Ask Palestine. The team finished second in the second round of the Asian qualifiers, behind Australia, thus qualifying for the third round for the first time in their history. Here, they were drawn in a tough group with South Korea, Jordan, Iraq, Oman and Kuwait. They played their hearts out, drawing twice against the much stronger South Korea, and would have qualified for the next round, had it not been for a penalty awarded to Oman in stoppage time during Palestine’s final match. When Oman converted, what should have been a win became a draw, and Palestine was eliminated, just one point short of progressing.

Palestine’s World Cup qualifying campaign faced extraordinary odds. In the qualifying tournaments, each team plays a ‘home’ and an ‘away’ match. Palestine has not been able to play ‘home’ matches in either the West Bank or Gaza since October 2023. These matches are played in a neutral venue. Thus, while their opponents enjoy the ‘home’ advantage, Palestine don’t. Palestinian players routinely face harassment and travel restrictions from Israeli authorities. Even getting the whole team together for training is an achievement. Several players and staff have had family members or friends killed during the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

And then there’s the destruction of infrastructure. Gaza had around 40 football clubs affiliated with the Palestine Football Association (PFA) before the start of the genocide in October 2023. Gaza had several football facilities, including four stadiums: Palestine Stadium, Yarmouk Stadium, Khan Younis Stadium, Rafah Municipal Stadium. Today, nothing remains. All stadiums have been destroyed. All football facilities are in ruins. There is no functioning football club.

And what of the players? In early June this year, Israel abducted two women football players, Rand al-Halawani (released after a few days) and Natali Abu Dayyeh.

At least they are alive. In an official letter to FIFA, the PFA said that 99 footballers (among some 400 athletes) had been killed by Israel in Gaza between October 2023 and March 2024. That’s two athletes killed every day, and a footballer killed every second day. There are also numerous cases of athletes being ‘knee-capped’ – that is, shot in the knee or lower limbs – effectively terminating their playing careers. This is part of the deliberate Israeli effort to wipe out Palestinian social life, to obliterate anything that represents Palestinian culture and national pride.

This, by itself, should be enough to get the Israel Football Association sanctioned and expelled by FIFA. But there’s more.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank, built on land stolen from Palestinians, are illegal by international law. All activity on settlements, whether economic, social, cultural, or sporting, is also illegal. Several countries in the world explicitly prohibit conducting business with illegal settlement-based enterprises.

There are about half a dozen football clubs recognized by IFA operating from illegal settlements. These clubs play in Israeli leagues, and players move from illegal settlement-based clubs to other Israeli clubs, and vice-versa, all the time.

Not only is this in contravention of international law, it also explicitly violates FIFA’s own charter, which states, ‘Member associations and their clubs may not play on the territory of another member association without that association’s approval.’

Then there is the extreme Zionism of some Israeli clubs. The best-known is Beitar Jerusalem FC. Since its founding in 1936, it has been closely identified with Israel’s extreme right wing. Benjamin Netanyahu is a long-time Beitar supporter. The club has fan groups of the extreme right. The most notorious of these is La Familia, founded in 2005. This group of football ultras is known for its wanton violence and genocidal chants, including ‘Death to Arabs’.

Among football hooligans, Israeli fans occupy pride of place. For example, in November 2024, fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv FC went on a rampage in Amsterdam, tearing down Palestinian flags from buildings; chanting racist slogans, including ‘Death to Arabs’; indulging in acts of wanton violence; and chanting songs celebrating the Gaza genocide, including one that means ‘There are no schools in Gaza because all the children are dead’.

In typical Israeli playbook style, all this was justified with the claim that it was Maccabi fans who were first subjected to antisemitic slurs and violence. Subsequent investigations complicated the picture. While it is true that some Maccabi supporters faced public anger against the genocide in Gaza (but not antisemitism), there is no doubt that Maccabi supporters indulged in acts of hooliganism and racist provocations both before and after the match (in which Maccabi was trounced by the Dutch club Ajax 5–0), followed by retaliatory violence against some Israeli supporters.

The PFA is right in petitioning FIFA to sanction and expel IFA, of course, but for us to expect action under the present FIFA leadership would be naïve. FIFA president Gianni Infantino is Donald Trump’s poodle. Not only has FIFA not used its clout to force some degree of decency from the US in the conduct of the present World Cup, Infantino presented Trump with a completely made up ‘FIFA Peace Prize’ when Trump didn’t get his coveted Nobel. He has appeared in public wearing a red, MAGA-style hat. He pledged FIFA’s support to the ‘Board of Peace’ constituted by Trump to oversee a post-genocide plan in Gaza. During the FIFA Congress in Vancouver in April 2026, he attempted to get PFA president Jibril Rajoub to shake hands on stage with the vice president of IFA, Basim Sheikh Suliman. Rajoub refused.

FIFA’s collusion with Israel and the US is in contrast with its own stand against South Africa under apartheid. FIFA suspended South Africa in 1961 and expelled it in 1976. Today, despite a mountain of evidence against Israel, FIFA refuses to even sanction IFA, let alone suspend or expel it. Or take Russia, which was banned by FIFA just four days after its conflict with Ukraine began, in February 2022.

This, like much else, reflects geopolitical realities of the respective times. The 1960s and 70s were a time of decolonization and independence in Asia, Africa and Latin America, often inspired by socialism and Marxism; today is a time of naked racism and imperialism by the white ruling elites of the West.

When children in Gaza play football on the beach in the midst of the genocide, they are not merely escaping a terrible reality. They are also fighting to be treated with decency, dignity and self-respect. They are asserting humanity.

[This is a slightly amended version of an article that appeared on leftviews.in.]

Courtesy: Sudhanva Deshpande

The post How FIFA Colludes in the Genocide of Palestinians appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Almost immediately after Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan sentenced the accused to life imprisonment, on June 12, 2026, the focus of public discourse shifted away from the evidence, the findings of the court and the legal reasoning contained in the judgment. Instead, the controversy was deliberately reframed around the religious identity of the judge. Rather than questioning the correctness of the verdict through legal argument, sections of the cow vigilante movement, Hindutva organisations and right-wing commentators portrayed the decision as the product of the judge’s Muslim identity. The result was the systematic communalisation of an ordinary criminal proceeding.

As reported by Newslaundry, the atmosphere outside the courtroom became tense immediately after the judgment was pronounced. Family members of the convicted men protested as the police began taking the convicts into custody. Relatives reportedly lay down in front of police vehicles in an attempt to prevent their transportation. According to Hazari Lal Gurjar, President of the local Bar Association, it was during these immediate protests that the issue first began to acquire a communal colour. What had begun as emotional reactions by the families of convicted persons quickly transformed into a larger narrative portraying the judgment itself as an attack on Hindus because the presiding judge happened to be Muslim.

The shift was significant. Criminal courts are expected to determine guilt on the basis of evidence placed before them. The personal religion, caste or background of a judge has no legal relevance to the adjudicatory process. Yet, rather than engaging with the court’s findings regarding unlawful assembly, common object, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence and the brutality of the assault, attention rapidly shifted towards Judge Khan herself. In effect, the messenger of justice became more important than the message.

Background of the judgment

Before discussing the communal campaign against Judge Tabassum Khan, it is important to understand the significance of the judgment itself. The controversy did not arise in a legal vacuum. It followed a detailed trial concerning the brutal lynching of Nazir Ahmed, who was attacked while transporting cattle through Madhya Pradesh in August 2022. After examining eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, forensic reports, recoveries made during investigation and other documentary material, the Sessions Court concluded that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly, intercepted the vehicle, violently assaulted the victims with deadly weapons and were collectively responsible for the murder of Nazir Ahmed and the attempted murder of the two surviving victims.

In a significant aspect of the judgment, Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan expressly recognised the offence as one of mob lynching, observing that the prosecution had successfully established that the accused had acted as members of an unlawful assembly and had committed a brutal act of collective violence. While considering the question of sentence, the Court treated the mob nature of the crime as an aggravating circumstance. It emphasised the exceptional brutality of the assault, the fatal injuries inflicted upon Nazir Ahmed, the serious injuries suffered by the surviving victims, and the fact that the accused had acted in concert while armed with deadly weapons. The judgment thus acknowledged not merely the commission of murder but the distinct menace posed by vigilante violence carried out by organised groups.

The Court nevertheless declined to impose the death penalty. Relying on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Machi Singh v. State of Punjab and Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (or as cited in the judgment, Santosh Kumar Singh), Judge Khan held that the case did not satisfy the stringent “rarest of rare” threshold governing capital punishment. Instead, the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, along with separate sentences for rioting and the attempted murder of the surviving victims. The judgment thus represented a careful application of settled criminal law principles, balancing the gravity of the offence with the constitutional limitations governing the imposition of the death penalty. Most crucially, it upheld the path of reformative rather than retributive justice.

Far from being an arbitrary or summary decision, the verdict was a reasoned judicial determination running through the evidence in considerable detail. Yet, rather than engaging with the Court’s legal reasoning or challenging its findings before the appellate courts, the public discourse surrounding the case rapidly shifted away from the judgment itself. The evidence, legal analysis and findings of the trial court were overshadowed by a campaign that sought to question the verdict on the basis of the religious identity of the judge, setting the stage for one of the most disturbing instances of communal targeting of a serving judicial officer in recent years.

The detailed report may be read here.

Organised protests and the manufacture of a communal narrative

What initially appeared to be local dissatisfaction soon evolved into a coordinated campaign extending beyond the district in which the trial had taken place. Reports published by Newslaundry, Siasat and other news organisations indicate that several self-described cow protection organisations and Hindutva groups organised protests condemning the verdict, not primarily on legal grounds but by questioning the religious identity and impartiality of the judge.

Among the most visible organisations participating in these protests was the Gau Raksha Parishad. Demonstrations were organised in which effigies of Judge Tabassum Khan were publicly burnt while slogans branding her “anti-Hindu” were raised. Rather than calling for appellate review of the judgment, the demonstrations sought to portray the conviction itself as an act of religious discrimination against Hindus. The symbolism of burning a judge’s effigy represented a significant escalation from criticism of a judicial decision to the personal targeting of a serving judicial officer.

According to Newslaundry, these demonstrations did not remain confined to Madhya Pradesh. On June 22, members of Gau Raksha Parishad organised a ‘protest’ in Peer Muchalla in Mohali, Punjab, where demonstrators burned an effigy of Judge Khan while shouting slogans demanding the release of the convicted men. Similar protests were subsequently reported from Uttar Pradesh, where members of the Antarrashtriya Hindu Parishad-Rashtriya Bajrang Dal staged demonstrations against the judgment inside government premises! Authorities in that state allowed these unchecked. The geographical spread of these ‘protests’ suggested that the issue had acquired national dimensions, fuelled largely through coordinated organisational and social media mobilisation rather than any fresh legal developments in the case. As significantly, they signified powerful political patronage behind the acts.

Equally revealing was the language adopted by many protesters. Instead of describing the judgment as legally incorrect or identifying alleged errors in the appreciation of evidence, the demonstrations repeatedly referred to Judge Khan’s religion. Her Muslim identity became the principal basis upon which the legitimacy of the judgment was questioned. This represented a dangerous inversion of constitutional values. Judicial decisions are meant to be evaluated through legal reasoning, not through the religious identity of the individual delivering them.

Social media as a vehicle for intimidation

The campaign rapidly migrated from public demonstrations to social media, where it assumed an even more disturbing form. An extensive online campaign filled with communal abuse, personal attacks and threats directed specifically at Judge Khan.

Numerous social media posts reportedly described her as “anti-Hindu” and questioned her ability to dispense impartial justice because she was Muslim. Others employed openly derogatory communal slurs directed at Muslim women. These posts did not merely criticise the verdict; they sought to delegitimise Judge Khan’s authority as a judicial officer by reducing her identity to her religion. Gender dimensions of targeted majoritarian abuse have been increasingly common phenomenon witnessed by Muslim women in public life at multiple levels.

Several videos circulated widely across social media platforms, amplifying these narratives before large audiences. One of the most disturbing videos reportedly featured an individual using deeply offensive communal language while referring to the judge and warning that there would be a “bloodbath” if the convicted men were not released within ten days. The individual threatened violence extending beyond Madhya Pradesh and attempted to portray the judicial verdict as justification for communal mobilisation.

Judge: ADJ Tabassum Khan

14 गौ रक्षकों को सुनाई उमर क़ैद की सजा

ADJ Tabassum Khan जैसे लोग कितना भी
पढ़ ले मक़सद इनका एक ही रहता है हिंदू काफिर है

जो पहले अपने मजबह को देखते बाद में संविधान
को वो कभी न्याय नहीं कर सकते

हिंदुओं ऐसे लोगो से देश से भगाना जरूरी है pic.twitter.com/mNHeVWSbvQ

— Amrendra Bahubali (@TheBahubali_IND) June 17, 2026

Hindutva Scum calls for killing of a judge who sent 7 criminals to jail for lynching a Muslim

Instead of arresting the scum,MHA
Cyber Cell sent me a notice to remove the video or face action

Only in India,a criminal goes scot free while the whistleblower faces intimidation pic.twitter.com/VKcLJRLUDL

— Nehr_who? (@Nher_who) June 26, 2026

Another widely circulated video showed a self-described cow protector standing beside a truck transporting cattle. Rather than discussing the legal findings of the Sessions Court, he argued that cow protection groups should no longer intercept vehicles because those who had done so in the present case had been sentenced to life imprisonment. He went further by declaring that Judge Tabassum Khan would have to reverse her decision and called upon cow protection groups from Agra and other regions to organise protests against her.

Such statements represented an outright attack on India’s constitutional structure governing criminal justice. Judicial orders are not reversed because of public demonstrations or threats of violence. They are challenged through appeals before superior courts. The repeated demands that the judge herself “reverse” the judgment fundamentally misunderstood—and arguably rejected—the institutional framework of the Indian judiciary.

Amplification by influential public figures

The controversy received additional momentum when influential right-wing personalities publicly endorsed the campaign against the judgment. Among the most prominent was Sudarshan News editor Suresh Chavhanke.

14 गौ रक्षकों को उम्रक़ैद.. जज तबस्सुम ख़ान के फैसले पर न्याय संग्राम

देखें #बिंदास_बोल मेरे साथ @DrMohanYadav51 https://t.co/4gJZkzlUfh

— Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” (@SureshChavhanke) June 19, 2026

As reported by Newslaundry, Chavhanke described the Sessions Court’s judgment as “judicial lynching” during a televised programme. Declaring his solidarity with the convicted men and their families, he stated: “We stand with all the gau-rakshaks and their families. This fight is not yours alone; it is ours too.”

The significance of such statements lies not merely in their criticism of the verdict but in the authority and reach of the platform from which they were delivered. When prominent media personalities portray judicial decisions as manifestations of religious bias without engaging with the reasoning contained in the judgment, they contribute to the erosion of public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Such narratives risk encouraging audiences to view judges not as neutral adjudicators but as representatives of religious communities.

Police intervention and criminal investigation

As the campaign intensified, law enforcement authorities eventually intervened. According to Newslaundry, the Seoni Malwa Police registered a First Information Report after taking suo- motu cognisance of the communal and threatening material circulating online.

Station House Officer Sudhakar Bhaskar confirmed that the FIR had been registered against individuals responsible for communal posts and videos under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He further stated that the cyber cell had been tasked with identifying the origin of the viral videos, tracing those responsible for their circulation and continuously monitoring social media platforms for additional inflammatory content.

The registration of the FIR reflected official recognition that the controversy had moved beyond ordinary criticism of a judicial verdict. The campaign contained elements capable of promoting communal hostility, intimidating a judicial officer and potentially disturbing public order. Police intervention therefore became necessary not to suppress legitimate criticism but to investigate conduct that allegedly crossed the threshold into criminal intimidation and hate speech.

Concern within the legal community

The developments also generated widespread concern among members of the legal fraternity. Hazari Lal Gurjar, President of the Bar Association, questioned why stronger institutional measures had not been initiated despite the communal targeting of a serving judicial officer. Speaking to Newslaundry, he expressed concern that a woman judge was facing communal abuse, gendered insults and threats of violence while the higher judiciary had not initiated suo motu contempt proceedings or taken more visible action to protect judicial independence.

Former Chief Judicial Magistrate Pawan Kumar similarly emphasised that the rule of law provides an established remedy for any litigant dissatisfied with a judgment. The correctness of judicial decisions is examined by appellate courts through structured legal procedures, not by personal attacks directed at judges. Public confidence in the judiciary depends upon preserving this distinction.

Several lawyers also reportedly observed that many of those criticising the judgment had not actually read it. According to Advocate Sumit Gehlot, quoted by Newslaundry, much of the outrage appeared to stem from hearsay rather than any informed engagement with the evidence analysed by the court.

Senior Congress leader Pawan Khera also spoke out on social media in support of Judge Tabassum Khan, and said “On June 12, 2026, First Additional Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan sentenced seven men to life imprisonment for the 2022 lynching of Najir Ahmed. All the convicts are indeed Hindu men. But they were not convicted because of their religion; they were convicted because the investigation found them guilty of rioting, attempted murder and murder. Yet our Hindu brother in the video is not outraged by their behaviour. His outrage is reserved for one fact alone: that the judge who convicted them is a Muslim woman. In any civilised society, such bigotry would invite swift legal action. In Modi’s India, however, this man spewing hate walks free while notices are sent to those questioning his conduct. Jai ho!”

On June 12, 2026, First Additional Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan sentenced seven men to life imprisonment for the 2022 lynching of Najir Ahmed.

All the convicts are indeed Hindu men. But they were not convicted because of their religion; they were convicted because the… https://t.co/xzccM88CHv

— Pawan Khera ಪವನ್ ಖೇರಾ (@Pawankhera) June 26, 2026

An attack on judicial independence

The events following Judge Tabassum Khan’s verdict raise constitutional concerns extending far beyond the facts of one criminal case. Judicial independence forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and requires judges to decide cases without fear, favour, affection or ill will. This principle necessarily includes protection from organised campaigns of communal intimidation.

Public criticism of judicial decisions is entirely legitimate in a constitutional democracy. Courts are not immune from scrutiny, and judgments are frequently debated, criticised and overturned by appellate courts. However, there exists a profound distinction between criticising judicial reasoning and attacking a judge because of her religion.

The campaign against Judge Khan sought to erase this distinction. Rather than analysing the evidence relied upon by the Sessions Court or identifying legal errors warranting appellate interference, sections of the protest movement suggested that the judgment itself lacked legitimacy because it had been authored by a Muslim judge. Such narratives threaten to transform the judiciary into another arena of communal polarisation, where judicial authority depends not upon constitutional office but upon religious identity.

The implications extend well beyond one individual judge. If judges are made to fear organised campaigns of vilification whenever they deliver decisions against politically influential groups, the independence of the judiciary itself is weakened. The message conveyed is that legal reasoning may become secondary to identity-based mobilisation and that adverse judgments may invite not merely appeals but sustained communal intimidation. In a legal system governed by the rule of law, judges must be assessed on the strength of their reasoning and the legality of their decisions; not on the basis of their religion, gender or personal identity. Preserving that principle is essential not only for the safety of individual judges but for maintaining public confidence in the impartial administration of justice itself.

Related:

Mob lynching: Three separate incidents surface, even minors and partially disabled Muslims not safe

Another cow lynching in Nashik, one dead

Maharashtra’s shame: Cow lynching episode reported in Nashik

Allahabad HC points out misuse of cow slaughter law

K’taka: Bail to cow vigilante, Puneeth Kerehalli, accused of killing Muslim man

Cow vigilantism casts its ugly shadow on Maharashtra

Allahabad HC calls out misuse of law in cow slaughter case as only cow dung recovered from scene

The post Judging the Judge: The communal backlash against a lynching verdict appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For months, anti-SIR campaigners have urged the state government to ensure that eligible voters are not excluded from electoral rolls by simplifying the issuance of PRCs, caste certificates and family certificates—documents recognised by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for SIR verification.

However, Revenue Minister Priyank Kharge said the state had written to the ECI over a month ago seeking recognition of Karnataka’s family certificate, but the Commission has yet to respond.

Obtaining caste certificates also remains difficult despite government claims. Applicants must still produce several documents relating to their father’s lineage, making the process particularly challenging for marginalized communities. As a result, lakhs of applications remain pending, casting doubts on Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar’s assertion that 5.4 crore of Karnataka’s 5.5 crore voters already possess caste certificates.

People-Friendly PRC Rules, but…

Initially, the government had instructed Panchayat Development Officers (PDOs) to issue ordinary residence certificates through Gram Panchayat offices. Activists have pointed out that these certificates would not satisfy SIR requirements because they did not establish permanent residence. Following sustained criticism, the government has now introduced fresh guidelines and eligibility criteria for issuing Permanent Resident Certificates through a significantly simplified process.

Thus, the revised rules represent an important victory for anti-SIR activists and are considerably more citizen-friendly than the earlier framework.

Applicants may establish permanent residence through criteria such as ten years of residence in Karnataka, ten years of schooling in the state, or ownership of immovable property. To prove these conditions, they may submit Aadhaar, ration cards, revenue records, electoral rolls and similar documents. The guidelines also empower officials to conduct local inquiries, seek reports from village accountants and even consider oral testimony as supporting evidence.

Perhaps most significantly, applications cannot be rejected solely because a particular document is missing. Authorities must provide written reasons for any rejection, introducing greater transparency and accountability into the process.

Taken together, the new rules are clearly more inclusive than their predecessors.

Read SabrangIndia’s analyses of the Karnataka government’s intervention here.

The Bigger Question: Will the ECI accept them?

The central question, however, is whether Permanent Resident Certificates issued under such a simplified and inclusive framework will actually be accepted under the SIR process.

The answer is far from certain.

Lessons from West Bengal

The West Bengal example, along with the ECI’s approach and directives regarding such inclusiveness makes it clear that the ECI will not permit this level of inclusiveness.

When the Union government initiated the SIR process in Bihar, the Trinamool Congress government in West Bengal proactively simplified the issuance of domicile certificates in July 2025 to make them easier for citizens to obtain.

However, once SIR began in West Bengal, the BJP objected to domicile certificates issued after July 2025, arguing that they should not be accepted. The Election Commission subsequently subjected those certificates to additional scrutiny and, according to the author, later declined to accept domicile certificates altogether before issuing fresh notices even to applicants who had previously submitted them.

Only after widespread protests led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee did the Commission agree to accept domicile certificates again, but with several additional conditions.

Hence, through its February 8 order, the ECI asserted that:

• domicile certificates conform strictly to West Bengal’s Government Order dated November 2, 1999;
• they be issued only by the designated competent authority; and
• Electoral Registration Officers independently verify that every prescribed procedure had been followed before accepting them.

Verification was reportedly assigned to Micro Observers.

With regard to domicile certificates, West Bengal’s Government Order dated November 2, 1999, is available here:

The order prescribes limited eligibility criteria for obtaining a domicile certificate and requires that, in addition to documentary evidence, every applicant undergo verification of citizenship and police verification before the certificate can be issued. This calibration and aggressive re-assertions by the ECI demonstrate how the Commission did not accept the simplified certification process introduced by the West Bengal government. The process may be read about here.

What this could mean for Karnataka

Since the same Election Commission oversees electoral process across India, the Karnataka’s simplified PRC rules may face similar scrutiny. In that case, only PRCs issued in accordance with standards accepted by the Commission—not merely under Karnataka’s revised procedures—would qualify for SIR.

This creates fundamental contradiction: the more citizen-friendly the PRC rules become, the less likely they are to satisfy the requirements of the SIR process. This, then, again underlines the very nature and orientation of the SIR, which is designed as an exclusionary mechanism rather than an inclusive one.

For now, attention will turn to how the Election Commission responds to Karnataka’s new rules.

Moreover, the state government itself has indicated, though indirectly, that the revised PRC rules are intended solely to address SIR requirements and do not create any broader legal rights. Existing rules, it says, will continue to apply in all other contexts.

The ECI, meanwhile, is under no obligation to accept Karnataka’s amendments. As it did in West Bengal, it could reject them altogether or impose additional verification requirements through its own officials.

With the Supreme Court having upheld the Commission’s broad authority in such matters, Karnataka’s battle over PRCs is far from over.

‘Logical Discrepancies’ remain a concern

The author further notes that Karnataka’s Chief Electoral Officer has rejected demands from civil society groups and the state government to suspend the use of “Logical Discrepancy” criteria in the state. The CEO has already identified six categories of logical discrepancies in Karnataka and has indicated that more could emerge once completed Enumeration Forms are received.

For anti-SIR activists, and the campaign in general, this demands greater vigilance, avoidance of premature celebration and a continued and intensification of the struggle, both in positioning and manoeuvre

Related:

To Karnataka’s Anti-SIR Movement: A note of caution and concern

Anti-SIR Activists Beware: A mere Residential Certificate does not satisfy SIR requirements

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

The Biopolitical Anatomy of Hindutva Fascism: Part II: SIR, EVMs and the Judiciary

The post Karnataka’s new PRC rules are people-friendly, but will the ECI accept them? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In these places, people from diverse backgrounds and different faiths stepped forward to actively participate in local customs that have been preserved for generations.

Uttar Pradesh: a Dalit family’s 35-year-old Muharram tradition in Balrampur

In Chahatwa village, under the Gumdi Gram Panchayat in the Shridattganj block of Balrampur district, Uttar Pradesh, a unique tradition has been alive for over 35 years. Here, a Dalit Hindu family prepares and installs a Tazia every single year for Muharram. The tradition started with the family elder, Asharam. It was later passed down to his son, Shiv Prasad, and is now being carried forward by his grandson, Kamal Kanojia. Three generations of this family have kept the practice going without a single break, making it a key part of the village’s Muharram activities.

The dedication of the family has been covered by local journalists and media platforms, showing how a personal family promise turned into a symbol of community unity.

35 साल से मुहर्रम पर ताजिया रख रहा बलरामपुर का दलित परिवार, बना सांप्रदायिक सौहार्द की मिसाल –#BreakingNews #Muharram #Dalit https://t.co/MrNL20PFiT

— Journo Mirror (@JournoMirror) June 29, 2026

According to Kamal Kanojia, the practice started because of a personal milestone. Decades ago, the elders made a vow to honour a special family wish. When that wish came true, they promised to install a Tazia every year during the holy month of Muharram. Since then, the family has followed this custom with deep faith, as reported by Dainik Bhaskar.

Every year, the Kanojia family works together to build the Tazia. Once it is ready, people from nearby villages visit Chahatwa to see it and pay their respects. What began as a private family vow has grown into a major regional event that brings different communities together.

Asharam often tells visitors that the family believes this tradition brings peace, blessings, and well-being to their home. His son, Shiv Prasad, agrees, noting that the family saw good changes in their farming, business, and daily life after starting this practice. For them, continuing the custom is a way to respect their elders’ faith and keep the village’s identity alive. Local neighbours say the family is a living example of how mutual respect keeps harmony alive in rural areas, as reported

Bihar: a century-old legacy led by a Hindu family in east Champaran

In Bihar’s East Champaran district, the village of Patahi has followed a unique Muharram tradition for more than a century. As soon as the month of Muharram begins, the entire village gets ready. The most unique part of the procession is that it is led by members of the Singh family, who are Hindus.

For generations, this family has held the responsibility of leading the Tazia procession through the village streets. The community spirit of this annual event has been recorded on video, showing the close bonds between the neighbours.

During Muharram, the courtyard of Shiv Shankar Singh’s house becomes the main centre for preparations. Family members gather to build and decorate the Tazia before taking it out through the village. As the procession moves along, participants perform traditional lathi (bamboo staff) displays to remember the historic events of Karbala. Shah Mohammed, a resident of nearby Padumker village, remembers watching the Singh family lead the procession every year of his life. Other locals also see the family as an essential part of the town’s history, as reported

When asked how it all started, current members of the Singh family say the exact details have been lost over time. However, they know the practice dates back to their great-grandfather, Devi Singh, during British rule. Back then, official permits were needed for public processions, and the license for this Muharram event was issued directly in the name of the Singh family.

Today, the younger generation hopes to keep this tradition alive for years to come. One family member shared that while people may follow different religions in private, when they stand together for the procession, they represent the true spirit of India.

Bihar: crafting traditions in Gaya’s Atri village

In Atri village of Bihar’s Gaya district, community cooperation is visible through local art. During Muharram this year, five out of the seven Tazias in the village’s main procession were built and carried by local Hindu families. According to village elders, these families are simply following a practice they inherited from their ancestors. Making a Tazia takes time, patience, and team effort. Families spend several days shaping bamboo frames, cutting colored paper, and assembling the decorative structures.

Even though the event marks an important chapter in Islamic history, participation in Atri goes beyond just one community. Residents describe it as a normal, long-standing social tradition rather than something unusual. For these families, building the Tazia is a shared responsibility passed down from one generation to the next.

Madhya Pradesh: five generations of devotion in Vidisha

In the town of Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh, the Kushwaha family is central to the annual Muharram activities. For decades, this Hindu family has served at the shrine of Bawdi Waale Baba, which sits right across from a Hanuman temple in Khai Mohalla. Because the shrine and the temple face each other, people regularly visit both places to pay respects, showing the shared heritage of the town.

Every year during Muharram, the Kushwahas manage the arrangements for the Baba’s procession. Today, the fifth generation of the family is continuing this work with deep dedication. The sacred symbol of the Baba is carried on the head of the oldest male member of the family. Decorated with fresh flowers and garlands, the symbol is carried through the main market, drawing thousands of people from Vidisha and nearby areas.

“I have seen my elders serving Baba since I was a child, and the same tradition continues today. There was a time when our family was very poor, but our service never stopped. With Baba’s blessings, our family prospered, and today our children and grandchildren are carrying on this legacy.” — Chhoti Bai Kushwaha, oldest family member. As a report in ETV.

Bihar: a century of unity in Gurdaspur, Begusarai

While news stories about unity often focus on big cities, the small village of Gurdaspur in Bihar’s Begusarai district has spent nearly a century showing how brotherhood works in daily life. The Hindu and Muslim residents of this village, which has about 500 families, celebrate Muharram together as one large family.

For nearly 100 years, a small village in Bihar has quietly done what the rest of the country still struggles to achieve.

Every Muharram, Hindus and Muslims come together to keep an extraordinary tradition alive.

The story of Gurdaspur, Begusarai, is one every Indian should… pic.twitter.com/XabdDJDlVK

— FOEJ Media (@FoejMedia) June 26, 2026

The foundation of this tradition was laid by the late Bal Govind Mahto. Decades ago, he became the President of the Muharram Committee and took care of all the arrangements. From the first day of Muharram to the tenth day (Ashura), he managed the rituals and got the official permits for the procession. When he grew old, he handed the responsibility to his grandson, Vishnudev Mahto, who served the committee for nearly 30 years. Today, his nephew, Pankaj Kumar Mahto, carries on the work.

Evolution of the Gurdaspur Muharram committee Leadership

The ritual side of this tradition has also been kept alive by a local woman named Kushma Devi. The daughter of Bal Govind Mahto, she performed the Muharram rituals with care for years. When her health declined, she passed the duties to her daughter, Urmila Devi. Today, along with her daily housework, Urmila Devi performs all the traditional ceremonies from the first to the tenth of Muharram according to local customs.

Assam and Jammu & Kashmir: regional expressions of solidarity

Further east, in the tea town of Margherita in Assam, Muharram draws many different communities together. The annual procession sees active participation from local Muslim families, Assamese Hindus, Bengali residents, and tribal communities living near the tea estates. The procession moves through the green landscape with local instruments, making the day a shared reflection on justice and regional unity.

Meanwhile, in Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, Muharram focuses on community service and mutual support. Along with the traditional mourning processions, people from different communities work together to set up Sabeels (free stalls offering water, milk, and tea) for the public.

Joint blood donation camps are also organised across the city, where youth from various backgrounds donate blood side by side to honor the message of humanity.

Shared traditions passed across generations

The long-standing Muharram traditions across India show that harmony is kept alive through the simple, daily actions of regular families. Whether it is the Kanojia family in Uttar Pradesh keeping a 35-year vow, the Singh family in East Champaran holding a century-old license, the Kushwahas in Vidisha managing a shrine, or the Mahto family in Begusarai leading a committee, these practices continue because of mutual respect.

By treating these customs as a shared responsibility, these villages have kept close ties over the years. Passed down from parents to children, these old rituals continue to thrive, showing that respect and humanity are the true elements of their shared culture. Given the high voltage hate generated by politicians and political outfits holding power, this simple yet powerful assertion by ordinary Indians stands out. And sends a strong message.

Related:

Hindus, Muslims Unite to Protect Rajasthan Border Mosques

When Citizens Say No: The quiet revolt against hate in India’s streets

CJP’s 2025 intervention against ‘Digital Hate’: Holding television news channels accountable before the NBDSA

The post Shared Muharram Heritage: Hindus lead Tazias, Sikhs serve water appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The SIR exercise in Karnataka has begun amid intense political debate. The Congress-led State government has repeatedly said that it is not opposed to updating electoral rolls but has questioned the manner in which the present framework is being implemented. The concerns stem from issues of transparency, safeguards against wrongful deletions, the use of software in identifying discrepancies and the burden placed on voters.

On the first day of the exercise, Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer V. Anbu Kumar attempted to address several of these concerns by clarifying that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would not demand any documentary proof during the house-to-house enumeration. At the same time, the State Cabinet and senior ministers continued to seek greater clarity from the Election Commission before the process moves further.

No documents during house-to-house survey, says CEO

Ahead of the commencement of the exercise, Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), V. Anbu Kumar clarified that electors would not be required to produce any documents during the month-long door-to-door enumeration. According to the CEO, BLOs have been instructed only to distribute and collect Enumeration Forms. Documentary verification, he said, is not part of the initial house visit, as Times of India reported

The forms are available in Kannada, though electors may fill them either in Kannada or in English. The Election Commission has also enabled online submission through the Voters’ Service Portal and the ECINET mobile application.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by The Chief Electoral Officer (@ceokarnataka)

The enumeration exercise will continue from June 30 to July 29.

After the completion of the exercise, the draft electoral rolls will be published on August 5. Claims and objections may be filed until September 4, these will be decided by October 3, and the final electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on October 7.

More than 5 cores electors exist in Karnataka

The Election Commission has stated that all 5, 54, 32,314 electors presently enrolled in Karnataka will be covered during the exercise. Around 59,050 Booth Level Officers, supported by supervisors and election officials across districts, have been deployed. BLOs have been instructed to visit every household and, wherever necessary, make up to three visits to ensure that eligible voters are not left out. While the clarification that no documents would be collected during house-to-house visits has addressed one immediate concern, the Election Commission has also imposed a pre-condition that could amount to ensuring exclusions.

The CEO stated that only those electors who submit the filled Enumeration Form within the prescribed period will find their names in the draft electoral rolls. This effectively makes the submission of the form central to the continuation of an elector’s name in the draft roll, even though documentary proof is not being sought during the initial visit. Eligible citizens who have recently turned eighteen or otherwise qualify for enrolment will have to submit Form 6 for inclusion in the electoral rolls, as reported

Logical discrepancies remain one of the biggest concerns

Perhaps the most closely watched aspect of the Karnataka exercise is the identification of so-called “logical discrepancies.” This vague and untested category had amounted to 27 lakh exclusions in West Bengal! The CEO has listed six categories of such ‘logical discrepancies’ that have presently been identified, although the final number will become clear only after the publication of the draft electoral rolls on August 5. Explaining some of these categories, he said notices may be issued where “the age difference between father and child is less than 15 years,” where “the age difference between grandfather and grandson is more than 40 years,” or where there are inconsistencies relating to gender and family relationships.

According to the CEO, Assistant Electoral Registration Officers would issue notices asking electors to submit supporting documents wherever such discrepancies are detected.

However, while examples have been provided, the Election Commission has not yet publicly released the complete methodology, software logic or technical standards through which such discrepancies are identified. It is precisely this lack of transparency that has become the central point of disagreement between the Karnataka government and the Election Commission.

State Cabinet says it supports revision, not arbitrary deletions

A day before the exercise began, the Karnataka Cabinet discussed the SIR process and formally recorded its concerns. The Cabinet maintained that updating electoral rolls is necessary, but insisted that the process must remain transparent, legally sound and free from arbitrary action.

In a detailed statement shared on social media, Home Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge said that:

“The Karnataka Cabinet supports transparent, evidence-based revision of electoral rolls, but has raised serious concerns about opacity, arbitrariness and possible disenfranchisement in the current SIR framework.”

He further wrote that. “the Cabinet has made it clear, Karnataka supports revision of electoral rolls, not subversion of electoral rolls. The ECI is yet to respond.”

The statement reflects the State government’s position that electoral roll revision itself is not under challenge. Instead, the concerns relate to the manner in which the current framework is proposed to operate. Through the Cabinet’s resolution, Priyank Kharge outlined an extensive set of demands before the SIR process progresses further in Karnataka.

The Karnataka Cabinet supports transparent, evidence-based revision of electoral rolls, but has raised serious concerns about opacity, arbitrariness and possible disenfranchisement in the current SIR framework.

The Cabinet resolved that before SIR is implemented in Karnataka,…

— Priyank Kharge / ಪ್ರಿಯಾಂಕ್ ಖರ್ಗೆ (@PriyankKharge) June 30, 2026

The Cabinet has asked the Election Commission to undertake a full independent review of the entire SIR process, including its legal basis, deletion criteria, supervisory mechanism, software systems and safeguards.

It has also sought an extension of the timeline for submission of Enumeration Forms from one month to at least three months, arguing that the present schedule places undue pressure on Booth Level Officers, election officials and ordinary citizens.

Another major demand relates to transparency. The Cabinet has sought publication of a comprehensive manual explaining every category of “logical discrepancy”, the software or algorithm used to detect such discrepancies, the standard operating procedures, the officials responsible for decision-making and the documents that may be required from electors.

The State government has further demanded that no elector should receive a notice unless a prior physical field verification has been conducted by the Booth Level Officer. It has argued that minor spelling mistakes, clerical errors or transliteration differences should never become grounds for objection.

The Cabinet has also insisted that no voter should be deleted without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard before an impartial authority and a reasoned speaking order.

It has sought clarification on the complete list of admissible documents, reconsideration of the exclusion of Aadhaar and Voter ID wherever applicable, recognition of Karnataka’s Kutumba ID in appropriate cases and assurance that the burden of proving eligibility is not unfairly shifted onto ordinary citizens.

The State government has additionally sought simultaneous processing of valid Form 6 applications and Form 7 objections, safeguards against bulk objections leading to mass deletions, publication of machine-readable daily data relating to notices, additions and deletions, public disclosure and independent testing of all software used in the process, clearer definition of the role of Special Roll Observers and Micro-Observers, and enhanced safeguards for vulnerable groups including women, migrant workers, slum residents, nomadic and de-notified tribes, widows, persons with disabilities, orphans and transgender persons.

While the SIR exercise in Karnataka has commenced, the Election Commission has, so far, not publicly responded to these demands.

CM promises permanent residence certificate for voters

Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar has also intervened on the issue by assuring citizens that the State government would facilitate the issuance of Permanent Residence Certificates for those who require them during the SIR process. The assurance came after concerns were raised about documentation and the practical difficulties faced by many electors in obtaining supporting records, as reported

The Chief Minister has also maintained that the State government will examine legal options depending on the Election Commission’s response to the concerns raised by the Cabinet.

The larger issue is about safeguards, not merely enumeration

Although the Election Commission has repeatedly stated that the objective of the SIR is to ensure an accurate electoral roll, the political debate in Karnataka has increasingly shifted towards procedural safeguards.

Questions are being raised about how discrepancies are identified, who supervises the process, how notices are generated and what legal protections exist before an elector’s name can ultimately be deleted. The clarification that no documents are required during house-to-house visits addresses only one stage of the process. Concerns continue over what happens after the draft electoral roll is published, particularly in cases where notices may be issued on the basis of “logical discrepancies.”

The absence of publicly available technical documentation explaining these discrepancy categories has further contributed to demands for greater transparency.

Fear of wrongful deletion continues to shape public discourse

Among several sections of voters, the discussion around SIR is being shaped not only by the current guidelines but also by concerns arising from earlier electoral roll revision exercises in different parts of the country where allegations of wrongful deletions had led to on ground fear among the marginalised electors.

Political parties and civil society groups have repeatedly argued that even a small number of erroneous deletions can significantly affect citizens because the right to vote depends entirely upon inclusion in the electoral roll.

For many electors, especially elderly persons, migrant workers, tenants, persons living in informal settlements and economically weaker sections, concerns remain about whether procedural requirements can be completed within the prescribed timeline and whether genuine mistakes in records may eventually result in exclusion.

It is against this backdrop that Karnataka’s month-long SIR exercise has begun. While the Election Commission has emphasised participation and administrative preparedness, the State government continues to press for greater transparency, procedural safeguards and stronger protection against wrongful disenfranchisement. The coming weeks—leading up to the publication of the draft electoral rolls on August 5—are likely to determine whether these concerns are addressed through administrative clarification or result in the wrongful disenfranchisement of existing electors.

Related:

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?

SC greenlights SIR, upholds ECI’s power to revise electoral rolls

The Bihar Verdict 2025: How an election was engineered before votes were cast

The post Karnataka launches SIR with 5.5 crore voters, State Govt voices transparency concerns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Urban solid waste management is among the most critical responsibilities of any modern state. Yet success in this area remains elusive across much of the world, and India is no exception. While governments frequently focus on technologies, treatment facilities, and infrastructure, the most fundamental aspect of waste management often receives insufficient attention: waste is generated by people and can only be managed effectively through their active participation.

The case of Kerala illustrates this challenge. The state generates over 11,000 tonnes of solid waste every day. Yet the infrastructure available for scientific processing and disposal remains limited. A significant quantity of waste, particularly mixed and residual waste finds its way beyond the state’s borders for further processing or disposal. This problem is not simply one of insufficient facilities, although that is a major part of it; it reflects a broader difficulty in creating a system that seamlessly integrates households, local governments, private actors, and public institutions into a coherent framework.

A common misconception is that waste management can be solved primarily through mechanisation and large-scale infrastructure. Machines undoubtedly have an important role. Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs), treatment plants, collection vehicles, incinerators, and scientific landfills are necessary components of any modern waste management system. However, waste begins its journey long before it reaches such facilities. It begins in households, shops, offices, and institutions. If waste is not segregated at source, even the most advanced infrastructure struggles to perform efficiently. After all, the viability of these facilities relies entirely on the steady supply of source-segregated waste.

Waste management is therefore not merely a technical problem but a deeply social one. It involves citizens, local governments, public agencies, and private enterprises. It concerns both the rights and responsibilities of individuals, the actions of institutions at various levels, and collective outcomes. The effectiveness of any system depends on the willingness of individuals to segregate waste at source, reduce waste generation, and cooperate with local authorities, which are the primary administrative units responsible for managing solid waste. Without such civic participation, infrastructure alone cannot succeed.

This social dimension also explains why waste management differs from ordinary market activities. In a typical market transaction, two parties voluntarily exchange goods or services. Waste, however, creates consequences for people who are not directly involved in its generation. A plastic bag discarded in a public space may belong to nobody, yet its effects are borne by everybody through pollution, waterlogging, and environmental degradation. Economists describe such situations as externalities, but the practical implication is straightforward: market incentives alone cannot adequately govern waste. An approach based primarily on the economic aspects of waste management has significant limitations.

For this reason, waste management should not be viewed primarily as a profit-generating activity driven by private players and their interests. Opportunities for revenue generation certainly exist through recycling, recovery, and resource extraction. Yet the central objective of waste management is the creation of public value that safeguards public health and society, rather than ensuring profit for those involved in it. When waste management is approached solely through a market lens, important social and environmental considerations are easily neglected. The management of waste is fundamentally an administrative and civic responsibility involving common resources and public participation.

Decentralisation and Kerala

The possibility of effective solid waste management in a densely populated country like India depends heavily on the decentralisation of waste management mechanisms. By this, we also mean the decentralisation of local administration into layered Local Self-Government (LSG) units: wards, grama panchayats, block panchayats, district panchayats, municipalities, and municipal corporations.

Such a division of administration and representation helps promote participatory planning from the grassroots, as has been happening in Kerala since the launch of the People’s Planning Campaign in 1996. Village-level plans discussed at ward-level meetings of all voters are forwarded to higher levels for approval every six months. This mechanism immediately links administrative responsibility such as that of a municipal health inspector or secretary to political representation through the local ward councilor or standing committee chairman on issues that deserve urgent attention.

Solid waste management issues in each locality require the close participation and attention of administration at these lower levels. In India, people in positions of power are generally disinclined to give attention to waste for two primary reasons:

1. The all-pervasive caste system has historically branded waste handling as a lower-status occupation.
2. Safety and protective equipment remain highly inadequate in most Local Self-Government units, making waste management a hazardous task.

If Kerala has been able to achieve relatively better solid waste management outcomes at a basic level since 2020—specifically through source segregation at households and institutions, and the collection of non-biodegradable waste (NBDW) by the Haritha Karma Sena (HKS) from households, shops, and institutions—it is primarily because the state has fully operationalised its 941 grama panchayats, 14 district panchayats, 152 block panchayats, 87 municipalities, and 6 municipal corporations following the implementation of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments from 1996 onwards.

In the coming years, other states in India should follow suit, given the complex ecological implications of poor waste management in both urban centres and villages. For instance, in Kerala, the recurring floods of recent years (2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021) have compelled the state administration to think seriously about solid waste management as a vital preventive measure, given the state’s vast network of water bodies and its long monsoon season, during which plastic waste clogging water bodies and urban drainage systems can significantly aggravate flooding.

Gandhi and Decentralised Governance

Gandhi’s ideas about society and its relationship with local governance need to be explored further to understand Kerala’s approach to solid waste management. “My Waste is My Responsibility” (Ente Malinyam Ente Utharavadithwam) and “We Are the Change” (Nammalanu Mattam) are two distinctly Gandhian-sounding slogans used by the Kerala Local Self-Government Department in its solid waste management campaigns.

For Gandhi, the decentralisation of administration formed part of a broader effort to mitigate the coercive power of the state and ensure representation for everyone; Sarvodaya, in Gandhian terms. As is well known, Gandhi was deeply influenced by John Ruskin’s Unto This Last. The political and philosophical dimensions of prioritising the last person in society in terms of justice and equality were later elaborated in a profound manner by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice.

Gandhi ultimately saw the world as an “ever-expanding circle” of villages rather than an arena of nations fighting one another with increasingly sophisticated weapons over market-driven interests disguised as national interests under capitalism, state socialism, or fascism. To address the problems of centralised production and complex, profit-driven machinery, he stressed the decentralised village or small community as the basic unit of society, irrespective of the immediate economic losses or inconvenience that such an approach might entail.

Haritha Karma Sena as a Gandhian Alternative

The work undertaken by the Haritha Karma Sena in Kerala has generally been regarded as a capital-intensive urban function. However, its involvement makes the system far more labour-intensive, while distributing the benefits of waste management more equitably, as workers are compensated from the value created through their labour. This represents a distinctly Gandhian approach to a social responsibility, particularly because waste management is a socio-environmental obligation whose benefits extend far beyond Kerala and India.

Their involvement makes solid waste management genuinely decentralised at multiple levels. First, their participation makes the process labour-intensive and reduces the likelihood of future dumping. Dump-yard clearance, on the other hand, is a highly capital-intensive activity, as witnessed in Brahmapuram, Kochi, and elsewhere, where decentralisation had long been neglected before it was finally adopted.

Another important contribution of the Haritha Karma Sena to the waste management sector is the decentralisation of governance, income generation, and administration across genders. It also serves as a mitigating force against the historical stigma attached to waste handling in India, particularly within caste-based social structures. The process of visiting households every month to collect source-segregated waste is itself a form of public education that fosters a new ecological consciousness among citizens.

Gandhi believed that power should be shared in such a way that any monopoly over wealth constituted a social wrong; hence his concept of trusteeship. The collection, processing, and consequent reduction of waste through the systematic involvement of the Haritha Karma Sena represent an alternative understanding of both the economy and the community in a society that is rapidly moving in a capitalist direction, where private capital already exercises considerable influence.

Generally, the benefits of urban solid waste management accrue to capital-intensive companies and to a very small section of poor people willing to work under unfavourable conditions. The involvement of the Haritha Karma Sena has transformed waste management into an area in which ordinary people can participate and contribute. As a result, waste management becomes a more transparent process. The financial benefits generated through waste management increasingly reach relatively poorer sections of society, thereby expanding the scope for the democratisation of wealth.

The Haritha Karma Sena and the municipal administration have become trustees of the wealth generated while creating a social good, rather than parties seeking to exploit it for private gain. However, a great deal of conscious effort is still required to fully realise this ideal.

Kerala’s Past Failed Experiences with Centralised Waste Management

The two most prominent failed experiments in centralised waste management in Kerala; Brahmapuram in Kochi and Vilappilsala in Thiruvananthapuram illustrate what happens when Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) lack self-sufficiency. At these dumping sites, unsegregated urban solid waste from various municipalities and towns was piled up indiscriminately.

The facilities failed to function because the fundamental principle of waste management that individual participation through source segregation is paramount was overlooked in favour of the belief that machines and capital-intensive technologies could remediate large dumpsites.

In Brahmapuram, a village used by the Kochi Municipal Corporation, six neighbouring municipalities sent their unsegregated waste to a single dumpsite. A catastrophic fire that lasted twelve days caused widespread toxic pollution across the city. The subsequent land reclamation took nearly two years, during which around 550,000 tonnes of mixed solid waste had to be biomined and removed. Following the disaster, each municipality in the district was instructed to manage its own solid waste within its jurisdiction to the greatest extent possible.

Similarly, at Vilappilsala panchayat, urban waste from Thiruvananthapuram city was dumped for years instead of requiring individuals and institutions to segregate their waste at source. This led to sustained public protests that eventually forced the closure of the facility. In both cases, waste management practices ran directly contrary to the Gandhian principle of village self-sufficiency, whereby production, consumption, and waste are managed by the people themselves to the maximum extent possible. Recognising the shift towards a Haritha Karma Sena-based urban waste management system, the state government aptly titled its comprehensive 2021 status report The State of Decentralised Solid Waste Management in Kerala.

Part 2 Follows.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Waste, Responsibility and Decentralisation: A Gandhian Perspective on Solid Waste Management in Kerala (Part 1) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Historically, the Indian state has used demographic data for its population control goals. After decades of deploying demographic data to control fertility and sexuality, and sustained resistance by women’s movements for their reproductive rights, bodily autonomy and integrity, the ‘target’ has now moved to specific religious communities, in particular minorities, with a communal agenda, under the pretext of achieving an ‘infiltrator-free India’. 

The statement states:

“It is in this context that the we as feminists, civil liberties and people’s movements, activists, academics and concerned citizens are deeply concerned at the questionable Terms of Reference (ToR) of the ‘High-Level Committee on Demographic Change’ (HPC-DC) notified by the Government of India on May 26, 2026, in pursuance of the Prime Minister’s announcement of the ‘High-Powered Demography Mission’ on August 15, 2025.

“The Committee is to be chaired by Jst (Retd) Prakash Prabhakar Navlekar, with Mr. Durga Shankar Mishra (Retd. IAS), Mr. Balaji Srivastava (Retd. IPS), Dr. Shamika Ravi and the Census Commissioner, as its members. Notably, the ToR has references to “illegal immigration or “illegal migrants” in seven of its eight action points. The sole action point that does not include such references calls for an analysis of structural population changes among “religious and social communities”

“Demography is a broad field of inquiry that studies population processes such as birth, death, fertility, mortality, ageing, gender ratios, population distribution, migration, urbanisation and the influence of development models on demographic patterns. One would, therefore, expect the ToR to mandate an examination of the full range of demographic transformations currently reshaping India, including declining fertility rates, regional population disparities, internal migration, emigration, changing family structures, ageing populations, gender inequalities, and the intensification of care responsibilities. 

“A genuinely independent Committee would be tasked with analysing the socio-economic drivers of these critical changes, assessing the social, political, cultural and economic consequences at the regional, state and local levels, and recommending policies grounded in evidence and constitutional values. Instead, the ToR has presumed and pre-determined the outcomes of the inquiry and narrowed this vast subject almost exclusively to questions of “illegal immigration”, “religious and social communities”, border management, identification systems, detention and deportation. We are particularly concerned that the Committee has been tasked with analysing population changes among religious and social communities, while simultaneously operating within a framework that repeatedly links demographic change to “illegal immigration” and “demographic imbalance”.

“The Government should ensure that any study of demographic change is independent, methodologically transparent, federally undertaken, and free from assumptions that pre-determine its findings. Instead, this Committee appears poised to recommend mechanisms for identifying, detaining and deporting persons presumed to be illegal immigrants. Although presented as demographic analysis, the ToR effectively continues the regime’s misplaced focus on “illegal immigration” as a primary threat to national sovereignty while simultaneously stigmatising entire communities. Such an approach risks deepening social polarisation rather than advancing evidence-based public policy.

“As feminists, we reject attempts to reduce complex social realities to narratives of demographic threat linked to illegal immigration. History shows that anxieties about population composition often translate into increased surveillance of women’s bodies, restrictions on reproductive autonomy, and heightened discrimination against minorities, marginalized, and communities in peripheral locations.  The recent SIR exercise conducted through the lens of “illegal immigration” resulted in disproportionately high deletions of women voters and Muslims, relative to their share of the population.

“We, therefore, request that the Government undertake a comprehensive review of the objectives and ToR of the said Committee and defer the commencement of the Committee’s work, at least until the ongoing Census is completed. Only a robust, exhaustive, and transparent Census can provide a trustworthy demographic baseline for understanding the myriad complex population changes India is undergoing. The suggested policies based on the analysis of this Census data will equip the state to address the demographic challenges. Proceeding without such a foundation risks compounding errors, deepening exclusions, and enabling pre-determined conclusions, under the guise of demographic study.”

ALIFA has also urged that the government to step back from this misguided approach. Public policy must be guided by constitutional values, rigorous evidence, and respect for human rights. India’s demographic future should be approached as a question of justice, equality and human development, not as a narrative of suspicion and fear.

Related:

High-Level Committee on Demographic Change (HLC-DC): Another Offensive on Indian Muslims!

The post ALIFA seeks review of questionable ToR of ‘High-Level Committee on Demographic Change’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As public criticism mounted, the Government maintained that the clarification represented no change in legal position. Rather, officials asserted that passports had never been proof of citizenship. Quoting the statutory scheme of the Passports Act, officials argued that the Act itself contemplates the issuance of passports and travel documents to certain categories of non-citizens and therefore possession of a passport cannot constitute conclusive proof of citizenship. Government officials further justified their position by relying upon a 2013 judgment of the Bombay High Court, asserting that the Court had already held that a passport is not proof of citizenship. As reported by The Times of India, an official stated:

“It was not decided yesterday that the passport is not proof of citizenship. It was not even decided in the last 12 years. The passport has never been a proof of citizenship. Passports Act 1967 says that passports can be given to non-citizens. Judgments of Bombay HC from 2013 have also made it clear a passport is not proof of citizenship.”

The same report explained that the Government’s position rested upon two propositions: first, that the Passports Act allows passports or travel documents to be issued in limited situations to non-citizens; and secondly, that the Bombay High Court had recognised that possession of a passport cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of citizenship. Similar explanations appeared in media coverage by The Hindu, The Indian Express and other national newspapers, many of which reproduced the Government’s reliance on the Bombay High Court decision.

Even at first glance, the official explanation is not persuasive. The Times of India report itself mentions that the passport issued was subsequently terminated, suggesting that this case needs to be looked at in its specificity and is not illustrative. Sabrangindia has accessed the hitherto unavailable, unreported 2013 judgement (see below). A closer examination of both the statutory framework and the Bombay High Court judgment reveals that the legal position is considerably more nuanced. More importantly, it raises the question whether the Government has relied upon the Bombay High Court decision for a proposition that the Court itself never decided.

The statutory scheme of the Passports Act, 1967

The Passports Act, 1967 was enacted “to provide for the issue of passports and travel documents, to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and other persons and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto.” The title of the Act itself demonstrates that Parliament recognised that travel documentation may occasionally be issued not only to Indian citizens but also to “other persons.”

This distinction is significant. The Act governs travel documentation, whereas citizenship is regulated independently by the Citizenship Act, 1955. The two enactments undoubtedly operate in different legal spheres. A passport is issued under one statute; citizenship is acquired, determined and regulated under another.

However, it does not necessarily follow that because a statute permits the issuance of travel documents to certain categories of non-citizens, every passport issued under the Act loses all evidentiary value regarding citizenship. The Government’s argument conflates two distinct legal propositions.

The first proposition, that citizenship is determined under the Citizenship Act, is unquestionably correct.

The second proposition, that a passport therefore has no evidentiary significance regarding citizenship, does not automatically follow from the first.

The Passports Act envisages exceptional circumstances in which travel documentation may be issued to non-citizens, such as certificates of identity, emergency certificates and other recognised travel documents issued in accordance with domestic law and international obligations. These exceptional statutory situations cannot be used to erase the ordinary legal presumption that accompanies the issuance of a passport to an Indian citizen after verification by the Passport Authority. The existence of exceptions does not determine the legal character of the general rule.

Indeed, the very process prescribed under the Passports Act and the Passport Rules demonstrates that issuance of a passport ordinarily follows verification of the applicant’s identity, nationality and supporting documents. While this verification may not amount to a judicial determination of citizenship, it would be equally incorrect to suggest that the exercise is legally meaningless or that a valid passport carries no evidentiary weight whatsoever.

The Bombay High Court Judgment: What did the court actually decide?

The Government’s principal judicial authority for its present position is the Bombay High Court’s decision in Anwar Hussain Abdul Kadar Shaikh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2013). The judgment, delivered by Justice K.U. Chandiwal in July 2013, has been cited in official explanations as establishing that “a passport is not proof of citizenship.”

A careful reading of the judgment, however, reveals something quite different. The applicants had been convicted under the Foreigners Act and the Passport (Entry into India) Rules. Before the High Court, they sought to rely upon several documents—including passports, Aadhaar cards and a birth certificate—to establish that they were Indian citizens. Their principal submission was that these documents had not been produced before the trial court and therefore the matter ought to be remanded for reconsideration.

The High Court declined to interfere. Crucially, however, the Court did not reject the passport because passports are incapable of evidencing citizenship. Instead, it rejected reliance on the particular passport produced before it because the passport had already been terminated.

The Court expressly observed:

“However, the passport to which the learned Counsel gave reference is already terminated passport. Therefore, no legal basis can be achieved for its reliance.” (Para 3)

This sentence constitutes the heart of the judgment. The Court’s reasoning was document-specific. It was not analysing the evidentiary value of a valid passport. Rather, it held that a passport whose legal validity had already been terminated could no longer furnish a legal basis for establishing citizenship.

The Court thereafter turned to the remaining documentary evidence. It observed that although one applicant had produced a birth certificate, the statutory requirements governing citizenship by birth had not been satisfied because no evidence had been adduced establishing that the applicant’s parents were Indian citizens. Consequently, the applicants had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden necessary to establish citizenship under the Citizenship Act.

The judgment therefore rests upon two independent factual conclusions. First, the passport relied upon had already been terminated. Secondly, the applicants had otherwise failed to establish citizenship through admissible documentary evidence.

Neither finding amounts to a declaration that all valid passports are legally incapable of evidencing citizenship.

Why the termination of the passport matters

The fact that the passport had already been terminated is not an incidental factual detail; it is the central reason why the Court declined to rely upon it.

Section 10 of the Passports Act empowers the Passport Authority to vary, impound or revoke a passport in specified circumstances. A passport may be revoked where it has been obtained by fraud, suppression of material information or misrepresentation; where the holder has ceased to be an Indian citizen; where criminal proceedings are pending; where the holder has contravened the provisions of the Act or the conditions subject to which the passport was issued; or where revocation is considered necessary in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or the interests of the general public. Once a passport is revoked or terminated under the statutory framework, it ceases to enjoy the legal validity that attaches to a subsisting passport.

This distinction fundamentally alters the significance of the Bombay High Court’s reasoning. The Court was not confronted with a valid passport issued and continuing under the statutory scheme. It was confronted with a passport whose legal efficacy had already been extinguished. Unsurprisingly, the Court held that “no legal basis” existed for relying upon such a document.

To extend this reasoning to conclude that every valid passport issued by the Government of India is incapable of evidencing citizenship is to read the judgment far beyond its factual and legal context.

Reading the judgment beyond its ratio

It is a settled principle of judicial precedent that a decision is authority only for what it actually decides. Courts have repeatedly cautioned against extracting broad legal propositions from judgments without regard to the factual matrix in which they were rendered.

Measured against this principle, the Government’s reliance on Anwar Hussain appears to stretch the judgment beyond its actual ratio. The High Court never analysed whether a valid passport constitutes prima facie evidence of citizenship. It never considered the evidentiary status of passports issued after statutory verification. Nor did it hold that a valid passport can never be relied upon in citizenship proceedings. Those questions simply did not arise because the passport before the Court had already been terminated.

The judgment therefore establishes a much narrower proposition than the one presently attributed to it. It holds only that a terminated passport, coupled with an independent failure to establish citizenship through other admissible evidence, cannot justify interference with a conviction under the Foreigners Act.

The distinction is not merely semantic. It goes to the very heart of the ongoing debate. The Government’s recent clarification has transformed a fact-specific judicial determination into a sweeping proposition of general application. Such an interpretation risks attributing to the Bombay High Court a legal conclusion that it neither articulated nor was required to decide. If the Government seeks to argue that a valid passport should not be treated as proof of citizenship, that proposition must stand on its own statutory and constitutional foundations. It cannot fairly derive unquestioned authority from a judgment that dealt with an already terminated passport and a complete absence of supporting evidence establishing citizenship.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

Rejected as Voter, also denied a Passport? Here is how ‘New India’ deals with exclusion complaints under SIR: Former editor, Telegraph, R Rajagopal

EXCLUSIVE: Bulk FIRs targets Assamese Indians through Passport Act cases, new assault on Citizenship rights: Assam

HRDA condemns U’khand police’s plan to deny passport for “anti-national” social media posts

Backdoor NPR-NRC? Parents DOB for KYC; great grandfather’s address for passport re-issue

Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?

Sleeping under an Open Sky on No-Man’s Land: Two Children, Ten Lives, and the Machinery of Exclusion

The post Not What the Court Decided: Re-reading the Bombay High Court’s passport judgment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This grassroots movement emerged as a direct response to a vast administrative anti-encroachment campaign officially designated as “Operation Sweep.” The Rajasthan’s Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP)-ruled state government’s demolition drive had recently resulted in the demolition of several Islamic religious structures i.e. Mosques/Madrasas and the issuance of hundreds of legal eviction notices to such, reportedly without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing. In response to these administrative actions, the assembled protesters submitted formal memorandums to local authorities, demanding an immediate suspension of the demolition drive and strict adherence to established legal processes, and the prevention of alleged selective communal targeting of minority religious sites.

सर्व धर्म शांति सभा, बाड़मेर।
“जहाँ सत्य, अहिंसा और धर्म का पग-पग लगता डेरा,
वो भारत देश है हमारा…”
सर्व धर्म शांति सभा में शामिल होकर आपसी भाईचारे, सामाजिक सौहार्द, संविधान के सम्मान और देश की एकता-अखंडता का संदेश दिया।
हमारी विविधता ही हमारी सबसे बड़ी ताकत है। सभी धर्मों, सभी… pic.twitter.com/1SqELVvewY

— Ummeda Ram Beniwal (@UmmedaRamBaytu) June 26, 2026

Background

The tensions in the region originated from a large-scale anti-encroachment and security drive initiated by the Rajasthan government in coordination with border security agencies. This enforcement campaign, named “Operation Sweep,” that began on spans a massive 1,050-kilometer border belt that physically separates India from Pakistan. Pursuant to directions issued by the Union Home Ministry, a joint team comprising the district administration, police, and the Border Security Force (BSF) undertook an operation concerning “alleged illegal constructions within 15 kilometres of the India–Pakistan border in Rajasthan’s Barmer district”, from June 18, 2026 onwards.

Rajasthan Bulldozer Action: Barmer में Operation Clean के तहत Ind-Pak सीमा की मस्जिद पर गरजा बुलडोजर #Rajasthan #BulldozerAction #OperationClean #LatestNews pic.twitter.com/PZHZMN0FxK

— Punjab Kesari (@punjabkesari) June 22, 2026

The operation covers four major administrative districts that contain significant Muslim populations, namely Barmer, Jaisalmer, Bikaner, and Sri Ganganagar. The state government and the associated security apparatus classified the drive as a highly necessary procedural measure designed to clear unauthorised constructions and reinforce critical security infrastructure within a highly sensitive strategic military corridor. However, the execution of these orders quickly drew allegations of systemic bias from local communities.

According to precise data released on dated June 23, 2026 during a press conference by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), approximately three hundred and fifty mosques and various Islamic religious structures situated across these four border districts were served with administrative demolition notices. Prior to the major public mobilisation, the regional enforcement drive had already resulted in the direct demolition of four separate mosques within the Barmer sector, alongside the destruction of an ancient mazaar, or shrine, in the Jaisalmer district. Local community activists and non-governmental organisations subsequently filed public complaints, asserting that the administration was selectively penalising Muslim places of worship while simultaneously ignoring similar documentation anomalies in the religious and residential structures of other communities.

Demolition of Mosques and Attack on Religious Freedom in India
23 JUNE 2026 | 3:30 PM | PRESS CLUB OF INDIA pic.twitter.com/D4RLnmwAY2

— APCR-Association for Protection of Civil Rights (@apcrofindia) June 24, 2026

In direct response to the sudden executions of these demolition orders, community members from both major religious groups organised public demonstrations to systematically de-escalate potential communal friction and demand immediate legal interventions.

Peaceful public mobilisation across Barmer and Jaisalmer

According to the Maktoob Media, the major public assemblies were recorded in the village of Badbir within the Barmer district, as well as in multiple commercial and residential locations across Jaisalmer. Hundreds of local residents gathered collectively outside the Barmer District Magistrate’s office to conduct an interfaith peace assembly.

The primary objective of these localised rallies was to challenge the execution of the demolition orders through entirely peaceful, constitutional means rather than through civil disobedience. The gathered protesters formally submitted a collective memorandum addressed to the President of India, urgently requesting an immediate pause on the entire demolition drive until transparent, unbiased legal verifications could be executed by the judiciary.

Local community leader demands equal treatment

Surtaram Meghwal, a two-time elected Dalit Sarpanch of Paradia village, emerged as one of the primary figures directing the local public response and articulating the grievances of the unified communities. Meghwal openly challenged the statutory validity of the state’s actions, stating his belief that the demolitions were an extrajudicial exercise being carried out without following any due legal process. He argued that if mosques were being actively checked and demolished by the state, then temples should also be examined under the exact same legal standards to ensure absolute administrative fairness.

Rajasthan: In #Barmer, Advocate Surtaram Meghawal, the Sarpanch of Paradia village, publicly warned the BJP govt against what he described as the selective demolition of #mosques while sparing #temples.

He urged the govt to uphold the Raj Dharma advocated by former PM Atal… pic.twitter.com/cQDPoQB8yB

— MuslimMirror.com (@MuslimMirror) June 25, 2026

Meghwal further detailed the ground realities of the public mobilisation that took place in Badbir following the destruction of multiple religious sites. He communicated to Maktoob that the villagers protested against the demolition of these religious structures to oppose the government actions and convey their collective message peacefully. He noted that since the protest began, the region had witnessed even greater brotherhood with more citizens coming forward in mutual support and reflecting a shared belief that there was still ample time to resolve the administrative issue through dialogue. Addressing the underlying socio-political dynamic of the border region, Meghwal explicitly blamed external political factors for generating artificial friction.

He questioned the procedural fairness of the drive, asking why only mosques and religious structures of Muslims were being targeted and reiterated his stance as a two-time Sarpanch that Hindus and Muslims harbor no inherent issues with each other in the region. He concluded that institutional politics would not break the unity of the people of Rajasthan, as they would consistently stand in solidarity with their Muslim neighbors, as Maktoob Media reported

Dialogue over division

The events in Barmer and Jaisalmer are illustrative of how local leadership and resistance is the best and most effective anti-dote to what is perceived as targeted injustice. Such moves are effective and pre-emptive and preventive, an antidote to communal conflict. Hindu and Muslim residents in these districts have come together to hold joint protests, submitted memorandums to the authorities, and sought legal remedies through constitutional processes. Their actions reflected a shared belief that disputes should be addressed through dialogue, fairness, and the rule of law.

The interfaith assemblies also highlighted the long-standing bonds between the communities living in the border region. Despite facing difficult living conditions and administrative challenges, residents chose to stand together and protect the harmony that has existed in their villages for generations. While the legality of the demolition drive will ultimately be decided through judicial and administrative processes, the peaceful response of the local people demonstrated the value of maintaining communal harmony during times of uncertainty. The events serve as a reminder that equal application of the law, respect for due process, and continued dialogue between communities and public authorities are essential for preserving public trust and social harmony.

Related

When Citizens Say No: The quiet revolt against hate in India’s streets

CJP’s 2025 intervention against ‘Digital Hate’: Holding television news channels accountable before the NBDSA

Public Resistance and Democratic Assertion: India through protests, 2025

The post Brotherhood in Rajasthan: Hindus, Muslims Protect Border Mosques appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“In March this year, my name was deleted from the Ballygunge constituency electoral roll in Kolkata, apparently because the Special Intensive Revision process could not trace either my name or that of my late father in the 2002 voters’ list. My father, a Gandhian, retired professor and former State Secretary of the Gandhi Smarak Nidhi in Kerala, passed away in 2016. I remain unable to understand how a conscientious voter like him could have been absent from the rolls.

“Like nearly 27 lakh other residents of West Bengal, I was excluded on account of what were described as “logical discrepancies”. No reason was furnished even after I submitted my matriculation certificate, and my appeal is now pending before one of the tribunals constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions. As a consequence, I was unable to vote in the recent election.

“More distressing has been the fate of my passport renewal application. Although I completed the biometric formalities on March 19, 2026, police verification has not been cleared because my name no longer appears on the electoral roll. Despite submitting several alternative documents, I have been informed that they are insufficient. In fact, today (Saturday, June 27, 2026) is the 100th day since my biometrics for passport renewal were taken. I was formally informed last week by the passport-issuing authority that Kolkata Police sent an adverse report, citing the deletion of my name from the voters’ list. I have been asked to appear before the Regional Passport Office in Calcutta “immediately” but when I sought an appointment, without which it is difficult to gain entry, the date granted is July 17, 2026.

“In between, our daughter, a journalist in California, got married in San Francisco on April 17. Needless to say, it would have been impossible for me to attend the wedding in the absence of an active passport, notwithstanding my possession of a valid ten-year US visa.

“For all practical purposes, I find myself in a state of civic uncertainty although recently the government iterated that a passport is no proof of citizenship.  Much of my time is now consumed by efforts to reconstruct family records and secure documents dating back several decades….

“My days begin with checking my voting right appeal status and then the passport tracker. Then I write to the college where my mother taught in 1965 and to her school from where she passed out in 1959, asking for any document that proves she existed. The school has been very helpful but not the college. Similarly, I speak to prohibition campaign activists in Kerala, running down a list I collected after coming across an activist’s name in a group by chance, asking for any news clipping or photographs that show my father campaigning against illegal liquor vends and communalism.

“Some close friends and public figures have helped me in all these efforts. However, I am unaware if any media outlet or journalists’ association or guild (of which I am not a member) has shown any interest in my situation. A senior journalist reminded me that this situation is by no means unique as “rejection” has been the daily certainty confronting millions of Indians for centuries. I accept that point.

“My intention has never been to project myself as a victim. Rather, I have wanted to underline a larger point: if someone who spent his professional life in journalism and edited a relatively known newspaper can encounter such difficulties, one can only imagine what the truly marginalised must endure.  Did I approach any newspaper? No, because I do not want it to become an issue concerning me. Do editors and journalists know about my issue? Of course, several do. If they don’t, they should not be in the profession, don’t you think?

“Yet, the complete silence of newspapers on this issue has confirmed my suspicion, now reinforced with personal experience, that so-called mainstream journalism has little to do with my life. I do not “read” any newspaper now. I glance at some but hardly find anything that piques my interest.

“I continue, however, to admire the work of organisations such as The Wire, Scroll, The Reporters’ Collective, Newslaundry, The News Minute and PARI. They represent journalism of the highest order, and I sometimes feel it does them a disservice to evaluate them alongside much of what passes for mainstream journalism today.

“It is for this reason that I no longer feel ethically justified in serving on a jury entrusted with recognising excellence in journalism. My views on much of the misidentified “mainstream media” have become deeply sceptical, and I cannot be confident that they would not unconsciously influence my judgment. There may well be outstanding work being done within those organisations, but I am no longer sure that I would be able to assess it with the detachment such a responsibility demands. My disenchantment cannot be allowed to affect their chance at winning an award named after Shri Prem Bhatia.

“My reservations are ethical rather than legal. I believe my continued presence would diminish, rather than enhance, the integrity of the selection process.

“I, therefore, request that you kindly permit me to step aside. I apologise to you for any inconvenience caused. I remain deeply appreciative of this stellar initiative and wish it every success in the years ahead. Please feel free to share this note with anyone you prefer.

This note that has been made public by R. Rajagopal was also a part of his resignation from the Prem Bhatia Journalism Award Jury.

R. Rajagopal

P.S. The The Prem Bhatia Journalism Awards and Lecture were instituted in 1995 by the Prem Bhatia Memorial Trust to honour the legacy of the legendary former editor of The Tribune. Mr. Bhatia was an eminent journalist, known for both his incisive political reporting and far-sightedness, as well as his independence of judgement and unfaltering objectivity. The trust instituted two awards — one for Excellence in Political Journalism, and the other for Excellence in Environmental Journalism, to honour his memory.In 2024, under an arrangement, the trust handed over its corpus to the Guild. Since 2025, the Editors Guild of India (EGi) has continued the legacy by administering the awards, along with the annual lecture.

Meanwhile the Editor’s Guild of India issued a statement condemning the treatment meted out to R. Rajagopal on Sunday, June 28. The full text may be read here:

“June 28, 2026 | New Delhi: The Editors Guild of India condemns the manner in which Mr. R. Rajagopal, a former Editor of The Telegraph, a leading Kolkata-based daily, is being treated by the bureaucracy that gets to decide who is an Indian citizen and who is not. Mr. Rajagopal, despites decades of work in the public domain as a journalist and editor, today finds himself not only disenfranchised as a voter due to the deletion of his name from the electoral rolls, but also unable to renew his passport since more than 100 days, allegedly due to an ‘adverse report’ from the Kolkata Police, who must have been very familiar with Mr. Rajagopal as the Editor of one of the city’s leading dailies. The police verification appears to have been denied on the basis that Mr. Rajagopal’s name no longer figured on the electoral rolls!

Mr. Rajagopal’s plight highlights the misery that millions of Indians are being put through due to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India.

If it could happen to someone like Mr. Rajagopal, a known public figure, the fate of others who have similarly been disenfranchised by a bureaucratic stroke of the pen, and lacking the voice to seek redressal can only be imagined.

The EGi calls on the EC to display common sense – and sympathy — and restore Mr. Rajagopal’s identity as a voter at the earliest — and extend similar consideration to all those who have suffered a similar fate.

Related:

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

To Karnataka’s Anti-SIR Movement: A note of caution and concern

Anti-SIR Activists Beware: A mere Residential Certificate does not satisfy SIR requirements

The post Rejected as Voter, also denied a Passport? Here is how ‘New India’ deals with exclusion complaints under SIR: Former editor, Telegraph, R Rajagopal appeared first on SabrangIndia.