-term MP was being treated like any other citizen for verification purposes. TMC spokespersons also criticised the process as burdensome rather than corrective.

However, Dev did not make any public statement regarding the notice, as the Indian Express reported.

SIR Notice to Joy Goswami, a Sahitya Akademi Award recipient

Poet Joy Goswami, a Sahitya Akademi Award recipient, was unable to attend his SIR hearing on January 2 due to recent surgeries. His daughter, Devarti Goswami, confirmed that both she and her father had submitted their voter enumeration forms on time. Despite this, both were flagged as “unmapped” because their names did not appear in the 2002 voter rolls, as reported by the Times of India.

The Election Commission later contacted the Goswami family, stating that their case could be resolved without requiring the poet to appear in person. Reports from other districts noted that some elderly voters had experienced health problems while attending hearings.

Education minister Bratya Basu has strongly condemned the action and said that “This only goes on to expose BJP’s views of Bengal and its culture. Joy-da was recently hospitalised and I paid a visit to him there. If Joy Goswami can be called for a hearing, I fear Tagore too would have got call for a hearing had he been alive now. This call is an expression of the respect BJP has for Bengal and Bengalis. Joy-da is an Indian. He is a poet. He has migrated from Ranaghat to Kolkata some 40 years ago and has been a legitimate voter. I am not even talking about literary prowess. If BJP and EC can do this to Joy-da, any person can be called and told ‘ghus petiya’.”

West Bengal State Minister Shashi Panja receives SIR notice

West Bengal state minister Shashi Panja received an SIR notice despite her name appearing in the 2002 voter list. Panja said she had submitted all required documents but was still marked as “unmapped,” and described the process as “conducted in haste and without adequate preparation.”

According to the Telegraph India, Panja stated that she would attend the hearing like any other voter and did not request any special privileges as a minister. The Election Commission included her as part of the general process, which applied to all citizens flagged for verification.

Actor Anirban Bhattacharya

Actor Anirban Bhattacharya received a notice after his voter registration could not be linked to the 2002 rolls. Born in 1986, Bhattacharya currently lives in Kolkata but remains registered in Midnapore. His parents and grandparents were also absent from the 2002 voter list, complicating verification. His father passed away in mid-2025, adding to the challenge of retrospective documentation.

Under the pretext of SIR hearings, ECI is harassing ordinary people, and even eminent personalities of Bengal: Mamata Banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee criticised the SIR process, stating that Under the pretext of SIR hearings, the Commission is harassing ordinary people, and even eminent personalities of Bengal such as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, poet Joy Goswami, and actor Dev are facing the same ordeal.

In most cases, it is women whose names are being removed in greater numbers. Notices are being issued in the name of “logistical discrepancy” without providing complete information, TMC alleged.

Under the pretext of SIR hearings, the Commission is harassing ordinary people, and even eminent personalities of Bengal such as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, poet Joy Goswami, and actor Dev are facing the same ordeal.

In most cases, it is women whose names are being removed in… pic.twitter.com/NucTMvWICR

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) January 8, 2026

Related:

SIR 2025 in Bengal: 5 Key Takeaways That Strike at BJP’s ‘Infiltration’ Bogey

West Bengal Draft Electoral List: Over 58 lakh names deleted under SIR exercise, urban seats & Hindi speakers see higher voter deletions

ECI’s announced nationwide SIR, will cover 12 States and UTs with a reduced documentary burden

The post SIR Notices in Spotlight: from Amartya Sen, war vetereran Arun Prakash to Mohammed Shami summoned for SIR hearing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I. Mustafa Azemmouri and the Earliest Muslim Presence in America

One of the earliest known Muslims to set foot on what is now United States soil was Mustafa Azemmouri, known in Spanish records as Estebanico. Born in Morocco, Azemmouri was enslaved by Portuguese traders, sold in Spain, and forced to join the ill-fated Narváez expedition. In 1528, the expedition landed in present-day western Florida.¹ Unlike most of his European companions, Azemmouri survived years of shipwreck, starvation, and hostile terrain. He later emerged as an indispensable member of the expedition, traversing vast regions of what are now Arizona and New Mexico.² Contemporary accounts describe him as a gifted linguist, a master of sign language, a healer trusted by Indigenous communities, and a man skilled in navigation and the use of the astrolabe.³ His presence alone disrupts conventional timelines of American exploration, demonstrating that Muslims were present in North America nearly a century before permanent English settlement.

II. West Africa, Islam, and the Slave Trade

The majority of enslaved Africans transported to the Americas originated from West Africa—a region that, by the late medieval period, had undergone extensive Islamization. Understanding American Muslim heritage therefore requires engagement with the intellectual and institutional history of West Africa itself.

Mosques as Centers of Knowledge

In much of the contemporary Muslim world, mosques primarily function as spaces for ritual prayer and as intellectual echo chambers where inherited interpretations are repeated without sustained critical engagement. This represents a sharp departure from the mosque’s original civilizational role. In the premodern Muslim world, mosques were the nerve centers of intellectual life—universities in the fullest sense. Within mosque complexes, scholars debated theology, jurisprudence, philosophy, logic, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and the natural sciences. Fundamental cosmological questions—such as whether the universe was created in time or eternal—were openly contested.⁴ Instruction took place in open teaching circles (ḥalaqāt), where students were encouraged to question, challenge and refine ideas. Advanced students—what might today be called graduate scholars—then carried this knowledge across Africa, the Mediterranean, and beyond.

These mosque-based institutions created what has been described as “a civilization of international encyclopedic magnitude.” Harvard historian George Sarton famously observed that medieval Muslim civilization achieved a level of encyclopedic knowledge unmatched in its time, noting that: “Briefest enumeration of the Arabic contributions to knowledge would be too long to be inserted here…The creation of a new civilization of international and encyclopaedic magnitude within less than two centuries is something that we describe, but cannot explain…Indeed the superiority of Muslim culture, say in the eleventh century, was so great that we can understand their intellectual pride. It is easy to imagine their doctors speaking of western barbarians almost in the same spirit as ours do of the ‘Orientals.’ If there had been some ferocious eugenists among the Moslems the might have suggested some means breeding out all the western Christians and Greeks because of their hopeless backwardness.” 5

Timbuktu and Sankoré University in Colonial Times

One of the most striking embodiments of this tradition was the Sankoré Mosque and other mosques in Timbuktu. By the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Sankoré functioned as a fully developed university supported by charitable endowments. Thousands of students studied there, and its scholars attracted audiences from across North and West Africa.⁶ As documented in Tārīkh al-Sudān and modern scholarship by Ousmane Kane and Nehemia Levtzion, Timbuktu housed libraries, produced original scholarship, and operated within a vast transregional intellectual network.⁷ These institutions flourished centuries before any comparable centers of higher learning existed in colonial North America.

There were many other mosques across West Africa that functioned in similar ways as centers of higher learning. West Africa was therefore not “uncivilized” in the colonial era; it possessed highly developed educational institutions and scholarly networks that long predated—and in many cases surpassed—what existed in colonial North America.

III. Who Were the Enslaved Africans?

The transatlantic slave trade forcibly relocated not only agricultural laborers but also scholars, engineers, jurists, veterinarians, and pastoral experts from Muslim West Africa. Evidence from slave narratives, court records, and archival documents confirms the presence of enslaved Muslim intellectuals and learned elites in the Americas. Prominent examples include Ayuba Suleiman Diallo (Job ben Solomon), who came from a distinguished family of Islamic scholars in Senegambia, and Ibrahim Abd al-Rahman, a Fulbe nobleman and Islamic scholar from Futa Jallon (Guinea), captured in 1788—whose portrait is preserved in the Library of Congress.⁸ Drawing on demographic and cultural analysis, Michael A. Gomez estimates that approximately 50–55 percent of enslaved West Africans were Muslims, reflecting the religious composition of major source regions such as Senegambia and Futa Jallon.⁹ This figure may be conservative. As Daniel C. Littlefield and other historians note, colonial planters in the rice-producing Lowcountry of South Carolina and Georgia deliberately preferred captives from Gambia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and the broader Rice Coast due to their expertise in irrigation, dike construction, tidal rice cultivation, swamp ecology, cattle herding, and water management.¹⁰ Crucially, these regions—apart from Liberia—were overwhelmingly Muslim: The Gambia (~97%), Senegal (~95–97%), Guinea (~85%), and Sierra Leone (~77–78%), compared with Liberia (~12–13%). This demographic reality strengthens the likelihood that the proportion of Muslims among enslaved West Africans, particularly those assigned to plantation economies and cattle herding may have exceeded 55 percent during key periods.

IV. Agriculture, Rice Technology, and Early American Wealth

Between 1500 and 1800, agriculture formed the backbone of the American economy. European settlers, however, lacked expertise in tropical agriculture, irrigation engineering, and animal husbandry. These deficiencies were remedied through the forced labor and technical knowledge of West Africans. Rice Cultivation and Hydraulic Engineering Enslaved Africans introduced advanced rice-growing systems, including tidal rice fields, earthen dikes, and wooden rice trunks—hydraulic valves that regulated freshwater flow while preventing saltwater intrusion.¹⁰ These systems required sophisticated understanding of fluid dynamics, soil chemistry, and lunar tidal cycles. By the mid-eighteenth century, rice exports from South Carolina exceeded sixty million pounds annually, accounting for more than half of the colony’s export value and generating immense wealth.¹¹ Comparable hydraulic technologies had long existed across the Muslim world, as documented by Thomas Glick’s study of irrigation in medieval Valencia.¹²

V. Architecture, Veterinary Science, and Tabby Construction

In Georgia and Florida, many colonial structures were built using tabby—a durable composite of lime from burned oyster shells, sand, water, and ash. Scholars have traced tabby construction techniques to North and West African architectural traditions.¹³ On Sapelo Island, the enslaved Muslim Bilali Muhammad supervised construction using these methods yet received no legal recognition or credit for his expertise.¹⁴

VI. Cattle Herding and Animal Medicine

Pastoral societies of Muslim West Africa—including Tuareg-influenced regions linked to Timbuktu’s early history—possessed centuries of experience in cattle herding and veterinary science. Enslaved Africans were therefore deliberately selected for work as cowboys, cattle drivers, horse trainers, and dairy workers in South Carolina and Louisiana.¹⁵ Despite these contributions, an 1858 ruling by the U.S. Patent Office barred enslaved individuals from holding patents, ensuring that African intellectual property entered American development without attribution.¹⁶

VII. Muslims and the Founding of the United States

Muslims were not absent from early American political imagination. According to “The Papers of George Washington, Confederation Series, Vol. 1, p. 232,” “If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Muslims], Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.” There were two Muslim women at Mount Vernon of George Washington named Fathimier and Little Fathimier. Fathima. being the daughter of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). is popular name among Muslims. Thomas Jefferson, in explaining Virginia’s statute for religious freedom, explicitly affirmed protections for “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan [Muslim].”¹⁷ During the North Carolina ratifying convention, James Iredell acknowledged that Muslims could hold public office under the Constitution.¹⁸ Morocco became the first country to recognize the United States, maintaining diplomatic correspondence with George Washington. Jefferson later hosted an ifṭār dinner at the White House in 1808 for a Tunisian envoy, reflecting early American engagement with the Muslim world.¹⁹

VIII. Islam and the Abolition of Slavery

The Lincoln administration sought guidance from Tunisia, Muslim country, which abolished slavery in 1846—nearly two decades before the United States. The archives of Diplomatic correspondence records with the heading, “Papers presented to 39th Congress by President Lincoln,” has the reply the enquiry by Lincoln Administration on slavery. It states that the Tunisian ruler Ahmed Bey framing abolition as a moral imperative rooted in justice: “" Ahmed Bay Concluded: “It is my belief also that …There can be no permanent prosperity [for a nation] without justice, and justice results from freedom…since God has permitted you to enjoy full personal liberty and to manage your civil and political affairs yourselves, …it would not tarnish the luster of your crown to grant freedom to your slaves, … such civil rights are not to be denied to the humblest and meanest of your citizens.”²⁰

VIII. American Muslims in the Twenty-First Century

Today, American Muslims continue to shape national life. According to the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Muslims donate approximately $4.3 billion annually to charitable causes, with average household giving exceeding national norms.²¹ Muslims are disproportionately represented among physicians and dentists and contribute significantly to U.S. patent activity. American Muslims have also been recognized at the highest levels of scientific achievement, including Nobel Prizes awarded to Ahmed Zewail, Aziz Sancar, Moungi Bawendi, and Omar Yaghi.

Conclusion

Muslim presence in America predates the nation itself. More than half of enslaved West Africans were Muslims—educated, skilled, and embedded in sophisticated intellectual traditions. Their knowledge absorbed into America and generated early American wealth, shaped its infrastructure, and informed its moral discourse. Though their names were systematically erased, their legacy remains embedded in the foundations of the United States. American Muslim heritage is not peripheral to American history. It is constitutive of it.

…

FOOTNOTES

1. Andrés Reséndez, A Land So Strange: The Epic Journey of Cabeza de Vaca (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 34–36.
2. Ibid., 112–145.
3. Ibid., 178–181.
4. George Makdisi, The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981).
5. George Sarton, The History of Science and the New Humanism (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1956), 87–90.
6. Nehemia Levtzion, Ancient Ghana and Mali (London: Methuen, 1973), 137–145.
7. Al-Saʿdī, Tārīkh al-Sudān, trans. John O. Hunwick (London: Routledge, 2000); Ousmane Kane, Beyond Timbuktu: An Intellectual History of Muslim West Africa (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016).
8. Allan D. Austin, African Muslims in Antebellum America: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1997).
9. Michael A. Gomez, Black Crescent: The Experience and Legacy of African Muslims in the Americas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 62–70.
10. Daniel C. Littlefield, Rice and Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade in Colonial South Carolina (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981).
11. Ibid., 89–95.
12. Thomas F. Glick, Irrigation and Society in Medieval Valencia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970).
13. Littlefield, Rice and Slaves, 142–148.
14. Gomez, Black Crescent, 151–155.
15. Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, Africans in Colonial Louisiana: The Development of Afro-Creole Culture in the Eighteenth Century (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1992).
16. U.S. Patent Office, Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the Year 1858 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1859).
17. Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892), 1:66.
18. James Iredell, speech at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention, July 30, 1788.
19. White House Historical Association, “Thomas Jefferson’s Ramadan Dinner,” 2009.
20. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1865, pt. 3, doc. 318.
21. Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Amplifying Muslim American Generosity (2024).

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post American Muslim Heritage: Five Centuries of Muslim Life in America appeared first on SabrangIndia.

मुंबई के संजय गांधी नेशनल पार्क, बोरिवली में अवैध अतिक्रमण हटाने पहुंची वन विभाग और पुलिस की टीम पर स्थानीय निवासियों ने पथराव कर दिया, जिससे माहौल तनावपूर्ण हो गया। अदालत द्वारा गैर‑आदिवासी अतिक्रमण हटाने का आदेश दिए जाने के बाद जब कार्रवाई शुरू हुई, तो वहां रह रहे परिवारों ने… pic.twitter.com/RtxetyZZFV

— NDTV India (@ndtvindia) January 26, 2026

Meanwhile Anish Gavande, activist has, in an open lettrer to Ganesh Naik, Maharashtra Minister for Forests, appealed for the immediate halt in demolitions and protection of their life and property. This letter was made public at 6 p.m. on Monday, January 26. (NCPSP/NS/AG/27012026/001 Date: 27 January, 2026)

Quoting credible reports, Gavande states that “multiple Adivasi hamlets are facing demolition from January 19 this year without completed surveys, verified resident lists, or the lawful conclusion of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) process. Proceeding with evictions is a direct violation of Sections 4(1) and 4(5) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which explicitly prohibit eviction until all individual and community claims are verified through the Gram Sabhas. Eviction notices have been pasted late at night, with incorrect names and without field verification, denying residents a fair opportunity to seek legal remedy.”

Gavande also states that “equally concerning is the withdrawal of essential services. Electricity has been cut, BEST bus services suspended, and community facilities shut, with children being unable to attend school…..The justification that action is limited to so-called “re-encroachers” ignores the structural failure of rehabilitation. For Adivasi families whose livelihoods depend on land, livestock, and forest ecology, relocation to small SRA flats is neither viable nor lawful rehabilitation. This reality cannot be erased through administrative labelling. Conservation cannot be pursued by bypassing the law, particularly when large infrastructure projects continue within the same forest landscape.”

He has urged for the immediate halt all demolition activity, restore essential services, and ensure that no eviction proceeds until all FRA claims are lawfully settled through the Gram Sabha process. Failing timely intervention, affected communities and those supporting them will have no option but to intensify democratic protest and pursue all available legal and constitutional remedies.”

The letter may be seen here.

Finally the pressure worked and the demolitions were halted.

At 6.30 p.m. on January 27, IANS reported that Minister Ganesh Naik says, “The thing is that National Park is sensitive. Honorable High Court has ordered them to vacate the park. But still, without informing people it is not right to remove them. We have given houses to many people, but still they are not going. So, to find out whether it is true or false, a meeting is being held. I will inform you again after the meeting…”

Mumbai, Maharashtra: On Stone pelting situation in Borivali National Park Minister Ganesh Naik says, “The thing is that National Park is sensitive. Honorable High Court has ordered them to vacate the park. But still, without informing people it is not right to remove them. We… pic.twitter.com/k9yeJ6tYJJ

— IANS (@ians_india) January 27, 2026

Related:

Mumbai: Hundreds of people displaced after demolitions in Jai Bhim Nagar

Demolitions in Mumbai’s Behrampada before Eid

BJP MLA Nitesh Rane leads Hindutva Rally in Govandi, demands demolition of “illegal Masjids and Madrasa”

Govandi slum demolition: Temporary halt after protests outside BMC office by residents, those rendered homeless to rebuild their homes at the same site

The post Demolition of Adivasi homes at Sanjay Gandhi National Park on Republic Day appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Still, no case was registered.

An FIR was finally registered on Tuesday, January 27, but by the time the police acted, the damage had already been done—not just in words spoken, but in what the delay itself revealed.

Incidentally, “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide” is expressly prohibited by Article III(c) of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention and is punishable even if the genocide does not actually occur. Besides, incidentally, it is concerning that Indian authorities are so lax on such utterances when Genocide Watch has already adjudged India as an ‘enabler’ and in a report published in 2024 outlined how, in India all the early warning signs of a potential genocide of/against Muslims is present and that this threat must be addressed quickly and proactively. This report of Genocide Watch may be read here.

Five days earlier, according to the report of Siasat, at a public religious-political gathering in Shivgarh, Raebareli, speakers stood on a stage, before a cheering crowd, and openly called for mass violence against Muslims, invoking the logic, language, and memory of one of India’s most brutal communal massacres. They did not whisper. They did not speak in riddles. They asked for bloodshed, mocked past killings, and framed genocide as retaliation and “peace.”

Yet for days, the state remained silent.

It was only after a sustained social media campaign and repeated formal complaints by former student leader and journalist Prashant Kanojia—who meticulously documented the speeches, flagged their legal implications, and publicly questioned police inaction—that the Uttar Pradesh Police moved to register an FIR. The registration came three days after his initial complaint, and five days after the event itself.

A week after hate speeches targeting the Muslim community, UP police have finally registered an FIR against Daksh Chaudhary, Riddhima Sharma, Prakash Singh, Akku Pandit, Abhishek Thakur, Khushboo Pandey and others for inflammatory hate speech at Virat Hindu Sammelan in… pic.twitter.com/CrYCWPeU3j

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) January 27, 2026

The FIR, therefore, marks not swift law enforcement, but reluctant compliance—an action taken only after public scrutiny made continued inaction untenable.

This episode is not merely about one conference or a handful of speakers. It is about how calls for genocide are increasingly delivered from public stages, how historical massacres are resurrected as rallying cries, and how the constitutional promise of equal protection under law fractures when hate speech enjoys informal impunity.

What follows is a detailed account of what was said at the Raebareli conference, who said it, how the state responded, and why the delay itself demands as much scrutiny as the speeches that triggered it.

The Trigger: A call for a “15-minute bloodbath”

Videos from the event that later went viral show a woman speaker urging the crowd to allow “15 minutes” of unchecked violence, explicitly referencing the 1989 Bhagalpur riots, one of the deadliest communal massacres in post-Independence India. The implication was chillingly clear: that brief withdrawal of state restraint could once again result in mass killings without consequences.

These clips circulated widely online, drawing sharp condemnation—but initially, no police action followed.

What was said at the Virat Hindu Conference

Open calls for mass killing: As per the report of Siasat, at the centre of the controversy are speeches by Riddhima Sharma, a Hindutva social media influencer known as SanataniRiddhi, and Khushbu Pandey, also known as Hindu Sherni.

Riddhima Sharma referred to the December 2025 lynching of Bangladeshi Hindu Dipu Chandra Das and told the audience: “If they kill two of yours, you kill 100 people in retaliation for peace.”

She went further, invoking the conspiracy theory of “love jihad”, and urged: If they make one Hindu girl run away, then you should make 100 of their girls run away.”

She added that the Muslim population was already large, implying that reducing their numbers would not matter—a remark cited in complaints as an explicit endorsement of mass violence.

Glorification of Bhagalpur 1989: Khushbu Pandey revived the phrase “gobi farming,” a widely recognised dog whistle for the Bhagalpur riots of 1989, particularly the Logain massacre, where at least 116 Muslim men were killed and buried in fields where cauliflower saplings were planted to conceal the bodies.

Addressing the crowd, Pandey reportedly said that during Bhagalpur:

“The police stepped away for 15 minutes—and not a single body floating in the Ganga was of a Hindu.”

She laughed as the crowd cheered, later joking about planting “organic gobi” on Muslim graves—remarks widely seen as celebrating mass murder.

Location: Shivgarh, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh

(We kill them, bury them, and then grow cauliflower on top)

During a Virat Hindu Conference meeting, Khushboo Pandey, referencing the 1989 Bhagalpur massacre, requested 15 minutes to speak and called for the massacre of Muslims. pic.twitter.com/yOWXl9Vm1j

— The Muslim (@TheMuslim786) January 22, 2026

Targeting Christians and vigilante warnings: The hate speech was not limited to Muslims. Another speaker, Thakur Ram Singh, accused Christians of engaging in illegal forced conversions, portraying them as a community systematically taking over Hindu groups across India.

An unidentified speaker urged residents to remain vigilant in their neighbourhoods, warning them not to allow Hindu women or girls to be taken away by people labelled as “jihadis.”

Multiple speakers repeatedly emphasised the need to “protect” Hindu women, issuing thinly veiled threats of violence against Muslim men.

No immediate action—until the pressure built

Despite the gravity of the speeches and the circulation of video evidence, no immediate FIR was filed.

On January 23, former journalist Prashant Kanojia submitted a formal written complaint to the Raebareli Superintendent of Police, explicitly stating that Riddhima Sharma had openly called for the massacre of Muslims.

The complaint argued that:

• The speeches amounted to incitement to violence
• They disturbed communal harmony
• They posed a direct threat to public order
• Such rhetoric violated constitutional principles

Kanojia followed up multiple times over the next three days, while simultaneously running a public-facing social media campaign, documenting the delay, tagging authorities, and sharing video excerpts from the event.

FIR registered against Terrorist for calling open genocide of the Muslims. pic.twitter.com/A7gSLANzPp

— Prashant Kanojia (@KanojiaPJ) January 27, 2026

FIR registered—five days after the event

Only after three days of sustained follow-ups and five days after the conference itself, did the UP Police finally register an FIR at Shivgarh police station, on January 27.

As of now:

• No arrests have been made
• The FIR comes only after extensive public scrutiny
• The delay itself has raised serious questions about institutional reluctance to act against communal incitement

A pattern, not an isolated incident

Both Sharma and Pandey have a documented history of inflammatory conduct.

• Sharma recently uploaded a video harassing a Muslim temple employee, questioning why a Muslim had been hired.

Riddhima Sharma tries to threaten people accusing them of allowing Muslim near temple

A Hindu guy intervened & taught her a lesson saying “you people want Riot and Communal tension only,get out from here”

These sanghis are the real threat to Hinduismpic.twitter.com/WccjtbXlCC

— Nehr_who? (@Nher_who) January 27, 2026

• Pandey has previously led rallies calling for violence against Muslims, publicly asserting the “right to bear arms,” often under police escort, without any case being registered.

Hello @DelhiPolice why this lady Khusboo Pandey is roaming around free after such a hateful statements, which is directly incitement of violence.

Even Police is around her but she is perfectly fine spewing venom against Muslims?

pic.twitter.com/S0jyQQlFbn

— Prashant Kanojia (@KanojiaPJ) January 23, 2026

Hate monger Khushbu Pandey has been arrested by Bihar police for reciting Hanuman Chalisa in front of a mosque, disturbing communal harmony.

The search for other accused is ongoing; several people have been arrested so far.#ArrestKhusbuPandey pic.twitter.com/5zOV5EkRGO

— هارون خان (@iamharunkhan) February 18, 2025

• Both figures frequently appear alongside prominent political personalities and boast large online followings, amplifying the reach of their rhetoric.

Why this FIR matters

The FIR is not merely procedural—it is the result of pressure, not proactive policing.

The Raebareli incident underscores:

• How genocidal language is increasingly normalised in public forums
• How dog whistles referencing historical massacres are openly used
• How state response often follows outrage, not law
• How social media scrutiny has become a last resort for accountability

Whether this FIR leads to meaningful legal consequences remains to be seen. For now, it stands as a stark reminder that without public pressure, even the most explicit calls for mass violence can go unanswered.

Related:

From Purola to Nainital: APCR report details pattern of communal violence in Uttarakhand

Publicly Tortured, Forced to Eat Cow Dung: No arrests in Odisha Pastor assault case

Days After Muslim Properties Torched in Tripura, Opposition Parties Say Atmosphere of Fear Persists

Bihar under BJP: Hate attacks against Muslims spiral, one dies

The post When Genocide is provoked from the Stage: Raebareli hate speeches, Bhagalpur dog whistles, and a delayed FIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

रतलाम – प्रेम विवाह करने वाले परिवारों का बहिष्कार किया जाएगा,
ना दूध मिलेगा, ना किराना … गांव का कोई शख्स उस परिवार के कार्यक्रम में हिस्सा नहीं लेगा साथ देने वालों का भी सामाजिक बहिष्कार होगा. pic.twitter.com/MLhL30HMnt

— Anurag Dwary (@Anurag_Dwary) January 26, 2026

Reactions from other social media users were sharp: “The decision by a village in Ratlam to socially boycott families over love marriages is a blatant violation of individual autonomy and Constitutional rights. In a democratic society, the right to choose a life partner is a fundamental freedom. Enforcing ‘social excommunication’ by cutting off access to essential goods like milk and groceries is not just regressive; it is a form of harassment that should be met with strict legal intervention.”

Residents have claimed that the social boycott decision was taken after eight couples from the village eloped and got married in the past six months.

The said video showed a man announcing that young men and women who elope and marry for love as well as their families would be socially boycotted and not invited to any event. Even those helping such persons would face the same action, he further stated. Other action, as announced by the man in the video, will include denying employment to such couples as well as daily necessities like milk. The man in the video also announces that “priests, barbers and other service providers will not go to their houses”, and adds that “anyone who helps the couple, shelters them, acts as a witness to the marriage or supports them in any way will also be socially boycotted”.

Following up on reports in NDTV Hindi and the Tribune, quoted the Collector Misha Singh stating on Monday, Republic Day, that the people in the video had been identified and police had been asked to take action in this regard.  “Our probe has revealed the decision against love marriages was taken not by the Gram Sabha, but by the villagers themselves,” she added.

In addition, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural) Vivek Kumar Lal also told the media that these people are being “bound over” (making it legally binding on a person to maintain good conduct and not disturb peace). Further action would also be taken after a detailed investigation, Lal said.

The past six-eight years has seen a mounting hysteria on the issue of inter-community and inter-caste marriages, building up to such an irrational crescendo that, the most conservative and rigid societal tendencies are gaining strength, being emboldened by both this rhetoric and these laws. Nine states led by Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Odisha, Karnataka, Jharkand and Haryana already of these draconian, anti-freedom and anti-personal choice and autonomy laws, nullifying the impact of the existing Special Marriages Act, 1951.

A constitutional challenge to these state laws has been launched by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org.in) and is pending before the Supreme Court of India since 2020. The next hearing of the case is on Wednesday, January 28, 2026.

Related:

Haryana: “Upper castes” booked for social boycott of 150 Dalit families

Haryana govt denies social boycott of Dalits, SC takes tough stand

Triple Talaq Row: Social Boycott as Punishment Is Juvenile; AIMPLB Must Follow Quran and Accept Inevitability of Change

The post MP: Village in Ratlam gives call to ‘socially boycott’ families over love marriages appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Unlike 12 other states and Union Territories where the Election Commission of India (ECI) is conducting Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises, Assam is undergoing a Special Revision, as directed by the ECI on November 17, 2025, to the State’s Chief Electoral Officer.

As part of this exercise, door-to-door verification was conducted across Assam between November 22 and December 20, 2025. Crucially, unlike SIR, this process did not involve document verification.

According to ECI Letter No. 23/2025-ERS (Vol. II), the timeline for the revision is as follows:

• December 27, 2025: Publication of the integrated draft electoral rolls
• December 27, 2025 – January 22, 2026: Period for filing claims and objections
• By February 2, 2026: Disposal of claims and objections
• February 10, 2026: Final publication of electoral rolls

While officially framed as a routine electoral exercise, the SR has become deeply controversial due to the scale and nature of objections filed under Form-7, particularly against Bengali-speaking Muslims.

Allegations of targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims

Civil society groups including Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Banchana Birodhi Mancha, Forum for Social Harmony, Asom Mojuri Sramik Union, and the All Assam Minority Students Union, along with several opposition parties, have alleged that the SR is being misused to harass genuine Indian citizens, primarily Bengali-speaking Muslims, through mass and often false objections filed under Form-7.

Although the Assam Election Department issued a public advisory clarifying that filing a Form-7 objection does not automatically result in deletion of a voter’s name, and that every objection must go through field verification, notice to the voter, and an opportunity of hearing, organisations working on the ground insist that the process itself has become a tool of intimidation.

Despite procedural safeguards on paper, citizens report being summoned, questioned, and threatened with exclusion, leading to widespread fear and uncertainty.

Chief Minister’s remarks deepen the controversy

The situation escalated further after Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma made remarks that were widely criticised as communal and inflammatory.

Referring to the SR process, the Chief Minister stated:

“There is no debate over SR. Which Hindu family has received a notice? Which Assamese Muslim household has seen a notice? We have to issue notices to ‘Miyas’ living here. There is nothing to hide. I am troubling them.”

He further remarked:

“We will do some disturbance, but within the ambit of law. We are with the poor and downtrodden, but not those who want to destroy our community.”

Adding to this, he said:

“They have to understand that at some level, people of Assam are resisting them. Otherwise, they will get a walkover. That’s why some will get notices during SR, some for eviction, some from border police.”

These statements were seen by opposition leaders and rights groups as a direct admission that the SR process is being used to target Bengali-speaking Muslims under the guise of legality.

(Translation of headline: “If SR comes to Assam, I will cut off the names of 4.5 lakh Mia. My job is to hurt the Mia. ‘The Chief Minister’s public announcement’

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Assam Talks (@assamtalksofficial)

(Translation: We want to steal a little Mia vote. ‘According to the rules, Mia should not vote in Assam, they should vote in Bangladesh. ‘My job is to hurt the Mia’: CM.)

Misuse of Form-7 and questions over impartiality

At the heart of the controversy is the large-scale filing of allegedly false objections using Form-7, raising serious questions about the impartiality of the Election Commission during the revision process.

Concerns intensified following allegations of interference by BJP workers in the Boko-Chhaygaon area, purported instructions issued by BJP Assam president Dilip Saikia, and the Chief Minister’s public endorsement of “disturbance” through administrative means.

While instances of false objections have been reported from several districts, the issue has drawn particular attention in Sribhumi district (formerly Karimganj) in the Barak Valley.

Sribhumi district: Objections against 133 voters

On January 19, 2026, fifteen Booth Level Officers (BLOs) from Sribhumi district were called for a training session as part of the SR process. Among them was Sumana Choudhury, a young schoolteacher from Karimganj serving as a BLO.

During the session, district officials handed her several objection forms challenging the inclusion of 133 voters from her booth in Srimanta Kanishail village, under the Karimganj North Assembly segment.

According to Sumana Choudhury, the objection forms were partly printed and partly handwritten, and all objections had been filed by a single individual, alleging that the voters had either permanently shifted or were enrolled twice. All 133 voters, she stated, were Bengali-speaking Muslims.

She said:

“During the house-to-house enumeration, I found them at their residences and collected their signatures. They have not shifted. They are genuine voters. The Election Commission documents they signed are proof.”

She further noted that the list included people personally known to her:

“Among the names was the headmaster of my school. Some are parents of my students. How could I ask them to come to a hearing to prove they are genuine voters? Who filed the objections?”

In a startling revelation, the list of objected names included the complainant Salim Ahmed himself and his relatives, effectively meaning the complainant had objected to his own name. When contacted by Sumana Choudhury, Salim Ahmed reportedly denied filing any such objections.

Following the circulation of her statements on social media, Sumana Choudhury was served a show-cause notice by departmental authorities, drawing sharp criticism from opposition leaders and rights groups.

Legal opinion: False objections are punishable

Prominent Sribhumi-based lawyer Shishir Dey stated that filing Form-7 objections on false grounds is illegal and punishable.

He explained that under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and associated electoral rules, deletion of a voter’s name requires specific, evidence-based reasons.

“If a voter’s name is removed based on false allegations, that voter has the full right to seek legal redress,” Dey said.

He further warned that liability does not stop with the complainant:

“Election officials, including BLOs and EROs, can also face legal action if they accept false complaints without proper verification and exclude names from the voter list.”

Legal notices by affected voters

Another instance of alleged misuse of Form-7 was reported from polling stations 24 and 26 of the Achimganj area under the Patharkandi Assembly constituency in Sribhumi district, where objections were filed against thirty genuine voters.

These voters issued legal notices through senior Karimganj lawyer Subrata Kumar Pal to the District Administrator of Sribhumi, the Sub-Divisional Administrator of Patharkandi, the Election Officer, the concerned BLOs, and eight complainants, alleging a conspiracy to remove their names from the electoral rolls.

Ration dealers, verbal verification, and CJP’s intervention

Separately, reports emerged from districts including Chirang, Bongaigaon, Kokrajhar, Darrang, and Goalpara, where ration dealers allegedly began verbally summoning voters for verification.

In response, CJP teams visited local election offices, intervening to ensure that citizens are not compelled to show documents unless served with formal written notices.

CJP teams continue to assist affected voters through hearings, documentation, and coordination with BLOs on the ground.

CJP Assam legal team member Abhijeet Choudhury stated: “We will provide legal support to voters who wish to take action against those filing false complaints.”

“A repeat of NRC-style harassment”

CJP team has warned that the SR process mirrors the harassment experienced during the NRC exercise.

The organisation noted that:

• Most Form-7 complaints are false
• Many targeted voters are migrant labourers working outside Assam
• BLOs had already verified households before inclusion

CJP asserted that objections filed by outsiders without evidence should be rejected outright.

Opposition parties react

Opposition parties urged the Election Commission to ensure that no eligible voter is disenfranchised during the revision.

• The Indian National Congress (INC) lodged a police complaint in Boko-Chhaygaon against local BJP leaders and officials.
• Left parties—CPI(M), CPI(ML), CPI, SUCI, and Forward Bloc—issued a joint statement alleging that Form-7 is being used to target minorities.
• Raijor Dal leader and Sivasagar MLA Akhil Gogoi filed an FIR, citing video footage allegedly showing four individuals unlawfully operating inside the Boko co-district election office.

Earlier, opposition parties also lodged an FIR against BJP Assam president Dilip Saikia, alleging instructions to delete anti-BJP votes.

Sushmita Dev’s intervention

On January 25, 2026, TMC MP Sushmita Dev announced at a press conference: “We will file FIRs against those harassing people by misusing Form-7 and send them to jail.”

Condemning the Chief Minister’s remarks, she said: “Such comments from someone holding a constitutional position are very unfortunate.”

She further alleged that Bengali-speaking Hindus were also being misled, stating: “Like NRC, SR and later SIR will exclude more of their names.”

Claiming that 60 per cent of names in the deletion list in the Kathigara constituency are Bengali-speaking Hindus, she also criticised the show-cause notice issued to Sumana Choudhury, stating that it demonstrated the Election Commission’s political subservience.

Joint opposition press conference

On the same day, opposition leaders—including Debabrata Saikia (INC), Manoranjan Talukder (CPI-M), Akhil Gogoi (Raijor Dal), and Lurinjyoti Gogoi (Axom Jatiya Parishad)—held a joint press conference condemning communal polarisation and the conduct of the SR.

They demanded an extension of the February 2 deadline for disposal of claims and objections and accused the BJP government and the Election Commission of undermining democratic processes.

Related:

Defending Citizenship, On the Ground | CJP Assam 2025

NBDSA orders Times Now Navbharat to take down ‘agenda-driven’ report on Assamese singer’s arrest

CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post Form-7 and the Politics of Exclusion: How Assam’s voter revision has become a battleground appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ‘red flag’ march is being led by leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the All India Kisan Sabha. Just a week back, Adivasi farmers had protested –another 40-50,000 of them, after marching to the Collectorate, outside its office and making their demands plain in Palghar. Reports of that march may be read here.

A video may be seen here below.

आज किसान लॉंग मार्च इगतपुरी से ७ बजे शुरू होगी

The vibrant protest, in which several women also participated, was led by CPI(M) Polit Bureau member and AIKS National President Dr. Ashok Dhawale, former CPI(M) Central Committee member alongside former AIKS State President J.P Gavit, and ex-MLA, CPI(M) Central Committee member, State Secretary and AIKS National Joint Secretary Dr. Ajit Nawale,

Demands related to critical agricultural and labour issues have been raised. The statement released by the CPI (M)-AIKS said, “The march raised the issues related to neglecting the numerous assurances around the Forest Rights Act (FRA)—especially the finalisation of land claims,  and application of PESA, irrigation schemes, filling of thousands of vacancies in Zilla Parishad schools teachers, etc.”

“The second set of issues is centred around pro-corporate policies of the BJP-led Central and State Governments, like the smart meter scheme, undermining of  MNREGA and rural employment, land grab by the government-corporate nexus, the imposition of  four labour codes etc,” the CPI(M)-AIKS statement added.

Related:

50,000 strong Adivasi, farmers march from Charoti to Palghar, hold indefinite dharna for land rights

Kisan Long March ends with Fresh Promises to Farmers

The post Sea of red as CPI (M)-AIKS march leaves Nashik towards Mumbai, demands resolution of farmer and Adivasi issues appeared first on SabrangIndia.