A very special memory, which exemplifies the kind of person that Sumit Sarkar was, bears repeating here. It shows us the multiple ways in which what we believe in can shape perceptions in everyday life and perhaps even alter public discourse.

The time and place was IIM Calcutta, where, maybe in 1999, I was one of three candidates who was called to the campus for the talk, and later interview, for the job of History Professor. My talk went well, I was told, and then it came to the interview. On that panel were many, including Sumit Sarkar and another very senior and highly respected historian. I cannot remember who else was on the panel. Many questions were asked, and I nervously answered them, to the best of my ability.

But then, I was suddenly asked, by that same senior historian, about my marital status, and whether I was hoping for the job to be with my partner. I was stunned, but before I could catch my breath, Sumit Sarkar told the panel that these were not fair or appropriate questions to ask, and the matter ended there.

I did not get that job after all, ranking only number 2 in the list. But I will cherish this memory of someone who stood for the right of women not to be asked questions that would never have been asked of a man.

And I wish I had cultivated the same courage in all the positions that I later came to occupy. I cannot say I have.

Ways of Historical Thinking: Sumit Sarkar, his times and legacies

I did not have the good fortune of being taught by Sumit Sarkar. But like every (conscientious) modern Indian historian, I have indeed been ‘taught’ by him. His classic, Modern India, modestly described as a ‘textbook ’, is perhaps the most well-thumbed of my many books. Here, along with colonial masters and nationalist leaders, peasants, workers and ordinary people sprang from its pages. This was no simple inclusion: it was a conceptual break, altering our understanding of Indian history in profound ways, acknowledging the lives and actions of millions, even their failures, as the true basis on which to understand our past. But political leaders, their actions, and the periodisations familiar to students of history could not be dispensed with altogether. Therefore, the book, despite its emphasis on the novel breakthroughs of a ‘history from below’, was sandwiched ‘between the foundation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 and the achievement of independence in August 19 47’ since those sixty years ‘witnessed perhaps the greatest transition in our country’s long history’. In one memorable sentence, he signalled the
many unfulfilled promises of Indian nationalism: thus, the Mahatma succeeded in
‘drawing in the masses, while at the same time keeping mass activity strictly pegged down
to certain forms predetermined by the leader.’

Let me not dwell on the gaping hole that Sumit Sarkar’s demise had left among Indian
historians, and focus instead on the riches he has left us. His book, Swadeshi Movement in
Bengal, on Bengal’s (first) partition of 1905, and the nationalist movement that it spawned,
was full of methodological innovations, using plays, novels, newspapers, pamphlets in
addition to the more familiar colonial archive. These materials led him to ask questions
that often led to ambiguous or unsatisfactory answers. Educated unemployment and
rising prices surely fuelled the anger against the Bengal partition. But the pride-inducing
victory of a little ‘eastern’ nation, Japan, over a powerful ‘western’ neighbour, Russia, — the
Russo Japanese war of 1904-5 – also played its part, despite a relative ignorance in India of emerging critiques of imperialism elsewhere.

Sarkar also asked himself: how could a Swadeshi editorial in the Bande Mataram praise, in
the same breath, both the labour movement and the caste system, the latter for having had ‘the true socialistic aim of keeping awake in every class of the society a sense of duty to it’ ?

Or, as he would ask later, what drew upper caste men to revolutionary terrorism in Bengal,
and why has that memory endured longer than those of tribal or lower caste participants?
Sarkar was among the earliest of historians to unpack how ‘Hindu’ nationalism gradually
became ‘common sense’, with consequences up to the present day.

Sarkar’s task was to break out of the economic determinism and narrow positivism that
was the hallmark of Marxist scholarship at the time. But the work remains unsurpassed,
since it upholds the protocols of historical research, the verifiability of evidence, and as he
said, ‘the constant knowledge that my conclusions remain open to revision and change.’

Would a revised Modern India, that more correctly reflects the scholarship of the last four
decades — as many regions, social groups, practices, and events have found their historians – be at all possible in our times?

How were material conditions and cultural forms to be integrated within a structured totality? Sarkar’s companion volume Modern Times brought culture and other histories – of the city for instance, or of print media or caste – to the foreground, to understand the subaltern on her own terms. His Marxism did not come in the way of engaging with what Ranajit Guha has called the oldest (and richest) archive in India: religion. He read religion, but not as a believer; not to denigrate but to connect the celestial world to its earthly presence in meaningful ways.

In fact, Marxism enabled his interest in the nineteenth-century mystic (and rustic) Hindu
thinker Ramakrishna Paramhansa, and the petty-bourgeois, clerical ambience within
which he operated, which gave his philosophy its force and material influence, especially
among the emerging, well read, urban middle class. That contradiction needed to be
explained. Sarkar linked the belated entry of clock-time into India, and the disciplinary
mechanisms it generated, to the slavery of clerical labour, which paved the way for the
reception of Ramakrishna. Ramakrishna’s ‘success’ and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar’s
‘failures’ were equally processes that he critically examined.

Sarkar showed us the true meaning of engaged scholarship: when India was stunned in
1992 by the shock troops of the BJP and RSS that brought down the Babri Masjid, Sarkar
and his colleagues produced a short but vital book called Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags. It
was the first serious historical reconstruction (based also on sensitive fieldwork) of what
the RSS had become, the most formidable force on the Indian political firmament.
Certainly the young people who have today given us a ray of hope should place this book at
the top of their reading lists.

Sumit Sarkar, in both his writing and his political positions, was unafraid to confront the
official left and its surrender to global capital, as at Nandigram and Singur. He would have
been the first to admit that proletarians have not been the grave diggers of capitalism,
though he welcomed those historians who showed renewed interest in labour and working
class history. I was personally honoured when this remarkable historian included me in
his review of five such books. But more striking was his intellectual openness: his choices
‘provincialised’ Bengal, by acknowledging the worlds and questions that lay well beyond it
– Kanpur, Jamshedpur, KGF, Bombay, the railway works. At a time when ‘everyone’
is a historian, and we are being trained in thinking of history only as ‘pride’ in the past, we will miss complex thinkers like Sumit Sarkar even more, for his passing no doubt signals the end of an era.

(The author is the professor (retd.), Centre for Historical Studies, JNU, New Delhi)

The post Sumit Sarkar: Engaged scholarship, ways of historical thinking, an enduring legacy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At one level, the case concerned two women who said that they had voluntarily embraced Islam and were subsequently confined by their father. But the legal question before the Court was considerably broader: can the alleged illegality of a person’s religious conversion justify the continued physical confinement of that person when she is an adult, competent, and unequivocally asserts that the choice was voluntary?

The Court answered in the negative. More importantly, it refused to allow the criminal investigation into the alleged conversion to collapse the distinction between two separate questions: whether the conversion was lawful, and whether the women could lawfully be detained.

“The present case discloses an exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights. The corpus, despite being major, educated and legally competent women, were deprived of their liberty for a prolonged period commencing from the year 2021, solely because they exercised their constitutionally protected freedom of conscience and chose to profess a religion different from that professed by their family. Such prolonged and coercive confinement strikes at the very foundation of constitutional democracy, which recognises the autonomy of every adult individual as sacrosanct and beyond the reach of parental or societal control. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty cannot be permitted to yield to familial disapproval, social orthodoxy or executive apathy.” (Para 65)

“Before parting, this Court deems it necessary to reiterate that the Constitution does not confer upon parents a licence to incarcerate their major children merely because they disapprove of their faith, beliefs or personal choices. Constitutional rights cannot be eclipsed by parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment. The liberty of an adult individual is inviolable, and any attempt to suppress that liberty by force or coercion invites the constitutional scrutiny of this Court and attracts appropriate public law consequences, including the award of monetary compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights.” (Para 66)

The former, the Court held, could be examined by the competent authority or court. The latter was squarely before the High Court in habeas corpus jurisdiction. The judgment consequently becomes a strong reaffirmation of decisional autonomy, freedom of conscience, the limits of parental authority, the scope of habeas corpus against private detention, and the State’s public-law liability when its machinery permits an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty to continue.

Two adult women before the constitutional court

The petition concerned Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia, aged about 35 years, and Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia, aged about 20 years. By an order dated July 30, 2026, the State was directed to produce both women before the High Court. They were subsequently produced before Justice Sandeep Jain by police officials from the Cyber Crime Police Station, Agra.

The Court then did something crucial for a habeas corpus proceeding involving allegations of coercion: it interacted with the women directly. Anshu told the Court that she had voluntarily embraced Islam in 2020, describing the decision as a conscious and independent choice motivated by mental peace, spiritual fulfilment and inner solace. She stated that the decision was not the result of inducement, influence, coercion, undue persuasion or any extraneous consideration. She further stated that her father strongly opposed the decision and subsequently confined her within the parental home. According to her, physical restraint, intimidation and sustained mental harassment were used to compel her to renounce the faith she had chosen and return to Hinduism.

Diya, who had completed her education up to the Intermediate level, similarly told the Court that she had voluntarily embraced Islam in 2021, motivated by personal faith, conscience, mental peace and spiritual solace. She too denied force, fraud, coercion, undue influence or allurement.

Both women consistently maintained before the Court that their decisions were voluntary and conscious and arose from their own individual faith and freedom of conscience. They also denied that their conversion was motivated by an extraneous, unlawful or pecuniary consideration or intended to advance the interests of any individual or organisation. The dispute therefore came before the High Court in a very specific constitutional form: Were these adult women unlawfully confined by their father against their own wishes?

The State’s case: This was not merely a family dispute

The State strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition. The father had lodged Case Crime No. 228 of 2025 at Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra, alleging that the women had been subjected to forcible and deceitful conversion from Hinduism to Islam. The FIR was initially registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

During investigation, the investigating agency subsequently added:

• Sections 61(2), 111(3), 111(4) and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and
• Sections 3/5(1) and 5(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The State argued that the addition of these provisions demonstrated that the allegations of voluntary conversion could not simply be accepted at face value. But the State went considerably further. Its case was that the alleged conversion was part of a larger and organised conspiracy with ramifications for the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation.

It claimed that the investigation had uncovered material indicating the involvement of organised persons pursuing a coordinated design to disturb the social fabric through unlawful religious conversions.

The State also referred to alleged involvement of foreign entities and external influences, arguing that the investigation was continuing and that releasing the women could prejudice the proceedings. It further contended that the women had been projected as victims in the criminal case and that allowing them to reside with persons allegedly connected to the investigation could influence witnesses, prejudice the prosecution and frustrate the administration of criminal justice. The State therefore attempted to place the case within a much larger framework of public order, national interest and security.

The High Court was not persuaded.

Findings of the Court

• What is the scope of habeas corpus?

Before determining whether the detention was illegal, Justice Sandeep Jain examined the nature of the writ itself. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha, where the Supreme Court explained that habeas corpus is available wherever a person is deprived of personal liberty unlawfully or without justification.

Importantly, the Supreme Court authority recognises that habeas corpus is not confined to State detention. It can also be invoked against private detention. The Allahabad High Court quoted the principle that the writ is available for release from detention not only by the State but also from private detention. This becomes central to the case as the father was not a State official exercising a statutory power of detention. The alleged confinement was taking place inside the parental home. But that did not take the matter outside Article 226. The constitutional inquiry was simple: Was there lawful authority for the restraint?

• A parental home is not a legal prison—but it cannot become one

The judgment’s treatment of private detention is especially significant. The women were allegedly confined in their parental home. That fact could easily have been used to characterise the dispute as a family matter. Thankfully, the Court refused to do so. Habeas corpus exists precisely because the law is concerned with the fact of unlawful restraint, not merely the formal label attached to the person exercising it. The relevant question was not whether the father believed he was acting in the interests of his daughters. The question was whether he had legal authority to restrain two adult women. The Court ultimately found that he did not.

• Majority marks the constitutional end of parental custody

The Court relied on a line of constitutional jurisprudence concerning the autonomy of adult women. One of the authorities discussed was the Supreme Court’s decision in Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas. There, the Supreme Court held that once an individual attains majority, she is entitled to make her own choices and that courts should not assume the role of a super-guardian merely because a parent disapproves of that choice.

The Allahabad High Court also considered the Kerala High Court’s decision in Rajamohan MS v. State of Kerala, which dealt specifically with parental attempts to restrain an adult woman. That decision recognised that parental authority may extend to advice, counselling and guidance, but not to confinement or detention against the wishes of an adult daughter.

The Allahabad High Court reproduced the proposition that an adult major woman cannot be treated as a “chattel” and that parental authority does not give a parent the right to keep her under restraint against her will. This jurisprudence supplies the conceptual foundation for the present ruling. Once adulthood is attained, the parent-child relationship does not disappear. But its legal character changes.

• The Court rejects the idea that parents know what is “best” for adult women

The reliance on Rajamohan MS case is particularly important because it confronts a deeply embedded paternalistic assumption: that parents should be permitted to control adult women’s decisions because they believe those decisions are wrong, imprudent or harmful. The jurisprudence cited by the High Court rejects that logic.

An adult’s decision does not lose constitutional protection simply because the decision might later prove to be unwise. The Kerala High Court authority, quoted in the judgment, makes the point that courts cannot permit the concepts of parents about what is “right and good” for their adult daughters to override the daughters’ own assessment of what is right for them. This principle is particularly relevant in the present case.

The women’s choice concerned religion—a matter inherently connected to conscience and identity. The Constitution cannot recognise individual autonomy while simultaneously allowing family members to exercise a veto over the individual’s conscience.

• Reliance on Shafin Jahan to hold that constitutional courts are not super-guardians

The judgment also invokes Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., one of the Supreme Court’s most crucial decisions on individual autonomy. The High Court notes the Supreme Court’s recognition that constitutional courts may exercise parens patriae jurisdiction for persons who are incapable of exercising free will, such as minors or persons of unsound mind. But that principle cannot be extended to competent adults simply because their choices are controversial or disapproved of by others.

The Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan emphasised that decisions concerning intimate and personal matters belong to the individuals concerned and that neither State nor society can intrude into that domain merely because they disapprove of the choice. The Allahabad High Court uses that jurisprudence to reinforce a fundamental distinction: A constitutional court protects an adult’s autonomy; it does not replace it.

The Court therefore did not ask whether it believed the women’s religious choice was sensible. It asked whether the women themselves had made the choice freely. Once the answer was yes, the constitutional duty was to protect that choice from unlawful restraint.

• The Court personally tests voluntariness

This is where the Court’s interaction with the women becomes legally decisive. Justice Sandeep Jain recorded that the responses of both women were: “spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal.”

Nothing emerged during the interaction to suggest that they were acting under coercion, fear, inducement or undue influence. On the contrary, both consistently asserted that they had voluntarily embraced Islam as a matter of personal faith and conscience. The Court therefore did not simply accept the women’s claims because they were petitioners. It independently interacted with them. This matters because the State’s central argument was that their assertion of voluntariness was false and that they had been made instruments of an organised conversion network. The Court found no material before it sufficient to draw that inference.

• Article 25: “Freedom of conscience” includes the freedom to change faith

The Court then turned to Article 25. It held that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience necessarily encompasses the right of a competent adult to adopt a faith, renounce a faith, or change her faith according to her own free will, belief and conviction. The Court did not conceptualise Article 25 merely as protecting the practice of an inherited religion. It recognised conscience as a matter of individual choice.

The Court held that such a decision is an essential facet of: individual autonomy, dignity and personal liberty. It is therefore protected not only under Article 25, but also under Article 21. If freedom of conscience means anything constitutionally, it cannot mean merely the freedom to remain within the religious identity assigned by one’s family. It must include the freedom to arrive at one’s own conviction. And where an adult voluntarily changes her faith, that choice cannot ordinarily be dictated by either the family or the State except within constitutionally permissible restrictions and the authority of law.

• The Uttar Pradesh Conversion Act does not answer the detention question

The State relied heavily on the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The Court acknowledged that the Act provides the statutory framework governing unlawful religious conversions and prescribes procedures concerning conversions. But the Court made an important jurisdictional observation: The vires of the 2021 Act had not been challenged before it. Nor was the legality or validity of the alleged conversion itself the subject matter of the habeas corpus proceedings. Any question concerning compliance or non-compliance with the Act was therefore left to the competent authority or court. The Court then reached the central distinction: “The legality of the conversion and the legality of their detention constitute two distinct and independent issues.” This distinction is the backbone of the judgment.

The Court went further. It said that even assuming, for the sake of argument,  that the conversion had not been carried out strictly according to the procedure prescribed under the 2021 Act, that assumption would not itself authorise the father to continue confining the women. This is a crucial rule-of-law proposition. An alleged violation of one law does not automatically create a power under another law to deprive a person of liberty. If the conversion was unlawful, the State could investigate it. If an offence was established, the criminal law could operate.

But the father could not become the custodian of the women merely because he believed their religious conversion was illegal. The State could not use the pendency of that investigation to permit the confinement to continue. Thus, the Court separates regulation from detention. The State may regulate conduct through law; however, it cannot manufacture a detention power that the law does not confer.

• National security cannot rest on assertion alone

The State’s invocation of sovereignty, integrity and national security was also examined closely. The Court found that, apart from broad assertions based on the FIR and the pendency of investigation, no material had been placed before it demonstrating that the voluntary exercise of religious choice by these women, by itself, constituted a threat to the sovereignty, integrity or security of the country. The Court therefore refused to accept the argument.

The court held that mere apprehensions, however serious they may appear, cannot substitute legally admissible material while adjudicating upon the fundamental rights of citizens. This is not a finding that national-security considerations can never justify restrictions on liberty. Rather, it is a rejection of conjecture as constitutional evidence. The seriousness of the allegation does not eliminate the need for material. A court deciding whether a fundamental right has been infringed cannot treat the language of “national security” as a substitute for proof.

• The Court refuses to infer an “oblique motive”

The Court also rejected the suggestion that the women were merely instruments in a larger unlawful design. After interacting with them, the Court said it could not discern material warranting an inference that they had acted with an oblique motive or had been reduced to instruments in the hands of an individual or organisation pursuing an unlawful agenda.

Such an inference, the Court held, could not legitimately be drawn from conjectures, surmises or allegations that remained to be tested before the competent criminal court. This distinction is significant as the Court did not adjudicate the criminal allegations, rather it simply refused to allow untested allegations to determine the constitutional status of the women before it. The criminal investigation was therefore left intact. But it was not allowed to become a basis for continuing their detention.

The investigation arising from Case Crime No. 228 of 2025 would continue strictly in accordance with law. But, the court held that mere pendency of a criminal investigation cannot, by itself, furnish a lawful justification for curtailing the liberty of adult citizens, particularly where they are not subject to any judicial or other lawful order of detention.

This is one of the judgment’s most important safeguards. A criminal investigation is a process for determining whether an offence has been committed. It is not, by itself, a source of custody. The existence of an FIR cannot turn a private residence into a lawful detention centre. Nor can the seriousness of the allegations eliminate the requirement that any deprivation of liberty have legal authority.

Parental authority yields to constitutional liberty: Compensation and directions

Having found the detention to be wholly illegal, the Court did not confine the remedy to a declaration that the women were free. It recognised that where a serious and prolonged violation of fundamental rights has already occurred, an order of release alone may not provide an adequate constitutional remedy. The Court therefore invoked the established jurisprudence on constitutional compensation, particularly Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa. These decisions establish that constitutional courts exercising jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 can award monetary compensation for egregious violations of fundamental rights as a public-law remedy. Such compensation is distinct from ordinary private-law damages and is intended to provide meaningful redress for the breach of a public duty to protect fundamental rights.

Applying this principle, the Court found the present case to involve an “exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights.” It took into account the fact that the women were adults and legally competent, the prolonged nature of their deprivation of liberty, the circumstances in which the confinement allegedly followed their exercise of freedom of conscience, and the mental and psychological consequences of the restraint. The Court also considered the failure of the State machinery to discharge its constitutional obligation to protect their liberty. It described the conduct as a “flagrant affront to the Rule of Law” and found that the State, rather than securing their release, had allowed the detention to continue under the ostensible cover of criminal proceedings. The award of compensation was therefore not presented as punitive damages or an ex gratia payment, but as a constitutional remedy flowing from the gravity of the fundamental-rights violation.

The Court consequently held the father and the State of Uttar Pradesh jointly and severally liable to pay ₹25 lakh, with the amount to be equally divided between the two women. The judgment also incorporated an important mechanism for individual accountability within the State machinery. After satisfying the compensation award, the State was permitted, subject to due process and an opportunity of hearing, to recover the stipulated share from the father and from any delinquent public servant whose acts or omissions contributed to the unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. This aspect of the order is significant because it moves beyond merely compensating the victims and raises the question of institutional responsibility for allowing an unlawful deprivation of liberty to persist.

The Court’s directions were also designed to restore the women’s practical autonomy, rather than merely declare their freedom in abstract terms. It directed that they were free to reside at any place and with any person of their choice and restrained the father from interfering with their personal liberty, movement, residence, profession or religious choices. The State authorities were directed to ensure that no interference was caused to their peaceful life and liberty and to provide protection if required. These directions recognise that liberty can be undermined even without formal physical detention. If a person is denied access to her documents, finances, educational records or other personal belongings, her ability to independently exercise her constitutional choices may remain substantially constrained.

Accordingly, the Court directed the father to hand over the women’s passports, educational certificates, identity documents, bank passbooks, cheque books, conversion-related documents and other personal belongings within seven days, with the State authorities directed to ensure compliance where necessary. At the same time, the Court carefully limited the scope of its intervention: it did not determine whether the alleged conversion was legally valid, whether the criminal allegations would ultimately be established, or whether any offence had been committed. The investigation was permitted to continue strictly in accordance with law. The significance of the judgment therefore lies in the balance it draws between investigative power and individual liberty: the State remains free to investigate an alleged offence, but neither an investigation nor parental disapproval can become a substitute for lawful authority to deprive an adult of her liberty.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

Two FIRs, Four Days In: Pune sees first use of Maharashtra’s controversial anti-conversion law

After NEET protests ended, the battle moved online: Women protesters face threats, doxing and criminalisation

One Death Every Few Days, Zero Accountability: Sanitation workers protest at Jantar Mantar

From Civil Registration to Identity Control: Parliament tightens India’s birth certificate regime without debate

‘Deportation Cannot Begin without Nationality Verification’: Union’s Rajubala affidavit clarifies legal limits on executive power

Brij Bhushan Acquittal: The system vs the wrestlers

The post When Family Becomes Custody: Allahabad HC holds adult women’s faith, residence and liberty cannot be placed under parental control appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a conversation with Sabrang India, Sanjay Tickoo, president of the Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (KPSS), said the latest incident must be understood against the backdrop of targeted killings, repeated security concerns and what he described as a persistent failure to address vulnerabilities faced by Kashmiri Pandit employees.

The immediate trigger is a purported threat letter circulated online in the name of the United Liberation Council (ULC), which warned Kashmiri Pandits working in the Valley to “change their ways” and published the names and phone numbers of employees. Police are reportedly verifying the authenticity of the letter, while security officials have suggested that the group could be a front or shadow organisation of Lashkar-e-Taiba.

According to The Indian Express, six employees, all from the Revenue Department, were named in the letter. The newspaper reported that departments, particularly the Revenue Department and School Education Department, had informally asked Kashmiri Pandit employees to remain at home or take leave, although the Director of School Education denied that any formal instructions had been issued. The New Indian Express likewise reported that Pandit employees had been asked to work from home for some time.

The detailed report may be read here.

Tickoo, however, argues that the immediate controversy over the letter obscures a much deeper problem.

A threat that cannot be seen in isolation

According to Tickoo, targeted killings of Kashmiri Pandits began to re-emerge as a serious concern from 2021 onwards. On October 5, 2021, prominent Kashmiri Hindu pharmacist Makhan Lal Bindroo was shot dead inside his pharmacy in Srinagar. Two days later, on October 7, Supinder Kour, a government school principal, and Deepak Chand, a teacher at the same school, were shot dead inside the school premises in Srinagar’s Eidgah area. These killings were part of a broader spate of targeted attacks against civilians, including Kashmiri Pandits and non-local workers. Government data recorded four Kashmiri Pandits among those killed by terrorists in 2021, further deepening the sense of vulnerability among the community and raising renewed questions over the security of those living and working in the Valley. The killings generated widespread fear within the community and renewed concerns over whether Kashmiri Pandits working in the Valley could be adequately protected.

The security environment subsequently intensified, with security forces conducting anti-militancy operations and authorities questioning individuals suspected of having links with militant networks, including alleged overground workers.

But for employees under the Prime Minister’s employment package, the problem was not limited to attacks themselves. The availability and circulation of personal information of employees became a recurring security concern. Around 6,000 Kashmiri Pandits have received government employment under the Prime Minister’s Special Rehabilitation and Employment Package, introduced in 2010 as part of the government’s effort to facilitate the return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pandits displaced from the Valley following the outbreak of militancy and the mass displacement of the community in the 1990s.

The employment package was premised on an important condition: beneficiaries were expected to work in the Valley. But, as Tickoo points out, the same requirement that forms the basis of the rehabilitation policy also leaves employees particularly vulnerable when security deteriorates.

The lists that keep resurfacing

This is not the first time the publication of employee details has raised alarm. In December 2022, Kashmiri Pandit employees protested after a purported hit list released by The Resistance Front (TRF) named 56 Kashmiri Pandits working in the Valley under the Prime Minister’s Rehabilitation Package. The employees demanded a high-level investigation into how official information identifying them had reached a militant organisation.

At the time, the employees were already protesting outside the Relief Commissioner’s office in Jammu following the targeted killing of Rahul Bhat in Chadoora on May 1, 2022.

The concern was straightforward: if the State had collected the personal information of employees for the purposes of rehabilitation and employment, how was that information reaching organisations issuing threats against them? Tickoo told Sabrang India that the problem has never really been resolved. According to him, lists containing details of Prime Minister’s Package employees have continued to circulate publicly on social media.

He believes the same publicly available information is now being exploited again. Tickoo said that while a larger list of around 20 employees is allegedly available on social media, the latest threat letter specifically identified seven employees with their full names and phone numbers. This differs from reports in The Indian Express, which identified six employees named in the purported letter.

For Tickoo, the issue is therefore not simply the existence of a threatening poster. It is how such specific personal information continues to become available in the first place. “How are these posters being posted on social media?” is the question he says the government must answer. More importantly, he asks, who is providing private information about government employees to those circulating the threats?

‘Since 2022, meetings have resulted in nothing’

Tickoo said the issue has repeatedly been raised with the government. According to him, several meetings have taken place with the Secretary of the Home Department since 2022, but they have not resulted in any meaningful resolution of the concerns raised by Kashmiri Pandit employees.

The latest episode comes after a period in which violence and insecurity have again been building in parts of Kashmir. Tickoo referred to the recent killing of a policeman in Anantnag and the subsequent killing of two migrant workers in Kulgam. The Wire reported the killing of policeman Ashiq Hussain Qureshi in Anantnag on June 22 while he was deployed for Amarnath Yatra duty, followed by the July 31 killing of two migrant workers from Chhattisgarh at a brick kiln in Kulgam.

The sequence, Tickoo argues, has heightened apprehension that further attacks could take place, including against minorities and migrant workers. For him, the responsibility ultimately rests with the government. Tickoo described the situation as a security lapse on the part of either the Union government or the Jammu and Kashmir administration, while expressing frustration that neither level of government has accepted responsibility.

When security concerns undermine rehabilitation

The contradiction at the heart of the Prime Minister’s Package is difficult to ignore. The government encourages displaced Kashmiri Pandits to return to the Valley and provides employment as part of its rehabilitation programme. Yet when security threats emerge, the immediate response is reportedly to ask those very employees to stay indoors or remain away from work.

That contradiction has existed for years. In 2022, after a series of targeted killings, Kashmiri Pandit employees staged a prolonged protest and demanded transfers outside Kashmir. The Indian Express reported that employees protested for around 350 days and sought permanent relocation to Jammu. The government rejected the demand and instead relocated some employees to areas considered safer within the Valley.

Tickoo argues that the latest episode risks producing the same outcome: employees who have been asked to return to Kashmir are once again made to feel that their presence there is unsafe. And the consequences extend beyond the immediate threat.

According to Tickoo, when employees leave the Valley because they feel unsafe, they risk losing the benefits attached to the rehabilitation package because those benefits are linked to their continuing residence and employment in Kashmir.

In other words, the employee is caught between two vulnerabilities: remaining in Kashmir despite a credible fear for personal safety, or leaving and potentially jeopardising the very rehabilitation benefits that were meant to facilitate their return.

‘They cannot simply return to work’

The latest threat has also created a practical problem for the employees whose names and numbers were published. Tickoo said that once an individual’s identity and telephone number have been publicly circulated alongside a threat, simply telling that person to return to work does not address the fear created by the threat.

The issue is particularly serious, he argues, because several of the employees named in the latest poster work in departments where their official responsibilities may place them in contact with people who have vested interests in government enforcement.

Tickoo specifically referred to employees working in Regional Transport Offices and alleged that private agents operating around these offices had historically relied on bribery to obtain driving licences and vehicle fitness certificates. According to him, the arrival of Kashmiri Pandit employees under the Prime Minister’s Package and their adherence to official procedures had disrupted such practices. He alleged that this could be one reason why employees working in these positions had become targets.

These claims are Tickoo’s allegations and would require independent investigation. But they point towards another dimension of the controversy: whether threats against government employees are connected not only to their identity as Kashmiri Pandits, but also to the particular government functions they perform.

The problem of the ‘unofficial’ order

Another striking feature of the present episode is the absence of a formal government order. The Indian Express reported that departments had verbally instructed Kashmiri Pandit employees to remain at home, while the Director of School Education publicly denied issuing such instructions. The Wire similarly reported that employees had received work-from-home directions through departmental or internal channels, without a publicly available formal order.

Tickoo says this informality is not accidental. According to him, governments in Kashmir often avoid issuing formal orders in such situations because an official directive to keep an entire section of employees away from their workplaces would amount to an acknowledgement that the security establishment has failed to protect them.

He also argues that a formal order could invite judicial scrutiny, particularly if employees are effectively prevented from discharging their duties because of their identity. The result, he says, is a system of verbal instructions in which everyone understands what is expected, but nobody formally accepts responsibility for the decision.

The question of the source

For Tickoo, the publication of phone numbers is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the latest episode. He questioned how individuals operating underground could obtain such specific information and circulate it publicly. He also questioned whether the source of the information could be traced and why the authorities had not yet established who was behind the dissemination of the posters.

The question is particularly significant because the purported threat does not merely make a general warning against a community. It identifies individuals. That transforms the issue from a broad security concern into a question of data security, official confidentiality and institutional responsibility. If employee lists are available openly on social media, the government must establish how they reached the public domain, whether official databases were compromised, whether the information was leaked deliberately or inadvertently, and whether those responsible for the disclosure can be identified.

Without such an investigation, the cycle is likely to repeat.

A growing lack of faith

Tickoo also spoke of what he described as a wider erosion of faith in the security establishment. According to him, people in Kashmir have been warning the Union government for the last three to four years that something appeared to be building up. Those concerns, he believes, have not received adequate attention. The latest threat therefore carries significance beyond the employees reportedly named in it.

If employees believe that their personal details can be obtained, that threats can be issued against them, and that the government response will be to ask them to remain indoors rather than identify the source of the threat, confidence in the security system inevitably weakens. For the Kashmiri Pandit community, this is particularly consequential because rehabilitation itself depends on a measure of trust.

Rehabilitation cannot mean confinement

The contradiction becomes even sharper against the backdrop of public celebrations and government campaigns in the Valley. The Wire reported heightened security arrangements ahead of Independence Day, including additional checkpoints, frisking, night patrols and surveillance. At the same time, authorities and BJP workers have been organising Tiranga rallies, cultural programmes, sporting events and other public activities as part of the Har Ghar Tiranga–Vande Mataram campaign.

Tickoo questions the contrast. If a minority community is being informally asked to remain indoors because of security threats, he asks, how can the government simultaneously claim that normalcy has been restored and organise public celebrations across the Valley?

For him, the issue is not opposition to public celebrations. It is the contradiction between projecting normal public life and privately instructing a vulnerable section of the population to restrict its movement. The question is ultimately one of whose normalcy is being protected.

‘Why are the Pandits still suffering?’

Tickoo’s larger argument is that the government cannot continue treating every such episode as an isolated security incident. The latest threat may be attributed to a purported militant organisation. The police may establish that the letter is genuine or fabricated. The perpetrators may eventually be identified—or they may not. But, Tickoo argues, the underlying problem remains.

Over the past several years, Kashmiri Pandit employees have faced targeted killings, threats, protests, demands for transfers, security restrictions and repeated uncertainty over whether they can safely continue working in the Valley.

A rehabilitation policy that requires employees to live and work in Kashmir cannot succeed merely by providing employment. It must also ensure that they can move freely, access public spaces, perform their jobs and live ordinary lives without being forced into periodic confinement because of their identity.

The latest threat therefore raises questions that go beyond the purported organisation behind the poster. Who has access to the employees’ personal information? Why have repeated concerns about leaked lists not produced a satisfactory answer? Why are employees once again being asked to stay indoors instead of being given a transparent security assessment? And how long can a rehabilitation policy function if its beneficiaries repeatedly feel compelled to leave the Valley for their own safety?

For Tickoo, the larger failure is one of accountability. He argues that when security lapses occur, the State can point towards an organisation, a militant network or actors across the border. But if threats are able to reach identifiable employees and disrupt their everyday lives, the State must also account for the security failures within its own institutional framework.

The danger, he says, is that anyone could claim to represent a fabricated organisation, circulate threats and create fear and disruption, while the government simply attributes the episode to forces operating from across the border. That, however, does not answer the question of how the information reached them. Nor does it answer the question of why, after years of assurances and repeated meetings, Kashmiri Pandit employees continue to feel that their return to the Valley comes with an unresolved risk.

The latest threat letter may disappear from social media. The informal work-from-home instructions may eventually be withdrawn. Employees may be asked to return to their offices. But unless the questions around security, accountability and leaked personal information are answered, the larger problem will remain: a community encouraged to return in the name of rehabilitation, but repeatedly reminded that its safety in the Valley remains uncertain.

Related:

This is what we feared: Sanjay Tickoo on the rising attacks in Kashmir since March

Pleas of non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits have fallen on deaf ears: Sanjay Tickoo

Time has come to go on fast unto death: Sanjay Tickoo

Kashmiri Pandit leader Sanjay Tickoo talks about Governor’s Rule in J&K

A Kashmiri Pandit fact-checks The Kashmir Files

10 reasons why Kashmiri Pandits feel betrayed in the Valley

The post ‘How Can Rehabilitation Work If We Are Not Safe?’ Sanjay Tickoo on the fresh threat to Kashmiri Pandit employees appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Uttar Pradesh & Uttarakhand, June 28 – July 5, 2026

Chronology of Incidents

June 28- Ilaichipur, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

BJP MLA for Loni, Nandkishore Gurjar at the inauguration of local development projects is seen addressing a large crowd stating that 99 percent of Indian Muslims were originally Hindus. He added that those who were “weak” converted while those who were “strong” fought “demons” rather than convert.

This was not an isolated incident during the reporting period. Gurjar was also implicated in another hate speech delivered on July 3, which will be listed down in the chronology. (See incident number 6)

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

Incidentally, two hate speeches in 2025 according to IHL’s report traces directly to Gurjar. On March 17,  2025 in Loni, Uttar Pradesh, Gurjar referred to Muslims as “demons” and “beasts” while glorifying the demolition of Babri mosque. On April 26, he administered an oath to protest attendees, urging them to identify and expel all those who “support Pakistan,” referring to them as “topiwallas,” “jihadis,” and “Rohingya Bangladeshis.”

In addition to this documented history of communal speeches, Association for Democratic Reforms records show that Gurjar has multiple criminal cases in which charges have been framed, including:

• IPC Section 295: Injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class.
• IPC Section 436: Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house or other property.
• IPC Section 332: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from the discharge of duty.
• IPC Section 506: Criminal intimidation.
• Three charges under IPC Section 147: Rioting.
• Two charges under IPC Section 148: Rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Two charges under IPC Section 353: Assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of duty.
• IPC Section 427: Mischief causing damage.
• IPC Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace.

All of this taken together indicates a recurring pattern of inflammatory public statements—often a precursor to targeted violence- alongside a long-standing record of criminal proceedings.

June 29– Champawat, Uttarakhand

Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, Pushkar Singh Dhami, at a Mukhya Sevak Samvad outreach event, Dhami credited his government with implementing the state’s amended anti-conversion law, running Operation Kalnemi, and “freeing” over 12,000 acres of government land from what he called “land jihad.” He also invoked “love jihad,” “thook jihad” (spit jihad) and “mazar jihad” (shrine jihad), calling them anti-social and anti-national. He further accused the political opposition of appeasement politics for opposing action against “illegal” encroachments and mazars (Muslim shrines).

https://www.facebook.com/hindutvawatchIn/videos/location-champawat-uttarakhanddate-june-29at-the-mukhya-sevak-samvad-program-chi/1751173735881458/

This rhetoric is a verbatim repetition of Dhami’s script which he has used in at least half a dozen recorded speeches since 2024 in Haridwar, Dehradun, Chamoli and Sagar. Reported by The Quint and Deccan Herald.

According to IHL, Dhami has “emerged as the most prolific hates speech actor in 2025, with 71 speeches.”

“CM Dhami and his colleagues frequently invoked the anti-Muslim conspiracies of “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and “spit jihad” alongside fear-mongering about demographic change,” the report states.

June 30– Dehradun, Uttarakhand

A Vishwa Hindu Parshad-Bajrang Dal leader Vikas Verma, at a weekly Hanuman Chalisa gathering cited an unverified case of Hindu students allegedly forced to remove their tilak, kalava and janeu at school. He accused Christianity and Islam of long targeting Sanatan Dharma and welcomed Uttarakhand’s dissolution of the Madrasa Board as he alleged madrasas teach students that non-Muslims are “kafirs” who should be beheaded. He also claimed that those who choose to educate from madrasas will not hesitate to practise terrorism.

Verma has delivered near-identical claims about mosques, madrasas and “anarchists” at the same weekly event before. Im May this year, he also led a right-wing group to a prominent footwear showroom in Dehradhun and a clip was circulated where they were purportedly seen selectively confronting Muslim staff and even snatching their name tags and writing “jihadi” on it.

An investigation published by The Wire found Dehradun Bajrang Dal members running dedicated social-media pages built around similar content.

June 30– Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

Hindu Raksha Dal leader Sunny Bajrangi, at a Hanuman Chalisa event called “love jihad” a “termite” eating away at Hindu society. He alleged “jihadis” hide their identity to trap Hindu women, and warned that demographic change would become unstoppable within 20 years unless Hindus unite.

July 1- Domariaganj, Siddharthnagar, Uttar Pradesh

Former BJP MLA Raghvendra Pratap Singh at an event marking Shyama Prasad Mukherjee’s birth anniversary said “love jihad” was rising rapidly and cited an unverified ‘kidnapping’ allegation of a Hindu woman against a “Mulla.” Singh urged BJP workers to watch for “vidharmi” (heretic/anti-faith) and “kukarmi” (evildoer) elements. He also called for scrutiny of Christian missionary activity.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaavObxMIgW/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

In February 2022, a report by Citizens for Justice and Peace documented two FIRs for hate speech against Singh. CJP quoted far more extreme past remarks, including threats to “get their blood tested” against Hindus who did not vote for him. Read the report here.

July 3- Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

The incident again implicates Nandkishore Gurjar, the BJP MLA for Loni who was also the perpetrator in the current reported incident 1. At the inauguration of a road-widening project, Gurjar called Muslims “pigs” and a “disease.” He praised a village for barring any “jihadi” from settling there, and said hospitals now stood where   these “pigs” once roamed. He warned residents against renting warehouses to “Bangladeshis” and vowed to drive them out.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dad_ttrsEyL/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Ten months earlier, in September 2025, Gurjar was filmed at a yoga event in Baghpat saying, “Swines and Bangladeshi Rohingyas are being settled here, and they will ruin the country.”

July 4- Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh

Vimlesh Sharma of the Shri Ram Sanatan Seva Samiti and the Gau Raksha Dal along with a group of 15-20 men confronted a Muslim man over alleged remarks about a cow. In the video, they are seen repeatedly slapping and hurling abuses at him as he tries to offer an explanation. The group dragged him to a shed, and forced him to kneel and touch a calf’s legs and later chants “Jai Shri Ram.” Sources also document that he was forced to drink cow urine.

Location:Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, India ,
According to reports, Vimlesh Sharma, State President of the Shri Ram Sanatan Seva Samiti, along with members of the Gau Raksha Dal, allegedly assaulted a Muslim man after accusing him of making objectionable remarks about a cow.

The… pic.twitter.com/BFPrrT5Ik1

— Rising Falcon (@TheRFTeam) July 5, 2026

The Siasat Daily also reports that the Hindutva group’s own Instagram post accused the man of threatening a violent, blood-soaked Holi.

In a video posted on X, Vimlesh Sharma justified the assault by alleging that the victim had abused their mothers and sisters and mocked their dietary practices, stating that these actions prompted the group to respond as they did.

Location: Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh

Vimalesh Sharma, the state president of Shri Ram Sanatan Seva Samiti, released a video in which he said that he beat a Muslim man accused of making offensive remarks about cows and forcibly made him drink cow urine. https://t.co/K8zCAB2L17 pic.twitter.com/eYt8ux4M8Q

— The Muslim (@TheMuslim786) July 7, 2026

According to media reports, the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the Barabanki Superintendent of Police stated that the police were unaware of the incident.

Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain has condemned such acts of forced religious worship and described it as “deeply disturbing.”

The assault and humiliation of a Muslim man in Barabanki, including forcing him to perform religious acts against his will, is deeply disturbing. Such acts are not expressions of faith but crimes that violate human dignity and the Constitution.

When vigilante groups believe they… pic.twitter.com/jq7Hlgb0Ki

— Dr Syed Naseer Hussain, M P (@NasirHussainINC) July 4, 2026

July 5- Kaintholi, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand

One, Amit Thapliyal along with a few associates stopped a Christian Sunday prayer meeting, asserting that Hinduism is the village’s only permitted religion. Thapiyal accused attendees of attending for payment, and told them to surrender their Scheduled Caste (SC) reservation benefits if they wished to practice Christianity.

Assessment

No reports of any FIR or case registered has emerged against any of these incidents. Most, in fact, were not found reported in mainstream media at the time of writing. This unfortunately is evidence if such were needed of the cavalier and casual manner in which legacy and mainstream media treats such hate speech; avoidance of which allows for a continued prevalence of a culture of impunity. However, the videos show a pattern of anti-minority mobilisation that is consistent with established scholarship on communal politics, majoritarian nationalism, and hate speech in India. They demonstrate how political rhetoric, vigilante action, and symbolic performances of dominance reinforce one another to construct religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians, as threats to the nation, culture, and social order.

The incidents are examples of moral panic and conspiracy framing in which minority communities are portrayed as engaging in coordinated efforts to undermine the demographic, territorial, or cultural integrity of the Hindu majority. This assessment is not to paint any one community as total saints and another as perpetrators. However, such rhizomatic organisation and hate speech by creating an atmosphere of perceived threat only legitimises exceptional state action and public hostility.  They create an imagined internal enemy whose existence justifies exclusionary politics.

The repeated and exhausting invocation of various forms of ‘jihad,’ portrayal of Muslims as ‘Bangladeshis,’ or ‘swines,’ disruption of Christian prayer meetings, and performative humiliation by asking someone to forcefully chant a religious slogan suggest diffusion of a shared ideological repertoire of how political authority and vigilante mobilisation reinforce one another.

Importantly, 3 out of 8 incidents have been attributed to a sitting Chief Minister and an MLA. This convergence of official political speech and vigilante action is a significant feature of democratic backsliding and ethno nationalism. Uttarakhand held municipal elections on June 9, 2026, and Uttar Pradesh has delayed its three-tier panchayat elections, with voter-list work underway through the summer of 2026 across nearly 58,000 gram panchayats

But a similar language appearing across chief ministerial speeches, local political leaders, and organisations such as the Bajrang Dal, Hindu Raksha Dal, and cow-protection groups suggests the diffusion of a shared ideological repertoire. One that is unconstitutional. However, such language has frequently been used, even at a national level, including from the head of government.

The trajectory of hate speech leading up to the 2024 General Elections has been documented by India Hate Speech Monitor. It can be accessed here.

Several of these incidents cannot be separated from a broader, well-documented campaign. Since May 2025, Indian authorities have detained and, in many cases, summarily expelled thousands of people to Bangladesh, a substantial number of them Bengali-speaking Indian Muslims with valid citizenship documents. UP has seen its own share of wrongful detentions of West Bengal migrant workers holding valid Aadhaar and voter identification.

In Uttrakhand, disruption of prayer meetings is documented. In July 2024, an 11-person FIR followed a mob attack on a Dehradun prayer meeting that vandalised a crucifix.

Uttarakhand: Hindutva mob attacks Christian prayer meet in Dehradun. A group of Hindutva ‘activists’ barged into the house and assaulted people including women present inside, Forcefully entered inside the house and vandalised a Christian cross, prayer room and bedroom, made… pic.twitter.com/BLD7vbXp2Y

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) July 16, 2024

Similarly, in May 2022 in Purola,Uttarakhand a prayer meeting was stormed by an armed group. The coercive demand to renounce SC reservation status is a recognisable feature of this genre nationally. However, the groups are also apprehensive of forced-conversion practices.

Sections 196 and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 penalises promoting disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will. This is the only remedy for hate speech between religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups. The maximum sentence is three years, rising to five if the act occurs at a place of worship or religious ceremony.

However, the structural problem, independent of any single case, is enforcement and conviction rates. In May this year, the Supreme Court said that separate guidelines for heat speech were unnecessary. This climb-down by the apex court to its own earlier interventionist directions and orders around such mobilisations is also a sign of institutional disregard to a culture of growing anti-minority public rhetoric. A detailed analysis on the Supreme Court’s final judgement on the issue may be read here and here.

According to IHL, documented 1,318 hate speech events nationally in 2025, roughly four events a day, with 98 percent targeting Muslims either alone or alongside Christians.

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

Related:

Targeted as ‘Bangladeshis’: The hate speech fuelling deportations

A Targeted Campaign: The orchestrated crackdown on Bengali Migrants and the rising pushback from courts, Bengal government, and civil society

India Hate Lab Report 2025: How Hate Speech has been normalised in the public sphere

The post A week of anti-minority hate that grips UP-Uttarakhand appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These rising classes, coming up due to industrialisation, communication and modern education, looked forward to a country where  an inclusive nationalism will ensure the peace and progress of the country. Class-wise this was a broad generalization,  while few exceptions were scattered here and there. To oppose or ignore these trends towards modern India, we also had the declining sections of earlier rulers/dominant sections of society who were steeped in the feudal values of hierarchy of caste and gender. Those; who were rooted in the values of patriarchy and glorified the times when the values of Kingdoms/feudalism prevailed. They mostly opposed the freedom movement and insisted on ‘glorious ancient’ times.

They imposed a method of looking backwards while walking forwards. These tendencies came from the landlords. Kings etc. who were scared of the ripples of empowerment of workers/Dalits/women and Adivasis. They typically glorified their kings of their religion and the social values related to those times. The Muslim League had mainly support from the nawabs and Landlords, while Hindu Mahasabha-RSS had supporters from Rajas, Landlords and clerics. They opposed the emerging values of democratic society, modern education for all and struggle against the British. These tendencies regarded religion as the base of Nation, well-articulated by Savarkar in his book, Hindutva or ‘Who is a Hindu’. This was a painful counter to the ongoing anti-British struggle of the national movement. The partition of the country on the basis of religion was the biggest stab in the back of Indian Nationalism.

The Constituent Assembly well represented the diversity of the country. Ambedkar who had burnt Manu smriti was asked to chair the crucial drafting committee. Soon after the Constitution was formed, the RSS mouthpiece Organiser came with a scathing criticism of this on the grounds that it does not have the ancient values of Manu smriti. The images of Ambedkar and Nehru were burnt by these elements.

The independent India had the twin leadership of Nehru-Patel, both staunch followers of Gandhi. While Patel successfully integrated most of the Princely states, Nehru implemented the vision of Modern India by ensuring that the Constitution is implemented in letter and spirit. ‘One person One Vote’ was implemented successfully and roots of democracy were planted deep with Nehru’s undying faith in democracy and secularism, which in a way are twins. His plan of Modern education (IITs, IIMs, AIIMS to name a few) laying the foundation of the public sector, focus on irrigation and implementation of reservation policy did ensure some march towards equality. Some commentators who compare Pakistan and India’s plight a few decades earlier stated that India’s achievements and Pakistan’s failure (In education, industrialization) can also be attributed to many factors, but the central factor was the presence of Jawaharlal Nehru in India.

Now from the last few decades the rise of Hindu right wing, RSS and its progeny have changed the direction of national goals and ideas. Now authoritarian politics in the name of Hindu religion is taking the CenterStage, and has undermining the idea of India which emerged during our freedom movement. Those who were standing on the by lanes and opposing the freedom movement and its values of inclusion and equality of all are now dominating and the development of the country has come to a halt. The walls of hate against religious minorities are out to demolish the values of fraternity in our society. The recently held movement against the failure of the examination system has definitely broken the arrogance of this regime, but the direction and goals of Hindu nationalism are very much intact. The battle to restore our democratic spirit and values of the Indian constitution needs a protracted and long struggle.

RSS combine has sowed hatred very deep in the society, it has also infiltrated all the facets of Indian state. The dissatisfaction due to its policies has peaked and surfaced strongly with the Cockroach movement. This has ensured that the inhibition imposed by the ‘elected autocratic’ regime may loosen up a bit for the time being. The deeper wound inflicted by the RSS combine may not be easily overcome. It has affected the body politics in a very deep manner. A regime change from the one committed to Hindu nationalism to the one devoted to the Indian Constitution is what is needed in the due course. The false hood-based narratives which have made a place in popular understanding need to be countered by the narratives built around love and friendship of Indian people from centuries, the narratives around which Bose, Gandhi, Patel and Nehru strove to instil them among the in the Indian people. The Jantar mantar phenomenon is the first step towards recovering India’s being as the centuries old civilization struggling to make its deserving place in the comity of nations.

The condition of minorities needs to be brought to the level of ‘equal citizenship’. The Authoritarianism of the Government needs to be undone and we need to resume nation building on a rational and scientific basis. The Jantar mantar initiative is just the beginning, a long way to go to restore the dreams of Gandhi and Ambedkar, Bhagat Singh and Subhash Bose, Maulana Azad and Sardar Patel. Wishing all a happy Independence Day.

Related:

Sharia, Manusmriti or the Indian Constitution

Identity issue to the fore: Vande Mataram controversy

The post Looking Forward to 79th Independence Day: Whither Democracy! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Teachers working as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) have been engaged in the exercise for more than a month. They were earlier expected to return to schools on August 8, but their deployment has now been extended until August 17. The draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on August 24.

The extended schedule means teachers appointed as BLOs, as well as those assisting them, will continue with house visits, voter verification, form-related work and other activities connected with the revision.

Unit tests and classroom teaching affected

Schools are preparing for unit tests scheduled for August while also working with new textbooks introduced for Standards III, IV and VI under the National Education Policy. Teachers and school heads said the continued absence of staff has made it difficult for schools to maintain regular teaching and complete the syllabus.

The periodic assessment test, which is mandatory for students and is intended to assess their learning and academic progress, is normally conducted in August. Educationists have said that continued teacher deployment could push the assessment towards the end of September or October.

The extension has also affected unit tests planned for the second week of August. In several government and civic schools, teachers have either been fully relieved from school duties or are spending a substantial part of their working hours on SIR-related work.

In some schools, more than 70% of the teaching staff has reportedly been deployed for SIR duties, leaving fewer teachers to handle regular classes and examinations. Several schools have also been functioning for only half a day because of the shortage of teaching staff.

Teacher Madhav Suryawanshi said the continued deployment was affecting classroom work. He said, “BLO and SIR duties are complicated and continuous processes that require teachers to stay away from classrooms for several weeks”, as reported by the Times of India.

He also pointed out that the new textbooks introduced this year for Standards III, IV and VI under the NEP required additional classroom attention. According to him, schools were already facing difficulties in completing the syllabus and preparing for the first unit tests.

Schools managing with reduced staff

The impact is not limited to teachers formally appointed as BLOs. School heads said other teaching and non-teaching employees have also been assigned to assist in the SIR exercise.

According to the Times of India, Headmaster Tanaji Mane said his school had 17 teachers, one clerk and four Class IV employees. Initially, three teachers had been appointed as BLOs, but from July, the teaching and non-teaching staff were also assigned as assistants for the SIR exercise and directed to be relieved from their regular school duties.

According to Mane, the school had to function with reduced staff before all employees were eventually relieved. He was later also assigned election duty.

He said schools were simultaneously receiving circulars relating to literacy surveys, out-of-school children, student records and departmental competitions, making it difficult to run the school with normal staffing.

Education Department accounts for large share of BLO appointments

Tanaji Kamble, president of the Progressive Teachers Association, cited figures from the Ghatkopar East Assembly constituency to highlight the extent of teacher deployment. According to Kamble, 283 employees were appointed for BLO duties in the constituency. Of these, 184, or around 65%, were from the Education Department, including 157 teachers. Kamble said the figures from one constituency reflected the wider situation in Mumbai. He also said the government had stated that around 40% of teachers had been assigned SIR duties, while the situation on the ground was different, as per a report in the Hindustan Times.

The deployment has also led to pressure on teachers who do not report for election-related work. Police stations have issued notices to some teachers who failed to report for duty.

The issue has led to concerns among teachers, headmasters and school managements. Some school administrators have also approached the court over the matter, although no hearing has taken place so far.

Teachers say prolonged duty is affecting learning

Faruk Kazi, another teacher involved in the SIR exercise, said teachers had already been under pressure because of the prolonged nature of the work. As reported by the Times of India, Kazi said, “We have been under immense pressure for the past month. The form-filling process was completed only recently, but now verification and subsequent stages will continue.”

He said the revised schedule could extend the work into October and added that the Education Department had not done enough to address the concerns arising from prolonged non-academic duties. Jalinder Sarode, working president of Shikshak Sena (Maharashtra), also said the extension was coming at a time when examinations were already being conducted, as reported

As reported, Sarode said, “Examinations are going on and the frequent absence of teachers is disturbing the teaching process.”

He suggested that the government consider using trained personnel from other departments or outsourcing election-related work instead of continuing to deploy teachers from schools.

Concern over prolonged absence from classrooms

Suhas Gurav, an educator, said the issue was not limited to the additional workload being placed on teachers. He said attention also needed to be given to the effect of prolonged BLO and SIR duties on classroom teaching. As reported, Gurav said, “The real question is whether parents and society recognise that prolonged BLO and SIR responsibilities prevent teachers from devoting sufficient time to their primary responsibility of teaching.”

The SIR extension means teachers and other school employees assigned to the exercise will continue their election-related responsibilities until August 17, while the draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on August 24. Schools will accordingly continue to manage regular teaching and academic activities alongside the extended election-related deployment.

Related:

The Deadly Deadline: “I Can’t Do This Anymore”—India’s electoral revision turns into a graveyard for BLOs/teachers

SIR exercise leaves trail of suicide across states as BLOs buckle under pressure and citizens panic over citizenship

Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear”

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

The post Maharashtra SIR extension keeps teachers away from classrooms as unit tests face delays appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to The Indian Express, the Jammu and Kashmir administration has informally instructed government departments to allow Kashmiri Pandit employees to remain away from work and to remain alert, with some reportedly advised to move to safer locations. Sources cited by the newspaper said the instructions were particularly directed towards departments such as School Education and Revenue. However, there is no publicly available formal government order confirming the arrangement.

The New Indian Express similarly reported that Pandit employees had been asked to work from home “for some time”, with one Prime Minister’s Package employee telling the newspaper that they had been instructed to remain away from work until August 25. Other reports have put the period at August 20 or August 15, reflecting the absence of a clearly communicated formal order.

The discrepancy has also been acknowledged by government officials. The Indian Express quoted Naseer Ahmad Wani, Director of School Education, as saying that no instructions had been issued to employees to work from home or take leave and that government employees were continuing to report for duty. His statement came after school principals reportedly told the newspaper that they had received verbal instructions to be lenient with the attendance of migrant employees and subsequently to ask them to remain at home.

The reported threat letter has been attributed to a group calling itself the United Liberation Council (ULC). Police are still verifying its authenticity. Security officials cited by Free Press Kashmir suspect that the group may be a front or “shadow” outfit of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. According to a police officer quoted by The Indian Express, the group first surfaced in July, when it released a poster marking the death anniversary of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani.

The alleged letter specifically targeted Kashmiri Pandits who reside outside the Valley but work in Kashmir. Six employees were reportedly named, all belonging to the Revenue Department. The threat purportedly sought to connect their government duties with the seizure of properties allegedly associated with militants or terrorists. The letter is also reported to have claimed that the group possessed details of the employees’ families and locations.

The publication of the employees’ personal information has itself become a major security concern. The New Indian Express reported that Kashmiri Pandit groups have questioned how the names and phone numbers of the six employees became publicly available, asking whether the disclosure represented a security lapse, a breach of confidentiality or a deliberate leak. The Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (KPSS) called for the loopholes to be identified and for vulnerable employees to be protected before the situation deteriorates further.

Panun Kashmir convenor Dr Agnishekhar also called for a comprehensive threat assessment of all persons named in the letter and their immediate families. He urged Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha to direct the police and security agencies to review the security arrangements for Pandit employees, particularly those working in sensitive government departments.

The threat comes against the backdrop of a renewed security alert in the Valley following a series of attacks. Two migrant workers from Chhattisgarh were killed at a brick kiln in Kulgam on July 31. The Indian Express reported that the threat letter emerged approximately a week after the killings. The Wire, meanwhile, placed the developments within a broader sequence of recent attacks, noting the killing of policeman Ashiq Hussain Qureshi in a busy marketplace in Anantnag on June 22 while he was deployed for Amarnath Yatra duty, followed by the killing of the two migrant workers in Kulgam.

Against this backdrop, security arrangements have reportedly been intensified around areas inhabited by Kashmiri Pandits. According to The Wire, police and security forces have increased night patrols, checkpoints, frisking and surveillance at vulnerable locations and important entry and exit points across Kashmir ahead of Independence Day. A security review chaired by Kashmir Zone Inspector General of Police V.K. Birdi reportedly brought together senior officials from the Jammu and Kashmir Police, BSF, CRPF, SSB, ITBP, Railway Protection Force, intelligence agencies, traffic police and the Army, besides district police chiefs.

The security review reportedly focused on arrangements for Independence Day celebrations, particularly the main function at Srinagar’s Bakshi Stadium. Officers were directed to strengthen checkpoints during night hours, intensify area domination and patrolling in sensitive areas and maintain heightened surveillance and inter-agency coordination.

The security measures have coincided with the reported restrictions on Kashmiri Pandit employees. The Wire reported that some minority employees had been asked to work from home until Independence Day, while KPSS president Sanjay Tickoo told the publication that Pandit employees had been asked not to leave their residential colonies or report to their offices. Other reports, however, have cited August 20 and August 25 as the end dates communicated to employees.

The varying accounts underline an important feature of the current situation: the reported restrictions appear to have been communicated primarily through informal or departmental channels rather than through a publicly accessible government order. This has created uncertainty not only about the precise scope and duration of the restrictions but also about their legal and administrative basis.

For Kashmiri Pandit employees, staying indoors also does not necessarily resolve the underlying security problem. Sunny Raina, president of the All Prime Minister’s Package Employees, told The Indian Express that employees had been asked to remain at home after the threat posters appeared but argued that this was not a solution. Employees still need to purchase groceries, obtain medicines and maintain ordinary social lives. The concern is therefore not simply whether they can be protected inside their homes or colonies, but whether they can safely participate in ordinary public and professional life.

The issue is particularly significant because employment in Kashmir forms an integral part of the government’s rehabilitation policy for displaced Kashmiri Pandits. Over the years, approximately 6,000 people have received benefits under the Prime Minister’s Special Rehabilitation and Employment Package, under which beneficiaries are required to work in the Valley. The All Prime Minister’s Package Employees association, however, puts the number of such employees currently posted in Kashmir at around 9,000. The reported decision to keep employees away from their workplaces therefore creates an obvious tension within the rehabilitation programme itself. A policy designed to facilitate the return of displaced Kashmiri Pandits to the Valley cannot be reduced to physical relocation without also ensuring that those employees are able to live, work and move with reasonable security and dignity.

This is not the first time the government’s approach to the safety of Pandit employees has been questioned. In 2022, a series of alleged militant attacks targeted Kashmiri Pandit employees, killing five people. The attacks prompted prolonged protests by employees demanding permanent transfers outside Kashmir. According to Sunny Raina, employees protested for approximately 350 days and sought transfers to Jammu. He alleged that the administration refused the demand and that salaries were withheld for six months, eventually forcing employees to return to work. The government instead relocated some employees to areas within the Valley considered comparatively safer.

The current situation therefore revives a problem that has remained unresolved since those attacks: whether security can be meaningfully guaranteed while employees continue to be required to work in the Valley, and whether repeated periods of confinement or informal leave can substitute for a long-term security and rehabilitation strategy.

There are also questions surrounding the manner in which employees’ attendance and movement are being managed. The Indian Express reported that online GPS-based attendance has been made mandatory for teachers in Kashmir, while migrant employees have reportedly been exempted and permitted to record their attendance in an arrival book. Such exemptions may be understandable as an immediate security precaution, but they also demonstrate the extent to which the threat environment has disrupted the ordinary functioning of public employment.

The situation is unfolding alongside a broader intensification of security and administrative activity in Kashmir ahead of Independence Day. The Wire reported increased police checking and frisking, additional checkpoints and night patrols, as well as enhanced surveillance around sensitive areas and event venues.

At the same time, authorities have intensified the government’s Har Ghar Tiranga–Vande Mataram campaign across Jammu and Kashmir. District administrations and BJP workers have reportedly organised Tiranga rallies, mass recitations of Vande Mataram and the National Anthem, quizzes, marathons, sporting and cultural programmes, cleanliness drives and other public-outreach activities. The campaign also includes programmes involving students, youth, women and grassroots communities, with events marking 150 years of Vande Mataram.

According to The Wire, some government teachers and employees have also been asked through internal WhatsApp groups to share photographs of themselves with the national flag. There is reportedly no publicly available formal order mandating such photographs. A government teacher quoted by the publication said that when senior education officials share photographs with the flag in departmental groups, their conduct can effectively operate as an unofficial instruction for subordinate employees to do the same, including on their WhatsApp statuses.

Alongside these developments, security agencies have continued operations against individuals and organisations accused of radical or separatist activities. The Wire reported that the Counter-Intelligence Kashmir unit arrested two men, Mehran Qazi of Dooru in Anantnag and Babar Hamid Dar of Sopore, for allegedly circulating radical and anti-national content online. Police also reportedly conducted simultaneous searches at 26 locations in Sopore as part of an investigation concerning the activities and network of the banned Jamaat-e-Islami. The searches, carried out with CRPF assistance, reportedly covered Sopore town and several surrounding villages, with documents, literature and electronic devices seized for examination.

Jamaat-e-Islami was declared an unlawful association by the Union Home Ministry in 2019 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, with the government alleging separatist and militant links.

In another development, police obtained an order from an NIA court to attach property valued at approximately ₹69.82 lakh belonging to Parvaiz Ahmad Famda in north Kashmir’s Baramulla district. According to The Wire, the action relates to a 2008 militancy-linked case registered at Chandoosa police station under provisions of the EIMCO Act, the Ranbir Penal Code and the UAPA. The property reportedly comprises 12 kanal, one marla and 73 square feet of land. An arrest warrant has also reportedly been obtained against another accused in the case.

Taken together, these developments reveal a Valley operating under an increasingly dense security apparatus as Independence Day approaches. Keeping threatened employees indoors may provide an immediate precaution, but it cannot be the endpoint of a rehabilitation policy. Nor can informal instructions, varying leave periods and the absence of a transparent government order provide employees with certainty about their rights, duties or safety.

Related:

August 11, 2026: A decade plus of students challenging a regime that seeks to control thought & ideas

The Erosion of Equal Protection: Constitutional attrition and State apathy in targeted attacks on Kashmiri vendors across the states

Release Kashmiri HRD Khurram Pervez immediately & unconditionally: International HR Fora

Flip and then a Flop: 50 students of the Vaishno Devi MBBS institute will now be admitted to 7 medical colleges in Jammu, Kashmir

Pervasive fear, surveillance of media, spiral of anti-India sentiment in Kashmir: CCG

The post Kashmiri Pandit employees in the Valley asked to stay home after threat letter appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The order was passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sri. Mithun Gopi G.S. in Crl.MP No. 1/2026 in Crime No. 95/2026, T.G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala.

The court noted the non-issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the arrest. It also took into account the recovery and seizure of electronic devices allegedly connected with the case, Mohandas’s cooperation with the investigation, and his age and health condition.

The prosecution had raised concerns that he could abscond, influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation. The court held that these concerns could be addressed by imposing conditions while granting bail.

Case concerns videos on Jantar Mantar protests

The case relates to videos uploaded on the YouTube channel “Pathrika”, in which Mohandas allegedly made statements concerning protests at Jantar Mantar.

According to the prosecution, the statements were made with the intention of disturbing public peace and tranquillity and inciting riots. It was further alleged that the content was capable of creating fear and anxiety among protesters and contained remarks insulting womanhood and violating the dignity of women.

The FIR alleges that Mohandas spoke about beating and “shooting dead” student protesters. It also alleges that he made remarks referring to women protesters as women who “enjoyed rape”. The prosecution told the court that around 16 complaints had been made against him in connection with the alleged statements.

According to The Hindu, the videos led to complaints from student and youth organisations and subsequent police action.

Alleged remarks about shooting protesters and sexual violence

According to The Hindu, Mohandas, a former head of the BJP’s State intellectual cell, had spoken in a YouTube video about how he would respond to the Jantar Mantar protest if he were in control of the situation. The report said he spoke of imposing a curfew in the area around Jantar Mantar, directing protesters to disperse and then using force against those who remained.

In the video, he described a sequence involving shooting protesters and subsequently taking bodies to hospitals. In another video, he allegedly made remarks concerning women participating in protests and referred to leftist, secular, democratic and proletarian women in the context of gang rape. The videos generated public reactions and led to demands for legal action.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh subsequently distanced itself from the remarks. K.B. Sreekumar, Saha Prantha Karyavah of the RSS in South Kerala, said the comments represented Mohandas’s personal views and that he was not an RSS office-bearer at any level. He also said the organisation did not agree with the views.

Cyber police register case

The Thiruvananthapuram City Cyber Police registered the case under several provisions.

According to Live Law, Mohandas was booked under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, and Sections 79, 353(1) (b) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

However, the police case included Sections 192 and 353(1) (b) of the BNS, along with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

On August 9, a team of cyber police officers searched Mohandas’s residence at Mattancherry before taking him into custody. The seized electronic devices were subsequently produced before the court.

Defence challenges arrest and alleges political motivation

During the bail hearing, counsel for Mohandas challenged both the allegations and the necessity of his arrest. According to Live Law, the defence argued that the case was politically motivated, referring to Mohandas’s association with the BJP and RSS and the alleged political affiliation of the complainant. The defence also submitted that there were no exceptional circumstances requiring immediate arrest.

The principal procedural objection was that the police had not issued a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS before arresting him.

The defence argued that, in the circumstances, Mohandas could have been directed to appear before the investigating officer instead of being immediately taken into custody.

Section 35(3) notice becomes central issue

Section 35 of the BNSS deals with circumstances in which police may arrest a person without a warrant. Sub-section (3) provides for issuance of a notice requiring the person to appear before the police officer where immediate arrest is not considered necessary.

The court examined whether the investigating agency had sufficient grounds to dispense with this procedural requirement. The prosecution argued that a notice was not necessary because there was a possibility that Mohandas could abscond or interfere with digital evidence. According to the prosecution, the investigating officer had recorded concerns about possible destruction, tampering or manipulation of electronic evidence. The prosecution also relied on the number of complaints received against Mohandas and the nature of the allegations while opposing the bail application.

Court rejects general apprehension of absconding

The court did not accept that the material before it established a sufficient possibility of Mohandas evading the investigation or absconding. A significant factor considered by the court was that the police had been able to locate him at his known residential address and conduct a search there.

The court observed, as reported by Live Law:

“The fact that the investigating agency was able to locate the accused at his known residential address and conduct a search there, is, in the circumstances, inconsistent with such apprehension.”

The court further held that a general apprehension that evidence might be destroyed, tampered with or manipulated could not, without circumstances demonstrating an immediate need for arrest, by itself justify dispensing with the statutory safeguard under Section 35(3) BNSS.

The court also noted that the remand report did not contain specific material supporting the apprehension that Mohandas would influence the complainant.

Electronic devices already recovered

The recovery of electronic devices was another factor considered by the court.

Since the allegations concern videos uploaded on YouTube, the electronic material formed part of the investigation. However, the court noted that the devices allegedly used in connection with the offence had already been recovered, seized and produced before it. This was relevant to the prosecution’s contention that Mohandas needed to remain in custody to prevent destruction or interference with digital evidence. The court found that there was no need for custodial interrogation at that stage.

It also considered Mohandas’s cooperation with the investigation and his age and health condition.

Court says arrest procedure was not justified

After examining the material placed before it, the court concluded that there was no justification for the investigating agency to dispense with the statutory requirement of issuing notice under Section 35(3) BNSS.

The court’s conclusion was based on the circumstances before it, including the ability of the police to locate Mohandas at his known residence, the recovery of the electronic devices and the absence of specific material showing that he was likely to abscond or interfere with the investigation.

The court said:

“Mere apprehension of destruction, tampering or manipulation of evidence, in the absence of circumstances indicating an immediate necessity for arrest, cannot by itself justify dispensing with the statutory safeguard contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.”

The court added that the same reasoning applied to the alleged apprehension that Mohandas could influence the complainant, as no specific material supporting that apprehension was disclosed in the remand report.

Court takes age, health and cooperation into account

The court also considered Mohandas’s age and health condition while deciding whether continued detention was necessary and along with these circumstances, the court took note of his cooperation with the police investigation and the recovery of the articles allegedly connected with the case.

The court ultimately held that the prosecution’s concerns regarding possible absconding, influencing witnesses or interference with the investigation could be addressed through appropriate bail conditions.

It concluded:

“The apprehensions expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of the accused absconding, influencing witnesses, or interfering with the investigation can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions while enlarging the accused on bail.”

The court further observed:

“Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the non-issuance of notice under Section 35(3), the recovery of the articles, the cooperation extended by the accused with the police investigation, as well as the age and health condition of the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that the further detention of the accused in judicial custody is not warranted at this stage” as Live Law reported

Student and youth organisations had sought action

Notably, youth and student organisations held protest marches to Mohandas’s residence demanding legal action. Leaders of the Students Federation of India and the All-India Students Federation also filed complaints. The delay in police action had also led to criticism of the State government, according to the report.

The RSS response came amid the controversy surrounding the remarks, with its South Kerala functionary stating that Mohandas’s comments were his personal views and did not represent the organisation.

Related:

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

Nazia Elahi Khan faces multiple FIRs over alleged hate speech

CJP files complaint against BJP MLA & Minister Nitesh Rane and right-wing leaders over alleged hate speeches in Maharashtra and West Bengal

Hate Speech Before the Supreme Court: From judicial activism to institutional closure

The Supreme Court blinks when it comes to Hate Speech

The post Kerala court grants bail to T.G. Mohandas in Jantar Mantar remarks case, cites arrest procedure irregularity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pannalal was reportedly arrested from his residence in Raipur late on Friday night, August 7, and was subsequently sent to judicial custody. According to a statement issued by a group of activists and human-rights campaigners, members of the Bajrang Dal had gathered outside his residence during the arrest, while a substantial police presence was deployed in the area.

The activists have described the arrest as an attempt to “silence a voice for minority rights” and have called for Pannalal’s immediate release on bail, a transparent judicial process and an end to what they describe as the misuse of criminal law in matters involving religious speech.

FIR over Alleged Facebook Comment

According to the statement, the case against Pannalal was initiated following a complaint by BJP spokesperson Amit Chimnani concerning an allegedly objectionable comment Pannalal made on Facebook in connection with a post about Lord Shiva.

The activists say Pannalal has been booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to promoting enmity between groups, deliberately insulting religious beliefs with the intention of outraging religious feelings, and intentional insult intended to provoke a breach of peace.

Section 196 of the BNS covers conduct that promotes or attempts to promote disharmony, hatred or ill-will between religious or other groups. Section 299 addresses deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, while Section 352 deals with intentional insult where the accused intends, or knows it is likely, that the provocation will lead to a breach of public peace.

The precise contents of the alleged Facebook comment, the FIR and the police’s evidence against Pannalal could not be independently established from the material available for this report. The allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial determination.

Activists Question Circumstances Surrounding Arrest

The signatories to the statement have questioned the timing and circumstances of the arrest, particularly the reported presence of Bajrang Dal activists outside Pannalal’s residence.

They argue that the combination of a politically affiliated complainant, the late-night arrest and the mobilisation of Hindu-right groups raises questions about whether adequate safeguards were followed in handling a case involving potentially sensitive religious speech.

Those assertions, however, are the position of the activists who issued the statement and should not be treated as established findings unless supported by police records, court proceedings or independent evidence.

The authorities have not, in the material reviewed for this report, publicly established that the gathering outside Pannalal’s residence was coordinated with the police or that the arrest itself was politically motivated.

Pannalal’s Longstanding Role in Chhattisgarh’s Minority-rights Debate

Pannalal is a longstanding public figure in Chhattisgarh’s Christian community and has frequently spoken about alleged attacks on Christians, religious freedom and the rights of tribal Christians.

The Chhattisgarh Christian Forum, which he heads, has previously highlighted alleged attacks on Christian communities and places of worship. In 2020, Pannalal publicly raised concerns following violence involving Christian families in Kondagaon district. At the time, police described the underlying dispute as involving tensions within local communities and said they would take legal action as appropriate.

His advocacy has also brought him into conflict with authorities and Hindu organisations in previous years. In 2025, an FIR was registered against him at Raipur’s Azad Chowk police station following controversy surrounding social-media material related to the Pahalgam terrorist attack. Reports at the time said the case invoked BNS Sections 196 and 299, while Hindu organisations including the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad had demanded action against him.

Earlier reporting has likewise documented Pannalal’s involvement in disputes concerning alleged attacks on Christians and restrictions affecting Christian religious activity in the state.

Arrest Comes Shortly After Tougher Anti-conversion Law Takes Effect

The latest controversy comes against the backdrop of a major change in Chhattisgarh’s religious-conversion law.

The Chhattisgarh Religious Freedom Act, 2026 has now come into force. The legislation replaces the older law inherited from undivided Madhya Pradesh and introduces substantially tougher provisions concerning religious conversion. Reports say the law took effect from July 10, 2026, following notification by the state government.

The new legislation provides stringent penalties for conversion through force, fraud, coercion or inducement, with provisions that can result in lengthy imprisonment and, in certain circumstances, life imprisonment and substantial fines. It also establishes additional procedural requirements surrounding religious conversion.

The law has become a major point of contention between the BJP government and opposition and civil-society groups. The government has defended the legislation as necessary to prevent exploitation and protect religious freedom, while critics have expressed concern about the potential for broad provisions to be used against legitimate religious activity.

The timing of Pannalal’s arrest is therefore likely to intensify an already contentious debate over the relationship between religious-conversion laws, minority rights and freedom of conscience in Chhattisgarh.

Constitutional Questions

The activists opposing Pannalal’s arrest have invoked Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution.

Article 19 guarantees citizens specified freedoms of speech and expression, subject to constitutionally permitted restrictions. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other constitutional limitations.

The constitutional question in Pannalal’s case will ultimately turn on the precise content and context of the alleged Facebook comment, the applicability of the criminal provisions invoked, and whether the prosecution can establish the necessary legal ingredients of the offences.

Freedom of expression in India is not absolute, particularly where speech is alleged to threaten public order or deliberately insult religious beliefs. At the same time, criminal prosecution for speech requires the statutory elements of the offence to be established, and the accused remains entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.

Allegation of Executive Prejudgment

The statement issued by the activists also criticises Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai, alleging that he publicly described Pannalal’s remarks as objectionable to Sanatan Dharma before the case had been adjudicated.

If accurately attributed and contextualised, such comments could become an important part of the wider debate over executive commentary on pending criminal proceedings. The activists argue that a government should not prejudge an accused person’s guilt before the courts have examined the evidence.

However, whether the Chief Minister’s reported remarks amount to improper interference with the judicial process is ultimately a matter that would depend on their precise wording, context and the applicable legal standards.

Wider Backdrop of Christian-minority Concerns

Pannalal’s arrest follows a period of heightened national attention on religious-conversion allegations and the treatment of Christians in Chhattisgarh.

In July 2025, the arrests of two Catholic nuns and another person at Durg railway station over allegations involving forced conversion and human trafficking generated protests and political controversy. The arrests were made under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the then-existing Chhattisgarh Religious Freedom Act. Christian organisations argued that the allegations were politically motivated, while authorities maintained that the cases required investigation.

The episode illustrated the highly polarised environment surrounding allegations of religious conversion in the state, where accusations can rapidly become intertwined with political mobilisation, communal tensions and questions about minority protection.

Pannalal himself has been a prominent critic of what he and other Christian organisations describe as growing pressure on Christian communities. His organisation has previously alleged attacks, intimidation and restrictions on Christian religious activity, claims that have at various times been disputed or differently characterised by authorities.

Demand for Release and Due Process

The August 9 statement has been signed by a group of activists, writers, academics, diplomats and civil-society figures, including former National Integration Council member Dr John Dayal, Jesuit priest and human-rights activist Fr Cedric Prakash, activist Minakshi Singh, Caleb Institute president Dr Richard Howell, Raipur-based activist Dr Goldy George, writer Jay Jayaram, academic Fr Frazier Masceranhas, retired diplomat Ashok Sharma, Dr Fatima Poonawala and writer-activist Blessy Prasad Mathews, among others.

They have demanded:

– Pannalal’s immediate and unconditional release on bail;

– a fair and transparent judicial process;

– an end to executive commentary that could prejudice criminal proceedings;

– protection of freedom of expression and freedom of conscience; and

– an end to what they characterise as the use of criminal law for political silencing.

The controversy now moves into the legal arena, where the contents of the alleged social-media post, the FIR, the prosecution’s evidence and the circumstances surrounding Pannalal’s arrest will be subject to scrutiny.

What Happens Next

The immediate legal issue is Pannalal’s custody and his prospects for bail. The investigation will also determine whether the prosecution can establish the statutory requirements of the BNS provisions invoked against him.

Beyond the individual case, however, the arrest is likely to become a test of how Chhattisgarh balances competing constitutional interests: protection of religious sentiment and public order on one side, and freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and minority rights on the other.

For supporters of Pannalal, the case represents another instance of a minority-rights advocate being criminally prosecuted after speaking publicly about religious issues. For those supporting the complaint, the case concerns accountability for speech alleged to offend religious beliefs and potentially disturb communal harmony.

The courts, rather than political actors or street mobilisation, will ultimately have to determine whether the alleged Facebook comment crossed the legal threshold for criminal liability.

The allegations against Arun Pannalal are not proof of guilt. Likewise, allegations of political or communal targeting made by his supporters remain claims unless established through independent evidence or judicial findings.

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Arrest of Christian leader in Raipur sparks concerns over minority rights and free speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The reasons are not far to seek.

Over a decade ago, in 2015-2016, barely a year or two into the first term of this regime that has since been viewed nationally and internationally as autocratic and proto-fascist, it was the Ambedkar-Periyar circles in both Hyderabad Central University and Chennai that were the first targets of power and ideological assault. Ministers from the union government weighed in, first to withhold meritoriously earned scholarships/fellowships of Dalit (read Ambedkarite) and left oriented students like Rohith Vemula and others, thereafter to humiliate them by limiting access to libraries and even hostel accommodation. Muslim student scholars like Umar Khalid and Najeeb Ahmed were particular targets. Najeeb “disappeared” from his JNU room on October 15, 2016, after an alleged scuffle involving the RSS-linked Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) the day before. He had been injured in that encounter and doctors, according to a witness, had refused timely treatment. Shockingly, the case assiduously pursued by his mother was “closed” by the Rouse Avenue court in 2025.  Two films, Ammi (2019) and Where is Najeeb? (2022) have preserved a contemporary tragedy this regime would rather have us forget.

Rohith Vemula, talented and bright, part of a vibrant student community that was in the cross hairs of the administration for daring to screen Muzaffarnagar Baqi Hai at HCU was driven to suicide, an act the movement has called “institutional murder” on Sunday January 17, 2026. That very night JNU students protested Rohith’s death and the ripples of the movement surged across India. Mumbai that only sometimes steps out collectively against repression saw tens of thousands students and activists march in Mumbai from Byculla to CSMT (CST) to demand justice for Rohith.

Brute power and authority coupled with the supine behaviour of Vice-Chancellors like Appa Rao Podille (HCU) and M Jagadesh Kumar (JNU) actively enabled violent police entry and involvement in both campuses, behaviour that physically brutalised students and also criminalised dissent. [1] Cases were filed, Umar Khalid and Kanhaiya Kumar were jailed for a month and students (35 from the FTII) had to spend precious years battling the vindictiveness the powerful. Payal Kapadia’s A Night of Knowing Nothing (2021) is a film that, in a multi-layered narrative depicts what young Indians have been put through.

2016 then is as significant as 2026 may yet prove to be.

Why then is our public memory so short and our response only episodic? Institutional culpability or even amnesia by our constitutional bodies including courts and a wilful subservience by legacy and traditional commercial media has enabled the irresponsible vilification of student leaders and protesters.

Clearly, the specific targets were young, autonomous students, free in thought and behaviour. Organisations and individuals from Left and Dalit lineages and communities were specific, targets the case(s) made against them more vindictive and pernicious.

Umar was labelled “anti-national” (“desh drohi”) by irresponsible (and unaccountable) “media houses”. Rohith’s unquestionable “merit” was questioned and his caste status “doubted”, his mother hounded as she struggled for justice for her son. Fatima Nafees, Najeeb’s mother proud that her son made it to a central university, regrets that he opted for staying in its hostel! This level of violence and institutional discrimination faced by Dalit and Muslim students has not stemmed before 2016 or since. The deaths of Arman Iqbal Khatri (April 2023) and Darshan Solanki (February 2023) in Mumbai’s Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and Payal Tadvi (May 2019) studying to become a doctor at BYL Nair Hospital were all victims of targeted violence. Corrective constitutional institutions like courts have been tardy in offering remedies

Today in 2026, while the “westernised youth” or “desh drohi” (anti-national) are labels still sought to be applied to Gen Z as well, for erudite and clear left-leaning scholars like Umar and Rohith it was relentlessly pinned.

The sustained protests in HCU and JNU —among two dozen other institutions of higher learning –a decade ago were the first effective challenges to a regime determined to control behaviour, thought and ideas. In the months and years that followed this protest spawned multiple campuses across India: Film & Television Institute of India (FTII), Pune, Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi Mumbai University, Kashmir, Assam, Puducherry, all saw spirited and sustained protests. Patna University-Bihar, Jadavpur University-West Bengal, National Law School-Bangalore and the Allahabad Central University-Uttar Pradesh saw similar struggles against repression. Nine months after Rohith Vemula’s “institutional murder” on Sunday, January 17, 2026, eight law students from the Babasaheb Ambedkar University Lucknow protested after two of them were target of vindictive administrative action: two of them toppers, who ranked first and second in the PHD entrance examination had been suspended and thereafter expelled without due process because they protested the caste-ist behaviour of both the government and their professors who they claimed were being protected by the administration and the Ministry for Human Resources Development (MHRD).In an article on SabrangIndia, Prathama Banerjee (in 2016) reported that in Gwalior, a meeting organized by the Ambedkar Manch involving an Ambedkarite professor Vivek Kumar from JNU was attacked by ABVP members, who went on to not only fire guns at the gathering but even burn the Indian Constitution, perhaps to avenge Ambedkar’s burning of the Manusmriti half a century ago!

From the ideological slant on syllabi, to the rights of women to dress as they please and eat non-vegetarian (!), to dubious appointments like Gajendra Chauhan as director (FTII), students and youth mobilised first and immediately against the threat to their very existence and autonomy. By end 2016, the Modi 1.0 regime’s assault on public education and taken the form of simply cancelling (read withdrawing) a staggering 20,000 scholarships to central universities; this was soon followed by withdrawal of all minority scholarships instituted by the previous UPA II government.

So while today’s 2026 Gen Z protests come as another breath of fresh air to a battle weary people, our students and youth, backed by some in the academia have been at the forefront of this democratic challenge for a decade.

What if?

What if the political opposition, despite its poor numerical strength had backed and amplified these voices and demands in Parliament? Since and repeatedly since 2016?

Would India have already witnessed a pushback from the seat of power?

In any truly democratic society, it is the university that is the storehouse of young and budding intellectual opinion and often the bedrock of voices of sharp, critical dissent. Since 2014, India has been going through a determined effort towards homogenisation and imposed majoritarianism—whether through the blind acceptance of commercialization or privatization of education, or the imposition of a culturally-homogenous worldview where the Indian state and nation is equated with “one language, one culture,” in effect denying a plurality of existence and citizenship. These trends are not just dangerous but pose a challenge to the very foundation of India as a constitutional republic. Centres of higher learning within India that have become the battleground for the preservation of Indian democracy and all it stands for.

Before 2014, over the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, through a slow and often painful process within these central universities that came into being through key enactments—the University of Hyderabad Act of 1974, the Jawaharlal Nehru Act of 1966 and the North-Eastern Hill University Act of 1973—baby steps toward affirmative action within teachers’ unions and associations first ensured real diversity among students: students from rural, marginalised and discriminated-against backgrounds made it into institutions of higher learning. That is how, our Umars, Najeebs, Rohiths are household names even in bold challenge or sacrifice. Before that it was the moneyed with access that enjoyed entry within.

Under this regime in its third term however, the dual assault of aggressive neoliberal policies that have ensured a cut in scholarships in institutions of learning, accompanied by an ideological assault of a proto-fascist authoritarian character, have rendered campuses in India the focal points of a resurgent democratic movement. Student leaders and associations that do not fall in line with the majoritarian vision face criminal cases, the worst being the law of Sedition (Section 124-A)..[2] Only a few days ago, a former student of previously prestigious Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) was denied bail for attending an event in support of academic, now deceased, G.N, Saibaba.

As the monsoon session of Parliament reaches its conclusion, and the union home minister, responsible in the chain of command for the use of pellet guns and nail-tacked lathis on students who protested at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on July 20, refuses to answer charges of accountability or incompetence, there is every chance that the regime may not back off either surveillance or vindictive action.

The Gen Z generation that is rightly euphoric of its success in shaking up the union government, may yet have to give tests of its resilience to persistent punishment by process. If solidarity shown by older Indians and large sections of independent media, not present a decade ago, holds, victory may still be ours. We need to be prepared though.

In this moment of reckoning, this is my humble tribute. To the inspiring decades plus relentless pushback by India’s young.

[1] Vice-Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in 2016 was M. Jagadesh Kumar, who assumed office on January 28, 2016, a month before the assaults and arrests of tudents. He succeeded Sudhir Kumar Sopory and later served until February 2022; Appa Rao Podile former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hyderabad was awarded the Millennium Plaques of Honour for his achievements in Life Sciences by the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi in 2017!

[2] Teesta Setalvad’s KG Kannabiran Memorial Lecture delivered at Madurai. December 11, 2016

Related:

The post August 11, 2026: A decade plus of students challenging a regime that seeks to control thought & ideas appeared first on SabrangIndia.