Further, the communication points out that in the past, the Ministry of Environment and Forests granted clearance in 2004 for the diversion of forestland in the Niyamgiri Hills to enable a corporate entity to mine bauxite for an alumina refinery located nearby, also on forestland. This decision was subsequently set right by the Supreme Court of India. It was only when the Supreme Court intervened and insisted in 2013 that the concerned Gram Sabhas needed to give their consent under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), that the matter was placed before the Gram Sabhas. At the time, all the 12 concerned Gram Sabhas categorically denied permission for the mining project, affirming their cultural and spiritual rights to the area.

Now, 13 years later, regrettably, less than 50 km away from Niyamgiri, in Sijimali in Rayagada district of Odisha, also in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, efforts have been made to again illegally acquire the forest lands by fraudulent means. In December 2025, MoEFCC accorded stage I forest diversion clearance, based on the 2023 gramsabha resolutions, which are claimed to be fraudulent, with a stipulation that the diversion was subject to FRA clearance, the letter states. The Stage 1 forest diversion clearance given was itself flawed as the prior mandatory site visit was not undertaken and due process was not followed. In December 2023, it was claimed that the concerned Gram Sabhas had passed ‘unanimous’ resolutions in favour of the mining activities to be taken up by Vedanta, the same group which had attempted to take up mining in the Niyamgiri hills.  Villagers of Sijimali have alleged that the resolutions were fraudulent, that a number of non-residents took part in the Gram Sabha meetings, that minors and deceased persons were shown to be present, that consent was obtained through fraud and manipulation. Media reports[1] also mention that the Gram Sabha meetings never took place and that the police brought in people from elsewhere and recorded photographs and videos. In February 2025, two Gram Panchayats filed a writ petition in the Odisha High Court to quash the 2023 Gram Sabha resolutions. The Court disposed of the matter in March 2025 directing the Centre to take note of the concerns.  Despite this order, and regardless of local protests, construction of a three km. long approach road was started, with the presence of armed police. This is the background of the clashes.

The CCG states that the collective is “distressed by the fact that despite knowing that the Forest Rights Act was applicable to the land on which the mining would be taken up, the State Government chose not to follow the precedent of the Niyamgiri judgement of the Supreme Court and ensure fair proceedings by seeking presence of a judicial officer at the meetings of the Gram Sabha.”

“Apart from the above, the principles of the 1997 Samatha judgement of the Supreme Court have also been violated.  In the matter of ‘transfer’ of tribal land to a ‘non-tribal person’, the court had held that without due consultation and benefit sharing, government land or forest land or tribal land cannot be transferred to private entities. It is amazing that the government, despite having the duty of protecting common property resources, seems to be bent upon handing these resources over to subserve private interests.  Such actions are also a clear violation of Article 39 of the Constitution which mandates the State to secure social and economic justice.

“The manner in which the Sijimali protests have been dealt with indicates complete violation of the spirit of the Niyamgiri judgement of the Supreme Court. It shows scant regard for the Forest Rights Act.  It creates serious doubts about the authenticity of the resolutions of Gram Sabha, indicating that free, prior and informed consent of the Gram Sabha had not been obtained. It shows the State’s inability or refusal to learn from past incidents of tribal unrest which have, in several cases, led to the loss of tribal lives.”

The CCG has also pointed out that these days when we have a Mission Karmayogi to systematise capacity building at all levels, it should have been a fairly easy step to incorporate such a landmark Supreme Court Judgements in the training curriculum of the concerned officials, so that future investment proposals are handled with due diligence, without requiring people to go all the way to approach the Supreme Court again. Similarly, it should have been a routine item of administration in these days of Information Technology, that the individual and community rights recognised under the Forest Rights Act are duly incorporated into revenue records and maps. All this brings us to the disturbing question of whether the new chapter referred to by Jaipal Singh Munda, of just and fair governance, is still a distant dream.”

On January 24, 1947, Jaipal Singh Munda, member of the Constituent Assembly, had stated, “The whole history of my (tribal) people is one of continuous exploitation and dispossession by the non-aboriginals of India… I take you all at your word that now we are going to start… a new chapter of independent India where there is equality of opportunity, where no one would be neglected.”

Invoking this now 79 years later, the letter urges India’s woman Adivasi President that “they are hopeful that you will be concerned about the injustice that is being done, and that you will get the government to comprehensively re-examine the authenticity of the December 2023 Gram Sabha resolutions.  Pending a detailed enquiry, the stage I forest diversion clearance should be suspended and the physical work of road construction to Sijimali mining area should be stopped. The cases of the tribal persons who have been booked under various criminal law sections need to be reviewed by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. All steps must be taken to see that the gains of the Forest Rights Act, both in terms of individual and community rights, are consolidated to secure better livelihoods for all tribals and other traditional forest dwellers.”

The signatories are:

[1]   Report in the Hindu. 3.1.2026 https://frontline.thehindu.com/environment/sijimali-bauxite-mining-gram-sabha-fraud/article70463304.ece

The post Police action in Odisha’s Rayagada district condemned, Adivasi rights paramount: CCG appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Samrat Choudhary has been saying, on no less than half a dozen occasions that the Bihar government has struck of 22-lakh names off Bihar’s electoral rolls (a power only with the Election Commission!). He goes further to state that Aadhar and other benefits of these ‘22-lakh persons’ will also be snatched away.  Who are these 22-lakh persons anyway?

Three days after he was appointed as CM of the state on April 15, replacing the doyen of the Janata Dal United (JD-U), Nitish Kumar, Choudhary made this extraordinary claim as reported by The Indian Express. Prior to this appointment, since late February 2026, during campaign stints in West Bengal he had been boastful of this ‘achievement’ by the new Bihar government. “So far, we have struck off the names of 22-lakh people and stopped their ration as well in Bihar. We will cancel their driving licenses and other cards as well,” Choudhary has stated emphatically.”

Ironically, antithetical to these hysterical claims are the facts from the ground. Bihar was the first state, pre-assembly poll to conduct a hurried and unchecked Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of its electoral rolls in 2025, an exercise that came under sharp criticism and much scrutiny. During this controversial process, while approximately 65-lakh deletions took place without sufficient time for independent adjudication of the action, the 22-lakh figure only corresponded to “deletions.” Now deletions are usually on account of duplicate enrolment, shifting of voters or the fact that they may be deceased. The media had widely reported between June-November 2025 that no largescale existence of “illegal immigrants” was identified or noticed by the Election Commission of India (ECI).

One issue of crucial concern therefore then is ‘where has the figure of 22-lakhs being projected by the Bihar CM come from?” Second, what about the adjudication process for the entire 65-lakh exclusions in the state? Third, the  moot question of whether or not an elected government in secular, democratic India is empowered to simply deny the right to an Aadhar card, or government scheme benefits to any person previously accessing these benefits without application of mind or independent judgement?

Before, during and after the SIR exercise in Bihar the Election Commission of India (ECI) under CEC Gyanesh Kumar has been squarely accused of partisan conduct, conduct unbefitting a Constitutional body since its actions aligned squarely with the ruling dispensation.

Ironically, but not coincidentally, the first week of April 2026, also saw a spate of “news reports” from Bihar around union home minister, Amit Shah’s visit to the Seemanchal areas of the state. As reported by ETV Bharat, Shah’s visit to the Seemanchal region during which he reviewed border security, the issue of illicit foreign settlers, law and order and other security-related situations in Kishanganj, Araria, Purnea, Katihar and other adjoining districts.

In line with this development, the news channel quoted a senior official of the state’s home department, additional chief secretary, Arvind Kumar Chaudhary stating that a ‘fresh letter had been written to all districts to identify suspected foreigners in their jurisdiction and if such persons are not living with valid documents, ‘their process of deportation would begin!’  Bihar government officials also ‘revealed that biometric data of those identified would be collected and uploaded to a central database maintained by the Union Home Ministry to streamline identification and prevent their re-entry.’

Where does the 22-lakh figure come from?

In early 2026, Vote for Democracy’s report on the Bihar polls, “An Audit of the Stolen Mandate” Bihar 2025 VFD Report Findings had recorded details of what the report termed “Mass disenfranchisement by design.” These stated that, according to official ECI data, the numerical impact of a hastily conducted SIR was staggering:

• On June 24, 2025, Bihar had 7.89 crore registered electors.
• By the Draft Roll of August 1, 2025, this fell to 7.24 crore, reflecting 65.69 lakh deletions.
• The Final Roll of September 30, 2025 stood at approximately 7.42 crore electors.

Yet, the report found that only 3.66 lakh voters were actually confirmed as ineligible. The scale of deletions was therefore grossly disproportionate, pointing not to routine correction but to electoral roll engineering.

Between July 21 and 25 alone, over 21.27 lakh voters were deleted in just three days—an implausible figure by any administrative standard. During this period, 5.44 lakh voters were marked ‘dead’, while 14.24 lakh were labelled ‘permanently shifted’. The number of voters marked ‘untraceable’ rose by 809% overnight, while not a single “foreigner” was identified—despite this being cited as a key justification for the revision.

Opaque ‘rectification’ and mathematical impossibilities

The report further exposed deep inconsistencies in the ECI’s claims of rectification. While the Commission stated that approximately 17 lakh objections or applications were received, the actual changes reflected in the rolls affected around 22-lakh entries. Even after accounting for corrections, the final voter count should have mathematically stood at approximately 7.38 crore, yet the ECI declared 7.42 crore electors, leaving an unexplained excess of 3.24 lakh voters.

No independent audit, reconciliation statement, or transparent explanation has been provided for this discrepancy.

Pre-poll manipulation after election notification

Electoral norms require that voter rolls be effectively frozen once elections are notified. However, the report documents that even after notification:

• On October 6, 2025, Bihar had 7.43 crore electors.
• By poll day, this had increased to 7.46 crore.

This means 3.34 lakh voters were added in just ten days, including a sudden and unexplained spike in youth voters—raising serious questions about roll sanctity during the election period.

1.3 The “Rectification” Fraud

• Discrepancy in Objections: ECI claimed only 17,00,000 (16,56,886+ 36,475 = 16,93,361)
• Applications were received by the September 1 deadline. However, actual changes were
• Performed on as many as 22-lakh entries.

The Calculation Anomaly:

• ECI reported additions of 16,56,886 (Form 6) + 36,475 (Claims) and exclusions of

2,17,0493.

• Net Addition Calculation: Should have been 14,76,312 added to the 7.24 Crore

base, totalling 7.38 Crore.

• Actual Figure (Sept 30): ECI declared 7.42 Crore (No. ECI/PN/313/2025)—a

hike of 3.24 Lakh over the calculated figure without explanation.

Multiple petitions were filed before the Supreme Court in July 2025 challenging the SIR process. These were moved by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), RJD MP Manoj Jha, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, and Social Activist Yogendra Yadav among several others. These petitions alleged that the SIR lacked statutory backing

under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules,

1960, imposed onerous documentation requirements, and risked large-scale

disenfranchisement, particularly of migrants, the poor and marginalised communities.

Petitioners had also argued that the SIR effectively resembled a citizenship-style verification exercise

Unfortunately, while the irregularities in the Bengal SIR continue to be scrutinised by the Supreme Court of India due to an assertive role played by the Trinamool Congress ruling that state, Bihar’s excluded voters –whatever the actual number—remain abandoned and forgotten. By both the political Opposition and the Institutions of Democratic Governance. Even as the new CM makes boastful claims of ‘disenfranchising’ a staggering 22-lakh persons!

Related:

Bihar’s SIR process reveals an exercise of illegitimate powers, ECI forcing district machinery to resort to unethical practices: CCG’s Open Letter

Bihar SIR: 65 Lakh electors flagged for deletion, SC said “if there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in”

ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power

Punjab University’s former dean writes to CJI: Bihar SIR threatens democracy, alleges ECI overreach & voter disenfranchisement

Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions

The post Bihar “Infiltrator” Hysteria: Samrat Choudhary’s claims of disenfranchising 22-lakh people corresponds to ECI’s “deceased voters” figure appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When he was younger, Ali was a guard for the nation. During the summer of 1999, he fought in the freezing heights of Kargil. Two years later, in 2001, a mortar shell exploded near him during a border clash. This blast left him with a permanent ear injury, a daily reminder of his sacrifice. However, today, the country he fought for is asking him to prove he belongs here, as reported

As reported by The Indian Express, Ali’s name was suddenly removed from the voter list.

“I served this nation for 21 years, one month and one day. Yet today, my nationality – and my family’s – is being questioned,” Daud Ali as, told the Indian Express.

How a spelling mistake caused big problems

Ali’s problem did not start because he lacked documents or did anything illegal. It started because of a simple clerical mistake. When Ali checked the voter rolls recently, he was shocked to see his name was gone. The reason? A small spelling mistake in his father’s name in the official records. In a strict (selective) system that relies on computer data, a single wrong letter is enough to erase a citizen’s right to vote.

The problem gets worse when looking at his family history. Ali’s mother was a recognised citizen, and her name was on the 2002 voter list. She passed away in 2008. After finding out his name was deleted, Ali did exactly what the government asked.

“My mother’s name is in the voter list of 2002. I was called for a hearing in Baharampur. I submitted all the documents. But then not only mine but my son and two daughters’ names have all been deleted,” Ali told The Indian Express

The worst part of this rule is how it affects the whole family. Because Ali’s citizenship was questioned, his children’s records were checked and rejected too. As The Telegraph has reported regarding voter list issues in the state, a simple error for one person can take away the voting rights of an entire family.

“Because my name was removed, both of my daughter’s and a son’s names were struck off as well,” he told The Indian Express

Today, out of a family of five, only his 50-year-old wife, Minuwara Khatun, is still on the voter list. Ali and his three children have effectively lost their voting rights.

A stuck system: tribunals that do not work

Ali’s case is not the only one. The huge number of deletions shows a system that seems to focus more on removing names than helping real citizens. The government says people who were wrongly removed can appeal. They can go to special appellate tribunals to get their names back on the list.

However, the 19 appellate tribunals set up for these cases have not started working yet. For people like Ali, who have carefully gathered all their military and family records, there is nowhere to submit them. He tried to file a legal case with a tribunal, but nothing has happened. The offices are not active.

“I don’t know what else I can do or whom shall I approach,” a tired Ali told The Indian Express.

The state wants him to prove his citizenship, but the offices meant to check his proof are not open. For a former soldier used to clear rules and taking action, this endless wait is deeply insulting.

Bigger problems for democracy

For Ali, this is especially painful. The Indian Army gave him an identity. His military ID, pension papers, and medical records from his 2001 war injury all prove he served India. Yet, these strong proofs do not seem to matter to the local election office. The government pays his military pension but takes away his right to vote.

Without a working way to appeal, being “deleted” is a final punishment. Families like Ali’s are left stuck, waiting for a solution.

The heavy cost of disappointment

Today, his biggest burden is not just the physical tiredness of visiting government offices. It is deep disappointment. He realises that decades of loyal service and war injuries can be wiped out by a simple spelling mistake.

“It is deeply disappointing. After dedicating a long part of my life to serving the Indian army, this is the situation I find myself in today,” the veteran shared, summarising the quiet heartbreak of a forgotten hero.

As the country prepares for upcoming elections, will the state fix its mass mistakes before the next vote? Will the offices open so this veteran can prove who he is? Until then, Md. Daud Ali remains a soldier waiting again. This time, he is not waiting for orders to fight, but waiting for the basic right to call himself an Indian.

Related

No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer

99.8% of 65 lakh voter deletions go unchallenged on 13th day of objection period

Bihar SIR: 65 Lakh electors flagged for deletion, SC said “if there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in”

The post Nationality under SIR Scrutiny: Kargil warrior questioned after 21 years of service appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Beyond the ‘plum’ posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These 13 questions – sharp, insistent, and impossible to brush aside – cut through the carefully crafted and cunning narrative on women’s empowerment projected by Narendra Modi and his government. Shivasundar is not merely interrogating policy; he is challenging the very intent, timing, and political calculus behind this charade of a law

Through this Shivasundar exposes how the women’s reservation issue has been transformed from a long-awaited democratic reform into an electoral instrument — announced with fanfare, deferred with design, and deployed in moments of political convenience. Here are the questions. Read On.

Question #1

After amending Article 334A of the Constitution in 2023 with unanimous support of all parties and making women’s reservation a law, what was the need for another constitutional amendment?

Question #2

As demanded unanimously by opposition parties in 2023, why was 33% reservation not implemented within the existing 543 seats? Why were unnecessary conditions added—such as implementing it only after delimitation based on the 2026 census—making it impossible to enforce women’s reservation until 2034?

Question #3

Why was the Act, passed in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in 2023, approved by the President and gazetted, not notified until April 16, 2026?

Question #4

If the intention of bringing the 2026 constitutional amendment bill was to implement women’s reservation quickly, why were manipulative sub-conditions like delimitation based on the 2011 census included?

Question #5

Even knowing that adding highly controversial delimitation conditions would prevent securing a two-thirds majority in Parliament, why was this process initiated?

Question #6

Even now, why is your government unwilling to call a special session and introduce a simple amendment to provide 33% reservation within the existing 543 seats?

Question #7

In 2023, you introduced a women’s reservation bill that could not be implemented until 2034—just one year before elections.

Now, during ongoing elections in five states, despite clearly knowing the bill would fail (due to delimitation conditions), you deliberately introduced and ensured its defeat. You have also started a false and divisive campaign blaming opposition parties for this failure.

Was this bill introduced merely to defame the opposition?

Does this not mean you have consistently betrayed women’s reservation for petty electoral gains?

Question #8

Since 1996, proposals for women’s reservation have been repeatedly introduced in Parliament by Congress governments, United Front governments, your own Vajpayee government, and later the UPA government. One major reason as to why they were not passed was the objection that there was no sub-quota for OBCs within women’s reservation.

Why did even the Vajpayee government not attempt to implement women’s reservation with an OBC sub-quota, like other governments?

Why does the 2026 bill you introduced also not include an OBC sub-quota?

Question #9

One of the reasons why attempts between 1996–2014 failed was coalition governments. But in 2014 and 2019, the Modi government had a full majority. Why did you not use that to pass women’s reservation without delimitation conditions, as you did for EWS reservation for upper caste?

Instead,

a) In 2023, you ensured it could not be implemented until 2034

b) In 2026, you added malicious delimitation conditions and ensured the bill’s defeat

Does this not make the Modi government the most anti-women and opposed to women’s reservation?

Question #10

If the BJP truly has commitment to women’s empowerment, why not voluntarily give 33% tickets to women in Lok Sabha and Assembly elections without waiting for a law? Except for TMC, why does BJP—like most other parties—still limit women’s tickets to around 12–15%?

Question #11

After the bill’s defeat, Prime Minister Modi allegedly misused government machinery and, acting like a BJP leader, delivered hate-filled election speeches falsely branding opposition parties as anti-women. Since institutions like the Election Commission and Supreme Court are not acting against this, does this not further prove that the bill was introduced just to label opposition parties as anti-women and gain women’s votes?

Question #12

In yesterday’s speech, Prime Minister Modi called himself a protector of women.

But over the past 11 years, in cases like Manipur, Kathua, Unnao, harassment of women wrestlers, and honoring of Bilkis Bano case convicts by BJP leaders—why has he remained silent, even when BJP MPs and leaders themselves were accused of crimes against women? Why protect such perpetrators instead of speaking out?

Question #13

Modi compared the failure of women’s reservation to female foeticide. Female foeticide reduces the proportion of women in society compared to men.

In reality, why do states like Gujarat (long ruled by BJP), and Haryana and Uttar Pradesh (with strong BJP and Sangh influence), have among the lowest female-to-male ratios in the country?

Conversely, why do states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Telangana, and West Bengal—where BJP influence is relatively weaker—have higher female population ratios compared to “Hindi-Hindu” states?

Just asking.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Women’s Reservation – 13 Questions to Modi And His Associates in Government – Just Asking !! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Related:

Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death-Part 2-Pathbreaking Orders of the High Court

Decoding the Sathankulam Judgement on Custodial Death – Part 1 – Context of Torture in India

The post Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death:Part-3 Witnesses to be Celebrated & Honoured appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sadly, as a core cadre member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Modi’s avtar as a messiah of women is fraught with deceit.

Not delving into the glut of sex scandals involving RSS top cadres which were exposed by RSS leading ideologues like Balraj Madhok (Zindagi kaa Safar 3: Deendayal Upadhyay kee Hatya se Indira Gandhi kee Hatya Tak, 2003) and Hemendra Nath Pandit (The End of a Dream: An Inside View of the RSS Today, 1950) we today need to scrutinize the RSS archives to know the deep and core levels of this male chauvinistic anti-Hindu women ideology. This is also evident in their practice.

1. Inside the RSS: Males are Volunteers

RSS founded in 1925 was to be an exclusive male organisation, its cadres were to be known as swayamsevak or volunteers. The RSS top brass made its intentions clear of treating women as of lower status than males when it decided to start its women wing; Rashtra Sevika Samiti in 1936. Its nomenclature made it clear that women members were not called as swayamsevak or volunteers but Rashtr Sevika (servants for the nation) or female servants for the Hindu nation. This identity of women in the Rashtr Sevika Samiti as servants was not only a technical issue but outcome of RSS’ attitude towards Hindu women which glorifies the subservient role of women in the society.

These are Rashtr Sevika Samiti members [who according to its website number around three lakh] only who pledge to maintain ‘faithfulness/virginity’, remain ‘modest’, ‘steadfast’, and not fall prey to ‘immorality and evil habits’. The RSS male swayamsevaks make no such commitment.

RSS Demands Manusmriti as Constitution Of India

In fact, this anti-woman attitude of RSS was glaringly visible when on the eve of the ratification of the democratic secular constitution by the Indian Constituent Assembly [November 26, 1949] it rejected it and demanded promulgation of Manusmriti or Manu Code as the constitution of India. A perusal of chapters V and IX will show how Hindu women were to be treated as sub-human creatures.

Laws of Manu concerning women

1. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control. (Chapter IX/sloka 2)
2. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. (IX/3)
3. Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives. (IX/6)
4. Women, confined in the house under trustworthy and obedient servants, are not (well) guarded; but those who of their own accord keep guard over themselves, are well guarded. (IX/12)
5. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly. (IX/14)
6. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world). (IX/15)
7. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. (IX/17)
8. For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule. (IX/18)

3. GANDHI PEACE PRIZE to GITA PRESS Which Denigrates Hindu Women

Gita Press, Gorakhpur was awarded the 2022 Gandhi Peace Prize, the prestigious international award instituted by Government of India in 1995 while commemorating 125^th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. It was to be conferred on those individuals/organisations which contributed to carrying forward the ideals espoused by him. The jury which conferred it to Gita Press was headed by PM Modi.

PM Modi congratulated Gita Press, “on being conferred the Gandhi Peace Prize 2021. They have done commendable work over the last 100 years towards furthering social and cultural transformations among the people,” Incidentally, Gita Press was also celebrating its centenary in 2022.

Award to Gita Press was not only shocking for all those who cherished Gandhian values, humanism and civilized norms but all those who opposed gender-based persecution. It was a sad day for the Indian democratic-secular Republic as that Modi government idolized Gita Press which publishes  ‘Hindu’ literature  propagating Sati  and beating  of  women.  It publishes “popular” religious, ‘Hindu’  literature  which opposes remarriage of widowed/divorced/discarded women, seeking employment by them and even reporting rape as we will find by the perusal of some of its publications. According to this literature, this is the way for Hindu women to end in swarg or paradise.

Gita Press has published more than a dozen titles on the subject, the most prominent of which are: Nari Shiksha (Education of Women) by Hanuman Prasad Poddar, Grahsth Mein Kaise Rahen [How to Lead a Household Life] by Swami Ramsukhdas, Striyon ke Liye Kartawya Shiksha (Education of Duties for Women) and Nari Dharm (Religion of Woman) by Jai Dayal Goindka and a special issue of magazine Kalyan on women. These are available in English and other Indian languages. The English titles are popular with the non-resident Indians.

Some glimpses of anti-Hindu women content of Gita Press publications:

‘What should the wife do if her husband beats her and troubles her?” Swami Ramsukhdas offers the following sagely advice to the battered wife and her parents:

“The wife should think that she is paying her debt of her previous life and thus her sins are being destroyed and she is becoming pure. When her parents come to know this, they can take her to their own house because they have not given their daughter to face this sort of bad behaviour.”

And there is another piece of heavenly advice for a rape victim and her husband.

“As far as possible, it is better for woman (rape victim) to keep mum. If her husband also comes to know of it, he too should keep mum. It is profitable for both of them to keep quiet.”

Can a woman remarry? The answer is very straight forward,

“When once a girl is given away in marriage as charity by her parents, she does not remain virgin any more. So how can she be offered as charity to anyone else? It is beastliness to remarry her.”

But can a man remarry? No problem,

“A man can have a second wife for an issue in order to be free from the debt which he owes to manes (pitr-rin) according to the ordinances of the scriptures, if there is no issue from the first wife.”

But this is not the only reason for which a man is allowed re- marriage. A man, “whose desire for pleasure has not been wiped out, can get remarried because if he does not get remarried, he will indulge in adultery and    go to prostitutes and will incur a badly sin. Therefore, in order to escape the sin and maintain the decorum he should get remarried according to the ordinance of scriptures.”

Of course, no widow is allowed to remarry. However, she may be allowed to choose to be some male’s concubine.

“If she cannot maintain her character, instead of indulging in adultery here and there, she should accept her affinity for a person and live under his protection.”

Is it proper for woman to demand equal rights? The sagely answer is quite unambiguous:

“No, it is not proper. In fact, a woman has not the right of equality with man…in fact it is ignorance or folly which impels a woman to have desire for the right of equality with man. A wise person is he/she who is satisfied with less rights and more duties.”

This literature about Hindu women openly preaches and glorifies the ghastly practice of Sati. To the question:

“Is ‘Sati Pratha’ (viz., the tradition of the wife being cremated with the dead body of the husband on the funeral pyre) proper or improper?”

The sagely answer is:

“A wife’s cremation with the dead body of her husband on the funeral pyre is not a tradition. She, in whose mind truth and enthusiasm come, burns even without fire and she does not suffer any pain while she burns. This is not a tradition that she should do so, but this is her truth, righteousness and faith in scriptural decorum…It means that it is not a tradition. It is her own religious enthusiasm. On this topic Prabhudatta Brahmachariji has written a book whose title is Cremation of a Wife with her Husband’s Dead Body is the Backbone of Hindu Religion, it should be studied.”

Apart from glorifying Sati, the Gita Press publication like Nari Dharm produces dozens of shlokas from ‘Hindu’ scriptures to establish that women are not capable of enjoying independence. This book begins with the chapter swatantarta ke liye striyon ki ayogeta (incapability of women for independence). Another notable facet of this literature is that long a list of rituals is laid down to be practiced by pregnant women so that ‘bright, talented, brave and religious inclined son’ is born.

Unfortunately, parliamentary opposition which intends to confront PM Modi on his hoax of love for women did not confront him with the above stated facts due to ignorance of the dehumanized ideology and practices of RSS. The moral of the story is that RSS-BJP government juggernaut led by PM Modi is able to befool the women specially Hindu women of India not due to its respect for women but because opponents are totally ignorant of the criminality of RSS. For Modi ignorance of his opponents is blessing!

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

Related:

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

Indian tricolour & the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Rewriting NCERT school textbooks: ‘Muslim Raj’ is a mere excuse, the project is to conceal historical facts

The post Womens Reservation Bill 2026: Women’s Rights & the RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

More MPs, Less Debate

India’s Constitution distributes legislative sovereignty between Parliament and State Assemblies, defining powers through the 7th Schedule of the constitution – Union, State, and Concurrent Lists. Under this system, Parliament legislates on Union subjects. Bills are introduced, debated, and passed by the required majority.

But in practice:

Even in the current Lok Sabha of 543 members, the speaking time is allocated based on ‘party strength’. Individual MPs — especially those outside dominant parties — are given little to no space. Often, they are not allowed to speak for more than a minute, as repeatedly pointed out by Thol. Thirumavalavan MP. This goes against the grain of representative and inclusive democracy that should give every voice, regardless of party or political strength, the space and time to express views, even dissent.

So:

• Will increasing MPs improve deliberation?
• Will it strengthen representation?

It will only further compress individual voices.

The Real Problem: Centralisation

Why is there no time for debate? Because Parliament is overloaded.

Why is it overloaded? Because it interferes in too many subjects — especially in the name of Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS).

One Example is the Union Government’s Jal Jeevan Mission – A centrally sponsored scheme.

On April 16, 2026, DMK Member of Parliament (MP), senior advocate, P. Wilson raised a question in Rajya Sabha. He pointed, ‘Tamil Nadu has been one of the best performing states in the country providing functional household tap connection to 1.12 crore out of 1.25 crore households achieving nearly 90% but, only Rs 5914 crores have been released for funds under this scheme leaving Rs 3112 crores pending. For 2024 – 2025, while Rs 2434 crores was allotted but only Rs 732 crores have been released. Due to this unreasonable fiscal control by the regime at the centre, the Tamil Nadu government itself has to advance Rs 2550 crores. He went on to explain, how, for the Hogenakkal combined water supply scheme phase – III, the project was approved at the cost of Rs 8428 crores with the union government share of Rs 2283 crores under the Jal Jeevan mission framework but today (early 2026), the union government (unilaterally) says the project stands cancelled and suddenly informs that the assistance cannot be extended! Besides the MP exposed how, ten additional multi village drinking water schemes worth about Rs. 7590 crores proposed by Tamil Nadu for full rural coverage are also pending for approval.  MP Wilson demanded an answer to this state of affairs which he has not, to date, received.

Parliament is not a one way traffic. The Union Government is answerable to states. West Bengal has raised similar concerns. However this regime steamrolls through with its undemocratic methods.

Encroaching on Schedule VII of the Constitution, Items under the State List: Entry 17 under the List II (State List) of Seventh Schedule in Constitution of India clearly marks that the ‘Water’ is a State Subject. Also the Minister of State for Jal Shakti, V. Somanna, in a written reply presented in the Rajya Sabha stated, ‘Drinking Water is a state subject, and hence, the responsibility of planning, approval, implementation, operation, and maintenance of drinking water supply schemes, including those under the Jal Jeevan Mission, lies with State/UT Governments. The Government of India supports the States by providing technical and financial assistance.’

Do the facts suggest that the Centre is really providing assistance? NO. They are promising to support and cut the rope while the state attempts to climb a mountain!

Another encroachment on State Subjects: Similarly Entry 14 of the List II states that ‘Agriculture’ is a state subject. However, we all are well aware that three farm laws favouring corporates were brought in by the Union Government, inviting months’ long protests and finally their withdrawal! The Centre has also interfered in the procurement, with the tag of price control and food safety. Due to that the paddy procurement was affected in the past month. Tamil Nadu’s request is not a dilution of procurement norms but a legitimate invocation of flexibility already embedded in the Union’s framework.

Under the Fair Average Quality (FAQ) standards administered by the Food Corporation of India and the Department of Food and Public Distribution, paddy moisture is capped at 17%, but relaxations are permitted in exceptional conditions with prior approval. Citing unseasonal rains, the state has formally sought permission to procure paddy with slightly higher moisture (18–20%), even agreeing to value cuts as per official norms. The core issue is fiscal and federal: unless such procurement is accepted into the Central Pool, the burden falls on the state, effectively penalizing farmers for climatic factors—making this a case for cooperative federalism, not regulatory compromise.

The solution is clear:

• Do not interfere in the State List
• Share Union List powers with states and local bodies
• Retain only essential subjects like foreign affairs, defence, and currency at the Union level

With this, a limited number of MPs can still have meaningful discussions. However, the Union government is doing the opposite — it is centralising power further. This is not governance. This is authoritarian centralisation — fascism in practice.

What Can an MP actually do?

In reality, MPs are reduced to:

• Asking questions, mostly written — a power even citizens have through RTI
• Raising basic constituency issues like drinking water and bridges crossing railways. But should such issues even reach Parliament?

This is not governance efficiency. It is an enforced dependency.

Fiscal Centralisation

Why should states depend on Parliament for funds? If taxation powers are devolved properly, states can govern independently. Why should drinking water schemes or farmer incentives require Union approval? This is a systemic flaw — not something delimitation can fix.

Collapse of Institutional Mechanisms

MPs can also work through Parliamentary Standing Committees.

But from 2014 to 2026:

• How many committee reports have been discussed?
• How many have been implemented?

These committees have been reduced to symbolic bodies. Their reports are ignored. Without them, transparency collapses.

The solution lies in reform of the working of the constitution, Not in Delimitation:

• Redefine Union, State, and Concurrent Lists
• Except for foreign affairs, defence, and currency, powers should lie with states & local bodies.

Democracy being suffocated

What we see today:

• MPs are prevented from functioning meaningfully
• Constitutional structures are weakened
• Parliamentary democracy is being suffocated

This is not accidental. It is a deliberate project of a supremacist and fascist Union BJP government — bending institutions to concentrate power.

Unfair Delimitation and the Betrayal of Federal Justice

Delimitation, in theory, is about determining the number of representatives based on population. That is the legal argument.

The policy of population control in India was not accidental; it was a conscious national direction shaped through constitutional design and public policy. The Constitution of India (1950) distributed legislative powers through the Seventh Schedule, placing subjects across the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists. While public health and population-related matters were initially within the domain of states, a decisive shift occurred during the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, when “family planning and population control” were placed in the Concurrent List (Entry 20A), enabling both the Union and states to legislate and act.

This was followed by clear policy articulation at the national level. The National Population Policy of 1976, framed during the Emergency, and later the National Population Policy of 2000, set explicit demographic goals, including achieving replacement-level fertility. These were not symbolic declarations; they were calls for coordinated national action.

It was the South Indian states that responded with seriousness and administrative discipline. From the 1980s through the 2000s, states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and undivided Andhra Pradesh implemented population control measures effectively, bringing down fertility rates early and stabilising population growth. This was not merely a demographic achievement — it translated into better allocation of resources, improved public health systems, and higher human development outcomes.

In contrast, several North Indian states failed to implement these policies with the same urgency or effectiveness. Population growth continued at high levels well into the 2000s and even the 2010s, creating a widening demographic imbalance within the Union.

The Constitution itself recognised the risk of penalising states that performed well.

Under Article 81 of the Constitution of India, representation in the Lok Sabha is linked to population. However, to ensure that states which successfully controlled their populations were not politically disadvantaged, Parliament intervened. Through the 42nd Amendment (1976), the allocation of seats was frozen based on the 1971 Census. This freeze was later extended by the 84th Constitutional Amendment (2001) until 2026, with the 87th Amendment (2003) allowing adjustments based on the 2001 Census without altering the total number of seats.

The principle was clear: demographic responsibility should not lead to political punishment.

Today, that principle stands on the verge of being reversed.

With delimitation expected after 2026, the Union government is preparing to re-link parliamentary representation strictly to population. The implications are profound. States that adhered to national policy, controlled population growth, and managed their resources responsibly will see their political weight reduced. States that failed to do so will gain greater representation and influence in Parliament.

This inversion of justice is not a technical correction — it is a structural distortion.

States that cooperated with Union policy in the national interest are now being “rewarded” with a loss of rights and voice. States that disregarded the same policy are being “rewarded” with expanded political power. One is forced to ask: is this justice? And more importantly, who is being asked this question — a government that increasingly exhibits fascist tendencies in its centralisation of power?

When this contradiction is placed before constitutional forums, the deeper tensions within this approach will become evident.

At the same time, the Union government continues to repeatedly invoke the Constitution to justify delimitation. But this raises a more fundamental question: why is delimitation being pushed with such urgency, while far more pressing structural issues remain unaddressed?

The real crisis in Indian governance today is not a shortage of representatives; it is the over-centralisation of power. Parliament is burdened with subjects that rightfully belong to states. Fiscal powers remain concentrated at the Union level, forcing states to depend on central allocations even for basic welfare and infrastructure. A town should not have to wait for Union schemes for drinking water, nor should farmers depend on central approvals for incentives. These are failures of federal design — not problems that delimitation can solve.

Instead of correcting these imbalances by strengthening states and local bodies, the Union government is pursuing a path that further concentrates power. This is not administrative reform. It is authoritarian consolidation — fascism expressed through institutional control.

The consequences extend beyond federal structure into economic reality. The government that has failed to significantly improve development outcomes or quality of life in lagging regions is now attempting to extract from the more productive states. The burden of demographic imbalance is being shifted onto the South — not to uplift the North in any meaningful way, but to redistribute power and resources.

Will this extraction benefit the ordinary people of North India? There is little evidence to suggest so. Instead, the pattern increasingly points toward concentration of economic gains in the hands of a few corporate entities — most notably a select coterie.

Thus, delimitation is not merely a constitutional exercise. It is a political project — one that seeks to reconfigure representation, alter federal balance, and entrench a particular ideological dominance.

The question, therefore, is not whether delimitation is constitutionally permissible. The question is whether it is just. And in its current form, it is not.

Why Delimitation Now?

If delimitation does not solve governance issues, why push it? Because the objective is political. Southern states have identified and are exposing the fascist tendencies of the Union government. They are taking this message across India. This creates a threat to the Fascist Propaganda.

So BJP is trying to,

• Increase MPs from northern states where the BJP has stronger control
• Reduce the relative political strength of southern states
• Entrench RSS ideology structurally

Delimitation becomes a tool of political domination.

A Pattern of Imposition

This fits into a larger pattern:

• Hindi imposition through the three-language policy
• Sanskrit cultural imposition through the New Education Policy
• Sanatana imposition through schemes like Vishwakarma
• Minority property targeting through Waqf amendments
• Citizenship insecurity through CAA-type laws
• Public sector, transport, and infrastructure assets being handed over to private corporate entities

States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Telangana have resisted all of this. Unable to handle these states politically, the Union government is attempting to weaken them structurally.

The Federal Resistance

As Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy pointed out, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin was among the first to bring these issues to light. He has also pushed for unity among states. This is critical. Because this is not just policy — it is a battle over India’s federal structure.

Conclusion: What India Actually Needs

India does not need more MPs.

It needs:

• Stronger states
• Empowered local governance
• Fiscal autonomy
• Respect for federalism

Delimitation offers none of this.

Instead, it risks:

• Weakening federal balance
• Reducing real representation
• Expanding centralised, fascist control

This is not democratic reform. It is democratic distortion in the service of power.

Tamil Nadu will fight — Tamil Nadu will win. And along this path, states across India will unite and speak the truth.

(The author is an independent Tamil journalist with YouTube channels, Peralai, AranSei)

Related:

Will delimitation have severe, undemocratic consequences following the SIR?

PM Narendra Modi’s frequent visits to Tamil Nadu, his “love” for Tamil culture exposed

The post Delimitation: A false solution driven by centralised power appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava made these observations while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Mohd. Faizan and others, who sought the quashing of an FIR lodged in Bahraich district.

The FIR in question accused the petitioners of enticing away the complainant’s 18-year-old daughter, alleging an intent to forcibly convert her religion and compel her into marriage. However, the case took a decisive turn when the Court was presented with the woman’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. In her testimony, she unequivocally stated that she had been in a consensual relationship with the petitioner for three years. She firmly denied any allegations of religious conversion, coercion, or sexual misconduct.

Significantly, the woman expressed a clear desire to live with the petitioner and voiced apprehension for her own safety and that of her family. She specifically urged that members of certain Hindu organisations should not harass or intimidate them following her statement.

The Court took serious note of the fact that despite this categorical rebuttal of the FIR’s claims, the Investigating Officer chose only to drop the rape charge (under the BNS), while continuing to pursue charges of kidnapping, assault, and violations under the 2021 anti-conversion law. Calling this a “peculiar turn,” LiveLaw reported, the bench observed that once the victim’s own account dismantled the foundation of the FIR, continuing the investigation appeared wholly unjustified.

In a pointed remark, the Court stated that, prima facie, the Investigating Officer seemed to be acting under external pressure or influence, though it refrained from elaborating further at this stage.

The bench also highlighted a broader pattern: an increasing number of such FIRs are being initiated not by the alleged victims, but by third parties. It noted that a similar concern had recently been flagged by the Supreme Court of India in Rajendra Bihari Lal vs State of U.P., reinforcing the systemic nature of the issue.

Taking a stern stance, the High Court directed the complainant—who is the woman’s father—to appear in person at the next hearing and explain why action should not be initiated against him for filing what the Court described as a “patently false, fake, and frivolous” FIR.

In a further move signalling institutional accountability, the Court ordered the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit detailing the steps being taken to address the filing of such baseless cases. The affidavit must be submitted by May 19, failing which the official has been directed to appear before the Court in person with all relevant records.

Pending further proceedings, the Court has stayed the arrest of the petitioners. It has also directed the State authorities to ensure adequate security for the petitioners, the woman at the centre of the case, and her family members within three days—acknowledging the credible threats and fears expressed before it.

Related:

Intrusive and Unconstitutional: CJP’s dissent note on Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Law

35 civil society groups oppose Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion law, warn of threat to women’s autonomy and constitutional freedoms

Hearing in batch of CJP-led petitions challenging state Anti-Conversion laws defers in SC; Interim relief applications pending since April 2025

Street Pressure, State Power, and the Criminalisation of Choice: How Hindutva groups are pushing Maharashtra’s anti-conversion law

Allahabad HC: Quashes FIR under draconian UP ‘Anti-Conversion Act’, warns state authorities against lodging ‘Mimeographic Style’ FIRs

The post Allahabad High Court flags surge in “false” conversion firs, seeks accountability from UP government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Following delimitation, the parliamentary representation of southern Indian states is projected to decline from 23.6% to approximately 20%, whereas the representation of the Hindi-speaking northern and central states—where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has substantial electoral strength—is expected to increase from 38.1% to 43.1%. This shift enables the ruling BJP to maintain political dominance even without substantial support from southern states.

Beyond its federal implications, this issue also raises normative concerns regarding democratic principles.

The delimitation process is grounded in the principle of “one person, one vote and One Vote One Value”, that is  the equal value of each vote. Ideally, each parliamentary or legislative constituency should represent a comparable number of voters across the country. Based on this principle, the allocation of seats in state assemblies and the Lok Sabha is determined.

For instance:

In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Uttar Pradesh (UP) had approximately 15.4 Crore registered voters and 80 parliamentary seats, implying that each Member of Parliament (MP) represented around 19.3 lakhs voters.

In contrast, Tamil Nadu (TN) had about 6.24 crore voters and 39 seats, with each MP representing roughly 16 lakh  voters. This discrepancy suggests that the relative value of an individual vote varies across states.

From a theoretical standpoint, delimitation could address such disparities by standardising representation—for example, by ensuring one MP per 10-15 lakh voters nationwide. However, such an approach would increase representation for more populous states while comparatively reducing it for states that have achieved lower population growth.

This raises a fundamental question for a democracy with many regional complexities and existing regional imbalance in political representation:

How can equitable representation be ensured without exacerbating regional imbalances?

The Modi governments’ approach to delimitation intended to reinforce existing myopic political advantages for the BJP at the cost inciting regional unrest leading to centrifugal tendencies which is already brewing in the republic.

An additional dimension of the debate concerns the interaction between delimitation and SIR. While delimitation determines the number of parliamentary seats, SIR determines the electorate itself.

The combined effect of these processes result in disproportionate disadvantage to southern states. To illustrate let us take the examples of both UP and TN where the SIR process has been completed and check the impact of Delimitaion.

Under the proposed framework (based on the 2011 Census):

Uttar Pradesh’s Lok Sabha seats may increase from 80 to 143.

Tamil Nadu’s seats may increase from 39 to 49.

Following the SIR:

Uttar Pradesh is estimated to have approximately 13.39 Cr voters, after the SIR, resulting in one Member of Parliament (MP) per about 9.36 lakhs voters.

Tamil Nadu, after the SIR, is estimated to have around 5.67 million voters, leading to one MP per approximately 11.57 lakhs voters. Thus, disparities in voter-to-representative ratios would persist, with southern states potentially experiencing relatively lower vote value.

A similar pattern is projected for Karnataka. After delimitation, the state may receive 41 seats. Depending on changes in the voter base following SIR, the number of voters per MP could remain comparatively higher than in northern states.

In comparative terms, if all states were represented at the same ratio as Uttar Pradesh (approximately one MP per 9.36 lakhs voters), Tamil Nadu should get 60 seats instead of 49, with similar implications for Karnataka. Thus both the SIR and delimitation of the Modi government as currently proposed, is a lethal attack on Parliamentary Democracy.

It is for this reason that the country should say a clear NO to both the SIR and the Delimitation.

An alternative framework that preserves the principle of equal vote value while minimizing regional disparities in representation need to be evolved through democratic consultation with the People and States of the Republic.

Related:

Procedure for tabling bills on women’s reservations & delimitation both opaque and non-consultative: Experts and Citizens

“Inside the SIR”: Booklet flags ‘mechanical disenfranchisement’ in electoral roll revision

No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer

The post Will delimitation have severe, undemocratic consequences following the SIR? appeared first on SabrangIndia.