The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) announced that the decision was taken “after due consideration” and in order to create an atmosphere conducive to dialogue and stability in the Union Territory of Ladakh. The order revoking Wangchuk’s detention was issued with immediate effect, according to The Hindu.

In its official statement, the MHA said the government remains committed to “fostering an environment of peace, stability, and mutual trust in Ladakh so as to facilitate constructive and meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders.” The ministry also noted that Wangchuk had already served nearly half of the maximum detention period permitted under the NSA, which allows authorities to detain individuals without trial for up to 12 months, as per Hindustan Times.

The activist had been lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail in Rajasthan since September 26, 2025.

Arrest followed violent protests in Leh

Wangchuk’s detention followed widespread protests in Leh on September 24, 2025. The protests were for demanding greater political autonomy for Ladakh. Unfounded allegations about protests turning “violent” were made by government, claims contested by video footage and other evidence. However, when demonstrators clashed with security personnel, who were trying to stop protests, the police firing left four people dead and dozens injured.

Authorities subsequently accused Wangchuk of instigating the protests and described him as a “chief provocateur”. Two days after the violence, he was detained under the NSA and transferred from Ladakh to Rajasthan. This decision too has been widely criticised.

The detention by a widely acclaimed climate activist was after he, that is Sonam Wangchuk had announced a second hunger fast after the Centre had ‘broken its promise” to accord Leh/Ladhakh autonomy in 2020. Previously in March of 2024, Wangchuk had led a 21-day ‘climate fast’ that had drawn nationwide attention and support. His strong words of criticism against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister, Amit Shah had found an echo among millions.  This hunger fast too was for a demand of statehood for Ladakh and its inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

The September 2025 sudden detention was justified by the Modi government. The government maintained that the detention was necessary to restore order in a sensitive border region. During proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Centre argued that Wangchuk had attempted to incite younger protesters by invoking movements such as those in Nepal and Bangladesh and had spoken about an “Arab Spring-like” mobilisation.

The government also opposed his release on medical grounds, telling the court that claims about deteriorating health were “manufactured and synthetic”. According to the Union government, Wangchuk had undergone multiple medical examinations during his detention and was medically stable.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Legal challenge before the Supreme Court

Wangchuk’s detention was being challenged in the Supreme Court through a habeas corpus petition filed by his wife, Gitanjali Angmo under Article 32 of the Constitution. The case was being heard by a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the detention order relied on vague allegations, “stale FIRs”, and selective interpretations of Wangchuk’s speeches. He contended that authorities had relied on “borrowed, selective videos” that were inaccurately translated and did not demonstrate incitement to violence.

The Supreme Court had been scheduled to review video recordings of Wangchuk’s speeches during the Holi recess and was expected to consider the matter again on March 17. The government’s decision to revoke the detention has effectively pre-empted that hearing.

Angmo had also alleged that the detention was part of a wider pattern of pressure against Wangchuk and his institutions. According to her, authorities cancelled the lease of the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives Ladakh, initiated a CBI inquiry, withdrew permissions for his NGO, and issued income tax notices during the period surrounding his arrest,

Movement for constitutional safeguards in Ladakh

Wangchuk, a globally recognised education reformer and environmental innovator, has been one of the most prominent voices in Ladakh’s ongoing movement seeking constitutional protections for the region.

The agitation intensified after 2019, when the Union government abrogated Article 370 and reorganised the former state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir, with a legislature, and Ladakh, which remains directly governed by the Union government.

The movement led by the Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance has articulated a four-point agenda:

• Statehood for Ladakh
• Inclusion of the region under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution
• Creation of a Ladakh Public Service Commission
• Separate Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil districts (Hindustan Times)

Leaders argue that Ladakh’s Union Territory status has left residents with little democratic representation, as administrative authority is largely exercised by centrally appointed bureaucrats.

Prior to the reorganisation, the region had four elected representatives in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. Since the bifurcation, Ladakh has no legislative assembly of its own.

Why Sixth Schedule status is being demanded

A key demand of the movement is the extension of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to Ladakh. The Sixth Schedule currently provides special administrative protections for tribal-majority regions in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura.

Autonomous District Councils created under the schedule have powers to legislate on matters such as land, forests, agriculture, village administration and local governance.

Protestors argued that such protections are essential for Ladakh because more than 90 percent of its population belongs to Scheduled Tribes, and the region’s fragile ecology and distinct cultural identity require legal safeguards (The Indian Express).

While Ladakh already has two autonomous hill councils — the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (Leh) and the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (Kargil) — they are not backed by constitutional protections and have limited administrative powers.

Government officials have previously suggested that extending the Sixth Schedule beyond the Northeast may require a constitutional amendment, though the final decision rests with Parliament.

Reaction from Ladakh leaders

The revocation of Wangchuk’s detention has been welcomed by leaders associated with the Ladakh movement, though many emphasised that the broader political demands remain unresolved.

Sajjad Kargili, founder member of the Kargil Democratic Alliance, described the move as a “welcome step” and expressed hope that it would pave the way for renewed negotiations with the Union government, according to The Indian Express.

He said the region continues to seek statehood, Sixth Schedule protections, and institutional mechanisms such as a public service commission to address concerns about employment and governance.

Kargili also pointed out that Ladakh had previously enjoyed some degree of political representation within the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, whereas the present administrative arrangement offers residents limited avenues for democratic accountability.

Wangchuk’s response

Even while in detention, Wangchuk indicated that he would continue his activism but emphasised the need for dialogue. In a social media message earlier this week, he said the movement for Ladakh’s rights required “clarity, unity, and sincere dialogue”, as reported by The Hindu.

His wife also stated in an interview that Wangchuk intends to remain part of the broader campaign for constitutional safeguards but does not plan to pursue confrontation or agitation after his release.

At the same time, Angmo criticised the government’s claim that Ladakh had remained peaceful during Wangchuk’s detention. In a post on social media, she argued that the apparent calm was the result of curfews, internet shutdowns, and arrests of more than 100 youth following the September 2025 protests.

“The dreaded silence of the graveyard is not equal to the sacred peace of the temple that Ladakh was known for,” she wrote, as per Hindustan Times.

Related:

When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention

A victory for Ladakh’s voices: Sonam Wangchuk and Ladakhi activists break 16-day fast as union government agrees to renew talks on demands

Crushing voices: The detention of Sonam Wangchuk and supporters at Ladakh Bhawan

SG Mehta declares in Delhi High Court that Sonam Wangchuk has been freed from detention, media reports suggest police control endures

Ladakh’s fight for autonomy: Sonam Wangchuk leads foot march to Delhi

The post Union government revokes Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under NSA after nearly six months! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan directed that two armed guards be deployed 24 hours a day to protect Haseen Khan, the owner of the house where prayers were being offered. The Court further issued a strong warning that any incident of violence affecting Khan or his property would be presumed to have occurred at the instance of the State unless proven otherwise.

The order came while hearing a petition filed by Bareilly resident Tarik Khan, who approached the High Court alleging police interference with prayers held at a private residence in Mohammadganj village. The matter is now listed for final orders on March 23, and the Court has directed the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police of Bareilly to appear in person.

Allegations of police interference in private prayer

According to the petition, as per Livelaw, a group of Muslim residents had been offering namaz on the rooftop of a private house with the permission of the property owner, Haseen Khan. The petitioner claimed that on January 16, police personnel allegedly intervened and stopped the prayers, despite the fact that they were being conducted within private premises.

Khan further alleged before the Court that he was picked up from his home by police officials while offering namaz, challenged, and compelled to place his thumb impression on blank documents without being informed of their contents. He also told the Court that certain individuals had threatened demolition of his property if he did not testify in a particular manner.

These allegations prompted the filing of a contempt petition against the state authorities, arguing that the actions of the administration were in violation of an earlier High Court ruling that had affirmed the right to conduct prayer meetings on private property without state permission.

Court’s key observations

During the hearing, the Bench posed a direct query to the State regarding whether permission had been sought for offering namaz inside a private residence, according to LiveLaw.

The Additional Advocate General, Anoop Trivedi, appearing for the State, relied on the police challan and acknowledged that permission had indeed been sought from the persons present in the house, including the owner.

Taking note of the circumstances and the statement recorded from Haseen Khan in open court, the Bench issued strong protective directions.

The Court ordered:

“This Court directs that two armed guards 24/7 shall protect Haseen Khan till this Court decides otherwise. The said guards shall accompany him wherever he goes. Any incident of violence that afflicts Hassen Khan’s person or his property shall be prima facie understood to have at the instance of the State, which of course is open to rebuttal.”

It further observed that any act of violence directed against Khan or his property would be prima facie presumed to have occurred at the instance of the State, though the State would have the opportunity to rebut that presumption.

Personal appearance ordered for Bareilly officials

The Court has summoned Bareilly’s District Magistrate Avinash Singh and Senior Superintendent of Police Anurag Arya to appear before it on the next date of hearing.

In its order, the Bench warned that failure to appear could lead to coercive measures, including securing their presence through a non-bailable warrant.

The complete order may be read here.

Background: Earlier High Court ruling on private prayer

The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of an earlier ruling by the Allahabad High Court in a separate case involving Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust.

In that January judgment, the Court held that no permission from the State is required to conduct religious prayers within private premises, since such activity falls within the scope of the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

However, the Court clarified that if religious activities spill onto public roads or public property, authorities may require intimation or permission under applicable law in order to maintain public order.

Ground reality in the village

Despite the High Court’s intervention, reports suggest that the situation on the ground remains tense.

According to reporting by The Times of India, residents of Mohammadganj village say that prayers inside private houses have not resumed, even after the contempt notice issued by the Court. Several villagers reportedly walk nearly two kilometres to offer namaz elsewhere, particularly during the month of Ramadan.

Local residents told the newspaper that although police harassment had reduced after the Court’s order, the presence of police personnel in the area continues and prayers within homes remain suspended due to fear of renewed tensions.

Some residents also alleged that individuals who were earlier detained for offering prayers had been required to report to the police station daily for several days, and that their names now remain in police records.

Origins of the dispute

The dispute reportedly began in December 2025, when construction materials were brought to a piece of land owned by Tarik Khan. Villagers suspected that the structure being built was intended to function as a mosque, triggering protests and police intervention.

Tarik Khan later filed an affidavit stating that the construction would not be used for religious purposes, but tensions persisted.

Subsequently, a group of Muslims began offering prayers inside a private house belonging to Haseen Khan, leading to the police action that has now become the subject of litigation.

Constitutional implications

The case raises broader questions about the scope of religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution, particularly the distinction between private religious activity and public religious assembly.

By ordering armed protection for the house owner and warning that any violence may be presumed to be state-instigated, the High Court’s interim directions underscore the seriousness with which it is treating allegations of state interference in constitutionally protected religious practice.

The matter will be taken up again on March 23, when the Court is expected to hear the personal submissions of the Bareilly district administration and consider final orders in the case.

Related:

Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Bill: Legislating suspicion in the name of “love jihad”

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

Bail for Monu Manesar, along with his grand welcome, rekindles fear and grief in Junaid–Nasir Lynching case

Policing Identity: Maharashtra’s birth certificate crackdown and the politics of belonging

The post Allahabad High Court orders 24/7 armed protection for Bareilly Muslim man allegedly prevented from offering namaz at home appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The groups addressed a press conference in Mumbai after the Maharashtra Cabinet recently cleared the proposed Maharashtra Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2026, which is intended to regulate religious conversions and impose penalties for conversions deemed “unlawful” or “forced.” According to media reports, the proposed law could provide for imprisonment of up to seven years and fines that may extend to ₹5 lakhs.

Detailed report may be read here.

Civil society representatives argued that while the legislation is framed as a measure to curb coercive conversions, it is rooted in the politically charged narrative of “love jihad” and risks enabling intrusive state oversight over personal choices relating to marriage and faith, as per Free Press Journal.

Concerns over surveillance of personal choice

Activists expressed particular concern over provisions expected to be included in the bill, based on similar laws enacted in other states and media reports about the Maharashtra proposal. These include requirements for individuals intending to convert to seek prior permission from a designated authority, provide advance notice of conversion — reportedly up to 60 days — and register the conversion after it takes place. Failure to comply with these procedures could potentially render the conversion invalid.

Civil society groups warned that such requirements effectively place personal belief and religious choice under administrative surveillance.

Human rights lawyer Lara Jesani of People’s Union for Civil Liberties emphasised that the freedom of religion under the Constitution necessarily includes the right to adopt or change one’s faith.

In a patriarchal social context, she cautioned, such laws risk becoming tools in the hands of families, vigilante groups and state authorities to control women’s decisions regarding marriage and religion, as per Hindustan Times.

Questions over necessity of the law

Speakers at the press conference also questioned the justification for introducing such legislation in the absence of credible data demonstrating widespread cases of forced religious conversion.

According to The Hindu, Jesani noted that there is little publicly available evidence or official studies indicating that coercive conversions constitute a systemic problem requiring new legislation. Without such data, activists argued, the necessity of the law remains unclear.

Civil society organisations further pointed out that existing provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita already criminalise acts such as fraud, coercion, intimidation and forced marriage, which can address any genuine instances of forced conversion.

Demand for transparency and consultation

Another major concern raised by the coalition was the lack of transparency surrounding the proposed legislation. Although the Cabinet has approved the draft bill, the text of the law has not yet been made public.

Civil rights activist Teesta Setalvad, secretary of Citizens for Justice and Peace, criticised the absence of public consultation and urged the Maharashtra government to release the draft for wider scrutiny, reported The Hindu.

Setalvad argued that legislation affecting fundamental rights — particularly those concerning religious freedom and personal autonomy — must be developed through an open and participatory process involving stakeholders such as women’s groups, minority communities and legal experts.

Civil society groups also called for the proposed bill to be referred to a legislative standing committee to allow for detailed examination and debate before any attempt is made to enact it.

Constitutional challenge already pending

Activists further pointed out that the constitutional validity of similar anti-conversion laws enacted in several states is already under challenge before the Supreme Court of India.

A batch of petitions filed in 2020 — including the lead petition by Citizens for Justice and Peace — challenges the anti-conversion laws enacted in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh, on grounds that they violate fundamental rights relating to privacy, personal liberty and freedom of religion (Free Press Journal, March 12, 2026).

Given that these challenges remain pending before the apex court, civil society groups questioned the prudence of introducing another similar law without first awaiting judicial clarity on the constitutionality of such provisions.

Broad coalition of organisations

Among the organisations participating in the press conference were Mumbai for Peace, Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Forum Against Oppression of Women, Bombay Catholic Sabha, Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, and the Dalit Human Rights Defenders Network, among others.

Collectively, the organisations demanded that the Maharashtra government make the draft bill public, initiate consultations with civil society and affected communities, and refrain from advancing the legislation without meaningful democratic debate and scrutiny.

They also reiterated that if the state proceeds with the law in its present form, it is likely to face constitutional challenges in court.

The complete press note may be accessed below.

Related:

Survey of Churches, anti conversion laws only empower radical mobs: Archbishop Peter Machado

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

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

September of Fear: Targeted Violence against Christians in Rajasthan exposes pattern of harassment after Anti-Conversion Bill

The post 35 civil society groups oppose Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion law, warn of threat to women’s autonomy and constitutional freedoms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In this written reply to the state Assembly, the Chief Minister also detailed that the highest number of cases of communal riots, 24, were reported in Balasore district, followed by 16 cases in Khurda district, which includes the state capital Bhubaneswar.

Absent in the Chief Minister’s reply, was any mention or reference to the communal clash that occurred in Cuttack during Durga Puja immersion and thereafter. In October 2025, in an incident that had few precedents in the city, Cuttack saw a curfew for around three days following communal violence that started with a clash during Durga Puja immersion. Days later, members of the VHP clashed with police and indulged in vandalism and arson.

The discussions saw stormy repartees in the State Assembly as Opposition parties targeted the government, alleging a sharp increase in cases of hate crimes and communal clashes. The Chief Minister defended his administration saying that steps are being taken to coordinate with different communities through peace committees under various police stations and through the local administration.

In the past 20 months, half a dozen towns in Odisha have seen imposition of curfew and Internet suspension over communal incidents, including the lynching of Bengali-speaking Muslims. In most cases, the accused have been members of right-wing outfits. Officials conceded that some cases may have gone unreported, especially when victims are daily wagers hesitant to approach police.

The Opposition has criticised the government over the alleged spread of “communal tension” in the state, where the BJP formed its first solo government in June 2024.

The National Crime Records Bureau puts the number of communal or religion-based incidents in Odisha at 10 in 2021, 44 in 2023 (pre-election year), and 15 in 2025. Data shared by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in Parliament said that Odisha saw nine communal incidents in 2018 and zero in 2019.

Citizens for Justice and Peace has consistently reported on this spiral in targeted violence in the state over the past 18 months. This report detailed the humiliation and attack on a pastor in Dhenkaal district in early January 2026. The irregular detentions of migrant workers, Bengali, in the state were also questioned by the Court. Worse, was the systemic and consistent attacks on churches and vendors (daily wage earners) selling Christmas goods across Odisha, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh in late December 2025.

Related:

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

Odisha: Man forced to chant religious slogan, lynched by cow vigilantes

MP, Odisha, Delhi, Rajasthan: Right-wing outfits barge into 2 churches ahead of Christmas, attack vendors selling X’mas goodies, tensions run high

The post Odisha: 18 months, 54 incidents of communal hate crimes, 7 mob lynchings appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At a protest by varied citizens under the banner of Sanjha Sanskriti Manch, Varanasi, a silent hunger strike was observed on Saturday March 7, protesting the US-Israel’s unprovoked war on Iran.

At the protest a strong statement was issued. This may be read here:

“We strongly condemn the military action carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran during the holy month of Ramadan and pay tribute to all those who have lost their lives. The attack, carried out deceitfully in the midst of peace negotiations mediated by Oman, without any formal declaration of war, resulted in the killing of Iran’s national and religious leaders and strikes on a school and Gandhi Hospital. These actions led to the deaths of more than one hundred and fifty young girls. We consider this a grave violation of human rights. This attack by Trump and Israel has created a serious threat to international peace and stability.

“Similarly, unilateral military intervention and political pressure on Venezuela are contrary to the sovereignty, independence, and the fundamental spirit of the United Nations Charter.

“At the same time, open threats such as occupying Greenland, taking complete control of the Panama Canal, turning Canada into the 51st state, and transforming Gaza into an “American Riviera” reflect the undemocratic and authoritarian policies of the United States.

“The demand by U.S. President Trump that India stop importing Russian oil, the threat of tariffs in connection with trade agreements, and his repeated claim that he prevented an India-Pakistan war by threatening a 200 percent tariff are not isolated incidents but part of the same imperialist chain of actions.

“The weak stance and compromises shown by the Government of India under this pressure have caused significant damage to our independent foreign policy, energy security, economic sovereignty, and national dignity. The national freedom struggle led by India under the leadership of Gandhi and Nehru symbolized an unwavering struggle against imperialism and the ideals of unity in diversity and equal respect for all religions. Our Constitution and this tradition of thought and struggle not only freed India from the chains of colonial rule but also inspired more than fifty nations across Africa, Asia, and the world to achieve independence.

“After independence, the Constitution of India—particularly Article 51—clearly directs the state to promote international peace and security, maintain just and honourable relations among nations, and foster respect for international law. India’s foreign policy has historically remained steadfast in principles of non-interference, respect for sovereignty, and peaceful coexistence.

“More than nine million Indians live in Iran and the Middle East, and thousands of students study there. Over six thousand Indian workers are currently in Israel, many of whom were sent under agreements by the present government. Our 38 cargo ships are also stranded. The devastation caused by war will severely damage our economic condition; inflation will rise, and shortages of oil and gas have already begun.

“We strongly condemn this inhumane and undemocratic action by the United States and express our concern and sympathy for the loss of lives and destruction caused by the war.

“As citizens of the land of Mahatma Gandhi, we appeal for an immediate end to the war and for peaceful coexistence among all nations and peoples.

“We are deeply saddened by the military action of the United States and Israel. Therefore, during the holy month of Ramadan, when bloodshed is taking place, we will instead connect ourselves with the spirit of harmony during Holi, maintain love for our neighbours, and pray to God to grant wisdom to the United States and Israel.”

Several organisations under the banner of Banaras Civil Society, Sauhard Peace Centre, Sanjha Sanskriti Manch and the National Alliance for Social Justice are signatories to this.

Related:

India: Left at the forefront, opposition & people protests US-Israel attacks on Iran

US-Israel War on Iran sees spirals in Hate against Muslim Americans: CSOH

Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace

The post Varanasi, UP: No to war, we want peace appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The media reported that Indian captain Surya Kumar Yadav, head coach Gautam Gambhir, and ICC Chairman Jay Shah visited a Hanuman temple in Ahmedabad soon after the victory celebrations. News agency ANI posted a short video on Twitter in which the skipper is seen entering the temple while holding the trophy.

Surya, along with Gambhir and Shah, went to the temple and offered prayers. The foreheads of Surya and Shah were marked with a tika (a vermilion mark), which Hindu devotees usually apply on their foreheads while visiting a temple. They also received prasad (blessed food) after offering their prayers.

Do Hindus not have the right to visit a temple? If they do, then why am I raising an issue about it? Let me clarify that I am not asking Hindus, Muslims, or people of any faith to give up their religious beliefs. Nor am I suggesting that one should not visit temples or mosques, or refrain from performing religious rituals. In fact, I have often accompanied my family members to temples and even purchased flowers and prasad for them. Just as I have respected their faith, they have never imposed their particular ways of performing rituals upon me. Should not an individual be left alone to reflect on questions of faith?

As a student of political science, I am aware that religious freedom lies at the core of the Indian Constitution. Citizens are free to profess any religion of their choice. The state has no business interfering in the personal beliefs of an individual. The freedom to practise a religion of one’s choice, to give it up and embrace another faith, or not to practise any religion at all, is guaranteed under the Fundamental Rights.

Going by these constitutional provisions, one may argue that Surya, Shah and Gambhir went to the temple as part of their personal faith. Therefore, I may be accused of finding fault with them and, by doing so, revealing my “Hindu-phobic” mind-set.

In my defence, I would first state that criticising the mixing of religion and politics is not an act of being a “Hindu-phobic”. My argument here is not to oppose any religion—be it Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc.—but to highlight the threat that religious nationalism and majoritarianism pose to a democratic polity.

Majoritarian politics often hides itself under the garb of nationalism, religiosity, and popular culture. The shrewdness of right-wing leaders lies in their ability to promote religious nationalism through sports, festivals, songs, films, and public celebrations. None other than Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the messiah of the downtrodden and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India, cautioned the people against the danger of religious nationalism when he said: “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.”

When cricket, the most popular sport among more than a billion Indians, is used as a tool to promote religious nationalism, one has to take it very seriously. If Surya, Gambhir, and Shah had visited the Hanuman Temple as devotees of Hanuman, they would have gone there simply as devotees and not as celebrities. There would have been no triumphal images been circulated. The difference between ordinary devotees visiting a religious place and celebrities rushing to a temple is significant. Devotees keep their faith at a personal level. Celebrities, however, often perform such acts in the presence of cameras and PR teams, turning a private expression of faith into a public spectacle.

While devotees perform religious rituals as part of their faith and sincerely believe in what they do, celebrities often visit religious places to serve their political interests. They know very well that their interests are best served if they publicly display their acts of performing pooja. Politicians, a smart group among celebrities, often begin their electoral campaigns by visiting temples. They also ensure that their visits to temples are circulated to every household through news stories, photographs, videos, and other media.

In a representative democracy, where governments are often formed through majority votes, there is a strong tendency among politicians to equate the majority religion with the “national” one and even with a “way of life”. In contrast, even a minor display of the religious or cultural symbols of minority communities is often demonised as the rise of “fundamentalism”. Even those who work for the human rights of minorities and show solidarity with their culture—often suppressed under the weight of majoritarianism—are branded as “anti-Hindu.

That is why, there is a strong case to argue that the temple visit of Indian captain, coach and ICC chairman is not simply a matter of personal faith. In fact, it is a case of using popular sport indirectly to reinforce the politics of religious majoritarianism. Since cricketers are one of the biggest icons for the youth of the country, their visit to temple and the viral video afterwards seemed to be carefully planned to equate the national cricket team of secular and democratic republic with “Hindu” India.

The temple visit incident should also not be seen as an isolated event. Over the years, the process of mixing religion and cricket has intensified. Some cricket fans who go to the stadium to cheer for Team India often chant aggressive nationalist slogans and display overt religious symbols. Some of them even pass inappropriate comments on the supporters of the opposing team and sometimes get into fights with them.

Even TV commentators, particularly those in the vernacular broadcasts, frequently use highly jingoistic and sometimes misogynistic idioms. It is beyond comprehension why English commentary tends to remain relatively measured, while vernacular commentaries often turn into acts of shouting and whipping up passion. Worse still, social media influencers, as well as some former cricketers-turned-commentators, do not miss an opportunity to indulge in Pakistan-bashing. While their criticism may be directed at “the poor performance” of Pakistani cricket, their choice of words and tone often ends up feeding communal polarisation.

A quick look at the official jersey of the Indian cricket team reveals the prominent use of the colour, saffron. Is this selection arbitrary, or is it part of a careful design? As a cricket fan, I remember the older Indian jerseys where the tricolour was prominently represented on the T-shirt. Should this shift in the choice of colour be seen as merely random, or does it reflect a deliberate change—and perhaps even a shift in the political equation?

These trends are dangerous at least for two reasons.

First, the instrumental use of cricket to promote religious nationalism has the potential to weaken national unity. We should never forget that the Indian team as well as Indian supporters do not belong to one religion. Those who believe that the temple visit by the Indian captain, coach, and ICC chairman is a normal act should also reflect on how such gestures appear to millions of citizens who belong to different faiths.

Those who think that Surya’s visit to the temple is a “normal” matter should also ask themselves whether they would consider it equally normal if, instead of Surya, a Muslim cricketer had been the captain of India and, after winning the match, had gone straight to a mosque with the trophy and the video of it had gone viral.

Pakistani cricketers are often seen invoking religious expressions while speaking to commentators before or after a match. However, the example of Pakistan may not be appropriate for India, as our Constitution envisions a secular polity. In a multicultural society like India, the state itself has no religion, nor should public institutions be used to promote any particular faith.

Indian cricket is watched by millions of people, and the cricket board should ensure that it maintains the image of a secular institution and remains free from political pressure. As the Chairman of the ICC, Jay Shah carries the hopes of cricket fans around the world. They expect him to work for the promotion of cricket globally and to allow the BCCI to independently carry out the responsibility of managing Indian cricket.

(The author is has recently published book, Muslim Personal Law: Definitions, Sources and Contestations (Manohar, 2026). Email: debatingissues@gmail.com)

Related:

Sikh cricket player dubbed “Khalistani” for dropping catch

Love cricket? Make sure you celebrate only when Team India wins!

Baby bowls over India, Pakistan cricket teams

The post Why Cricket should remain above religious nationalism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Panikkar, affectionately called KN by his colleagues, was one among a select group of historians such as Bipan Chandra, Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and S Gopal who created a strong department of modern Indian history at JNU’s Centre for Historical Studies. Among other achievements, his course on the history of ideas in India in the 19th century was pioneering.

The Indian History Congress, has, in a statement expressed its deep sorrow and loss upon the demise of K.N. Panikkar, an esteemed historian and public intellectual of India, whose profound impact on historical scholarship and advocacy for secularism has left a lasting legacy. The Indian History Congress has expressed its heartfelt condolences to his family, colleagues, students, and admirers. His scholarship and example are poised to continue inspiring future generations of historians.

As a member of a remarkable generation of historians, Professor Panikkar significantly influenced the study of modern Indian history in the post-independence era. Through meticulous research, pedagogical endeavours, and consistent public discourse, he exemplified the manner in which historical inquiry could elucidate the intricate dynamics of colonialism, culture, and ideology that have shaped Indian society. His scholarly work was distinguished by rigorous archival investigation complemented by a nuanced understanding of the intellectual and cultural facets of historical transformation.

KN was one among the legendary historians who was accessible to students, activists and academia alike, firm in the belief that history and its methods—historiography—must and should be understood by the citizenry. At a time in the early 1990s when history was the contested site for the extreme, far right—Hindu ‘nationalist’—take-over of the public discourse KN’s contributions through lectures and workshops went a long way in ensuring a more nuanced and mature understanding of both past and present.

His work, including books like Against Lord and State: Religion and Peasant Uprisings in Malabar; Culture and Consciousness in Modern India; Culture, Ideology and Hegemony – Intellectuals and Social Consciousness in Colonial India, and Before the Night Falls were the subject matter of wide study and debate. He was also appointed by the government of Kerala as chairman of an Expert Committee that looked into the complaints raised from various quarters concerning new textbooks introduced to state-supported schools. The committee submitted its report in October 2008.

Trained in Kerala and subsequently affiliated with Jawaharlal Nehru University, Professor Panikkar played a pivotal role in fostering a thriving academic community. His seminal writings on colonialism, social movements, and the cultural politics of nationalism introduced novel perspectives on the interplay between power, ideology, and popular consciousness. Notably, his influential studies on peasant resistance in Malabar and the cultural underpinnings of colonial dominance remain crucial for scholars of modern India.

However, far beyond his academic contributions, Professor Panikkar was esteemed as a public intellectual known for his articulate and courageous stance on issues concerning historical interpretation and the role of historians. Amidst the increasing politicisation of historical narratives, he steadfastly championed the autonomy of historical scholarship and the imperative of evidence-based historiography, thereby contributing significantly to the preservation of India’s plural and secular historical narrative.

Professor Panikkar also made substantial contributions to Indian academia through various institutional roles, including his tenure as Vice-Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, where he endeavoured to enhance research and teaching in the humanities. His dedication to intellectual discourse, academic freedom, and the societal relevance of scholarship garnered him widespread admiration.

The demise of Professor Panikkar is a profound loss to the community of historians, who benefited from his intellectual rigor and moral integrity during a formative period in the discipline’s development. His work and legacy continue to inspire historians committed to rigorous inquiry, intellectual openness, and the defense of secular historiography.

For us at Sabrang and especially KHOJ—Education for a Plural India¸ K.N. Panikkar was among those rare breed of historians who were always available for workshops for school teachers and activists. In 1997, at a work organised in Mumbai’s National College, Bandra, four historians participated and among them, on Modern India, was KN Panikkar. The others included Romila Thapar on early India, Keshavan Velluthat on the Early Medieval period and Anirudha Ray on the Medieval Period.

At this workshop, the theme of KN Panikkar’s lecture was “Grown of Hindu and Muslim Communalisms was a parallel process.” Excerpts from the texts of all the lectures may be read here.

Other in-depth writing on the communalisation of education during the NDA government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1999-2004) may be read here, here and here. All these explorations were as a result of the intense research carried on by the KHOJ team under its director, Teesta Setalvad.

We reproduce, in tribute, the text of KN Panikkar’s lecture below as a tribute:

Khoj (Archived from Communalism Combat, March 1997 – Cover Story)-Growth of Hindu and Muslim communalisms was a parallel process

— Prof K. N. Panikkar, Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi

In 1997, Khoj education for a plural India programme held a workshop that enabled interaction
between in India’s leading historians and school teachers in Mumbai. This article is the edited transcript of the lecture by professor K. N Panikkar.

Modern India

For the British, as rulers trying to understand and control Indian society, it was important to develop an understanding of what Indian society is. It was through this process that the category of a community of Hindus and a community of Muslims began to be widely and increasingly used.

This use of community terminology became part of our scholastics and analysis. What we need to ask ourselves is: does this category as a category of analysis give us the whole picture?

Conversion, both as a continuing and a historical phenomenon is an important facet that is constantly brought to bear on communal discourse. The most important aspect to remember when we look at the issue of conversion historically is that the largest concentrations of Muslim population are not in states where there was a Muslim ruler or dynasty; quite the contrary. What does this tell us?

For example, in the Malabar Coast in Kerala, large scale conversions to Islam did not take place during the invasion by Tipu Sultan. The largest conversions to Islam on the Malabar Coast were during the period 1843-1890 and were directly linked to the fact that in 1843 slavery was abolished in this region. As a result, large numbers of formerly oppressed castes bonded in slavery by upper caste Hindus moved over to Islam which they perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a religion of equality and justice.

Religious stigmatisation also, unfortunately affects our reading and interpretation of the reigns of specific historical rulers like say Tipu Sultan or Shivaji. Do we know, that it was during the reign of Tipu Sultan that a Maratha Sardar, a good believing Hindu, invaded Mysore several times and during one such attack plundered and destroyed the Sringeri Math.

Who was responsible for the reconstruction of the math and the pooja that was performed before the reconstruction? Tipu Sultan. We need to ask ourselves what a “good, secular Hindu Sardar” was doing destroying the Math and how come a “fanatical Muslim ruler” restored it?

During the invasion of the same Tipu Sultan of Kerala, there were hundreds killed, not because they were Hindus but because the people of Kerala resisted his invasion.

There are hundreds of such examples in history. We need to search them out and examine in the right perspective what were the motives of the rulers of those times for such actions. What were the politics and the historical processes behind the destruction and plunder of temples, the invasion of new territories and kingdoms and the conversion to a different faith?

Another aspect critical to the study of Modern Indian History is the counter positions of communalisms, Hindu Communalism and Muslim communalism that have so dramatically affected the politics of the subcontinent. We must be very conscious when we read and interpret this period to understand that the development of both communalisms was a parallel process that is not rooted in the second or third decades of the 20th century (the birth of the Muslim League or the Hindu Mahasabha) but must be traced back to the middle of the 19th century.

This critical juncture in the communalisation process (mid-19th century) has to be more closely examined by us: it will reveal how these processes occurred in parallel, how the Arya Samaj that began as a reform movement turned communal and similarly the Aligarh movement that began as a movement for internal reform also became communal.

Another critical aspect to a non-communal approach to the study of modern Indian history is rooted in understanding the development of the concept of Indian nationalism that was always characterised by its anti-colonial thrust.

We have through the early part of this century distinct trends visible that go beyond the anti-colonial, negative thrust, and moving towards a positive understanding of Indian nationalism. One is Anantakumar Swamy’s ‘Essays on Nationalist Idealism’ that explores the real essence of a nation as being not politics but culture. The other is Gandhi’s ‘Hind Swaraj’ which explains the essence of nationalism as civilizational. Both these thinkers did not link the concept of nationalism with religion.

Yet another contribution in this area was by Radhakumar Mukherjee who in his works, ‘Fundamental Unity of India’ and ‘Culture and Nationalism’ tried to conceptually trace the relationship of nationalism to the ancient period of history. He sought to link culture with religion.

In 1924, Veer Savarkar’s ‘Hindutva’ forcefully pushed this link, between culture and religion. The compositeness and plurality of Indian tradition was overlooked completely when Savarkar explained how the Indian nation evolved. In his chapter ‘The Six Glorious Epochs of India’ where his key questions were: How did India become a nation? How did Hindus become a nation? The book, forcefully written, is based on an erroneous interpretation of facts.

But the important thing for us to understand is why Savarkar did this given his own history of being a revolutionary. In his earlier work written some years earlier, ‘National War of Independence’ the same Savarkar describes the 1857 War of Indian Independence as the combined efforts of Hindus and Muslims and the rule of Bahadur Shah Zafar in New Delhi as its culmination as “five glorious days of Indian history.”

Related:

Batra’s Textbook Project: Undoing Democratic-Secular India, the RSS Way

Again, Gujarat State Board Class IX Hindi textbook calls Jesus demon

Resisting Saffronisation of Textbooks: Karnataka’s Success Story

History in South Asia

Education with values

How textbooks teach prejudice

The post A history that teaches, a historian that shared, in Memoriam: Professor K.N. Panikkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since the start of 2026, harmful content targeting Muslims across social media platforms has escalated at an alarming pace. For much of January and February, Islamophobic posts maintained a steady and persistent presence, continuing the deeply hostile climate that has built since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza in October 2023.

The onset of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28, says the study, has accelerated this trend sharply, sending Islamophobic content targeting Muslim Americans to new extremes.

Political rhetoric has compounded the crisis. Senior Trump administration officials and some members of Congress have framed the war in overtly religious terms, drawing on Christian nationalist narratives, and inflaming anti-Muslim hatred. Secretary of War (a term coined to replace the more accepted, Secretary of Defence) Pete Hegseth even described Iran as driven by “prophetic Islamic delusions.”

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a US watchdog group, has reported receiving complaints that military commanders told service members the war with Iran was “all part of God’s divine plan” and suggested it would “cause Armageddon.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, while referring to Iran, stated that “we’re the Great Satan in their analogy and their misguided religion.” Muslim civil rights groups have condemned such language as dangerous and inflammatory. Political leaders at the highest levels framing a military campaign in language that indicts an entire faith and draws on Christian nationalist rhetoric contributes to an environment in which Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim become targets of suspicion, hostility, and violence.

On March 1, a mass shooting in Austin, Texas, further intensified the online discourse. A gunman with a reported history of mental health issues opened fire at a bar, killing three and wounding fifteen. The shooter was reportedly wearing clothing referencing Iran and Islam.

The combined effect of the US-Israel war on Iran and the Austin shooting resulted in an explosion of anti-Muslim content across social media platforms.

An Analysis of the Data

To assess the scale of Islamophobic discourse online, the Centre for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH) analysed posts on X (formerly twitter) using a comprehensive query designed to capture language associated with dehumanisation, incitement, and exclusionary rhetoric targeting Muslims.

The dataset includes original posts, quote posts, and replies containing Islamophobic content from January 1 through March 5, 2026.  The data reveals a sharp spike beginning on February 28, the day the US-Israel war on Iran began.

Between February 28 and March 5, a total of 25,348 Islamophobic posts targeting Muslims were recorded on X.

Figure 1: Volume of Islamophobic Posts on X (Original Posts, Quote Posts, and Replies), January 1 – March 5, 2026

However, the reach of these posts expands significantly once reposts are included. Reposts dramatically amplify the visibility of harmful content, allowing it to spread far beyond the original accounts that generated it.

When reposts are counted, the total mention volume of Islamophobic content rises to 279,417, representing an 11-fold amplification of the harmful original posts.

Figure 2: Volume of Islamophobic Posts on X (Including Reposts), January 1 – March 5, 2026

This amplification is illustrative of how relatively lower volumes of explicitly harmful content can reach extremely large audiences through network effects and platforms’ engagement-driven algorithms. While the volume of Islamophobic content has shown some decline from its initial peak, the underlying conditions that fuelled this surge remain firmly in place.

What are the Patterns of Harmful Content

A qualitative review of the dataset reveals several recurring patterns of harmful discourse. These are not exhaustive categorizations of the full dataset but representative samples that illustrate the nature and severity of anti-Muslim content circulating on X and other social media platforms.

One of the most deeply disturbing patterns running through the posts we reviewed is the use of dehumanizing language, referring to Muslims as “rats,” “pests,” “vermin,” and “parasites.” Such language has historically preceded and enabled the most extreme forms of violence against targeted communities.

_{Examples of posts referring to Muslims as “rats“}

The prevalence of dehumanising language targeting Muslims should be recognized as a significant indicator of escalation risk.

_{Examples of posts referring to Muslims as “vermin”}

Closely related to dehumanisation is the framing of Muslim communities as an “infestation.” Posts using this narrative portray Muslims as a spreading contagion threatening American cities and institutions.

This framing mirrors historical propaganda used against numerous minority communities, in which the targeted group is depicted as a disease or infestation that must be eradicated.

_{Examples of posts referring to Muslims as an “infestation”}

Beyond dehumanisation, we found posts that cross the line from hatred into explicit incitement to violence, including direct calls to exterminate Muslims. Some posts frame the elimination of Muslims as an act of self-defense or civilizational survival, lending a veneer of patriotic duty to the genocidal rhetoric. In the current climate, this content functions as a call to action directed at a community that is already experiencing rising rates of bias, harassment, discrimination, and hate-fuelled violence.

_{Examples of violent and eliminationist posts}

Some of the most extreme posts advocate placing Muslim Americans in internment camps. Others call for the creation of a “Muslim Exclusion Act,” proposing that Muslims be barred entirely from entering the US.

_{Examples of internment camps posts}

A large volume of posts demand the removal of all Muslims from the US. The rhetoric ranges from blanket calls to “deport all Muslims” to specific calls for stripping citizenship from Muslim Americans through mass denaturalization. This category of content is significant not only for its volume but for the way it blurs the line between extremist fantasy and policy advocacy. Many of these posts are framed as actionable demands directed at elected officials.

_{Examples of mass deportation posts}

The CSOH also found posts advocating the destruction of mosques, treating Muslim houses of worship as enemy infrastructure. These posts frame mosques as “mini military bases” and “terrorist centres.”

Mosques in the US have long been targets of arson, vandalism, threats, and shootings. The circulation of content that frames them as legitimate targets increases the risk of violence against Muslim communities and religious institutions.

_{Examples of posts calling for the destruction of mosques}

Failure to Enforce Platform Rules

As part of this analysis, we reported 30 posts featured as examples in this brief to X using the platform’s own reporting categories, including “Violent Speech” and “Hate, Abuse or Harassment.”

These posts included language describing Muslims as “rats” and “vermin,” calls for extermination, demands for internment camps, and calls to destroy mosques. Of the 30 posts reported, 11 were removed. The remaining 19 remain live on the platform as of March 9.

This enforcement gap underscores a critical disconnect between platform policies and their application, particularly when it comes to combating dehumanization and incitement targeting Muslims. The failure to act proactively and to leave up violating content even after it has been reported suggests that existing enforcement mechanisms are either inadequate or inconsistently applied.

Recommendations

The findings in this brief illustrate an environment of anti-Muslim hate and incitement that, while already volatile, has reached a critical tipping point due to the convergence of several factors. These developments underscore the need for urgent action across multiple fronts.

Platform Accountability: Social media companies must strengthen enforcement against harmful content that dehumanizes or incites violence against Muslims. Much of the content documented in this brief appears to violate existing platform policies but remains widely accessible and amplified. Platforms must ensure that enforcement mechanisms respond quickly and consistently during periods of geopolitical crisis, when harmful online content tends to surge.

Establish a Trusted Flagger Network: Platforms should establish Trusted Flagger status for Muslim civil rights organizations with a dedicated reporting channel for flagging mass incitement and threats, bypassing slow standard reporting queues that allow harmful content to spread unchecked during crisis periods.

Political Responsibility:  Public officials must exercise extreme caution in how they frame geopolitical conflicts. Language that conflates a military confrontation with a religious or civilizational struggle, or draws on Christian nationalist narratives, risks inflaming domestic hostility toward minority communities. Political leaders have a responsibility to ensure that their rhetoric does not endanger Americans by framing global conflicts in ways that stigmatize entire religious communities.

Community Protection: Civil society organizations, law enforcement agencies, and community leaders should increase monitoring of threats against Muslim communities and institutions. With the heightened risk of targeted violence, there is an urgent need for increased protection of mosques, Islamic centres, and Muslim community organizations across the country.

Stakeholder Briefings and Information Sharing: Relevant stakeholders, including elected officials, law enforcement agencies, and social media companies, should engage with researchers studying Islamophobia to better understand emerging trends in online hate and incitement. Briefings on findings such as those presented in this data brief can help facilitate accurate and timely information sharing. Such engagement can support more informed responses to online narratives and incidents that have the potential to translate into violence targeting Muslims, individuals perceived to be Muslim, and their institutions.

(This data brief represents an initial analysis of an ongoing crisis. CSOH will continue to monitor social media platforms for anti-Muslim incitement, and subsequent briefs will follow.)

Related:

India: Left at the forefront, opposition & people protests US-Israel attacks on Iran

Wars Fought in The Name of Women’s Rights

Hegemony by might: Gaza, Iran and the failures of nuclear power politics

Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace

The post US-Israel War on Iran sees spirals in Hate against Muslim Americans: CSOH appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Under the draft law, any person wishing to convert to another religion would be required to seek prior permission from a designated authority and provide a 60-day notice, after which the conversion must be registered within 25 days or risk being declared null and void as per The Indian Express. The legislation further mandates that if a relative of the person converting alleges coercion, the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) and initiate an investigation. Importantly, offences under the proposed statute are non-bailable, dramatically raising the stakes for those accused.

While the government has framed the law as a safeguard against forced conversions, the political messaging surrounding the bill reveals a much narrower ideological framing. Maharashtra minister Nitesh Rane explicitly described the proposed law as one that would prevent “forcibly marrying and converting Hindu girls,” repeatedly invoking the conspiracy theory of “love jihad” while speaking to the media in Mumbai, reported The Indian Express. The term itself has no legal recognition: the Ministry of Home Affairs has previously informed Parliament that Indian law contains no definition of “love jihad.”

A law framed as protection, designed for surveillance

The structure of the proposed law reflects a deeper pattern visible in anti-conversion statutes enacted across several Indian states. While ostensibly directed at preventing coercion or fraudulent conversions, the operational design of these laws effectively places state surveillance over deeply personal decisions relating to faith and marriage.

By requiring advance notice to authorities before conversion, the law transforms a matter of personal conscience into a regulated administrative act. Such provisions have been widely criticised by jurists, activists and constitutional scholars alike because they invert the principle of religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which protects not only the right to practise and profess religion but also the freedom to adopt and change one’s faith.

Further, the provision enabling relatives to trigger criminal investigations significantly expands the scope for social interference in private decisions. In practice, similar provisions in other states have enabled families, vigilante groups, and politically motivated actors to initiate criminal proceedings against consenting adult couples.

A pattern across states

Maharashtra’s proposed legislation does not emerge in isolation. Laws regulating religious conversions already exist in multiple states including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Haryana, Jharkhand, Arunachal Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh.

However, multiple civil society groups and rights organisations have documented how these statutes are frequently invoked not to address genuine cases of coercion but to police interfaith relationships and minority religious practices.

Reports compiled by the Citizens for Justice and Peace, also the lead petitioner against the constitutional challenge to anti-conversion laws in the Supreme Court, indicate that since the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, dozens of cases have been filed against interfaith couples—often after complaints by unrelated third parties or vigilante groups. Many of these cases have later collapsed for lack of evidence, but not before the accused were subjected to arrest, detention, and intense social stigma.

The constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court

These patterns have already triggered a broad constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court of India, where several petitions contest the legality of anti-conversion statutes across multiple states.

One of the principal challenges has been first brought by Citizens for Justice and Peace in 2020 itself, which argues that such laws violate fundamental rights including personal liberty, freedom of conscience, and the right to choose one’s partner. During hearings in April 2025, Senior Advocate C. U. Singh told the Court that the statutes were being “weaponised” to target interfaith couples and minority communities, urging the Court to intervene and prevent further misuse. Despite repeated attempts by the organisation to get the matter listed for early hearing, including interim prayers for a stay on the most egregious provisions of the law, the SC has not found time to address these concerns.

The Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, disputed these claims made by the petitioners and has argued that states possess legitimate authority to enact such legislation. The bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna directed the Union government to examine the petitions and respond to the concerns raised at the hearing held on April 16, 2025.

The Court is currently examining whether these statutes violate constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, privacy, and personal autonomy, particularly in light of landmark decisions such as Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which recognised privacy as a fundamental right.

Detailed report may be read here.

The social climate behind the law

The proposed legislation has also emerged in the context of intensifying campaigns by Hindutva organisations demanding stricter laws against religious conversions. Over the past several months, coordinated demonstrations have been organised across districts in Maharashtra by groups such as the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, calling for the enactment of a stringent anti-conversion law.

At the same time, minority groups have warned that such laws are already contributing to an atmosphere of suspicion and intimidation. Christian organisations in Maharashtra have repeatedly raised concerns about vigilante groups disrupting prayer meetings and accusing pastors of forced conversions. According to figures compiled by the United Christian Forum, hundreds of incidents involving harassment or violence against Christians have been reported across India in recent years.

In April 2023, more than 40 Christian organisations gathered at Azad Maidan in Mumbai to protest what they described as a growing pattern of false allegations of conversion used to justify attacks on churches, pastors, and congregations. Demonstrators argued that anti-conversion laws have often functioned as a “Damocles’ sword” over minority communities, enabling vigilante groups to pressure police into filing cases even where no evidence of coercion exists.

Gujarat’s attempt of policing relationships

The Gujarat government is preparing to amend the rules under the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 in a move that significantly tightens state oversight of marriage registration and introduces mandatory parental involvement—changes that could undermine adult autonomy and further legitimise social control over interfaith and inter-caste relationships.

Addressing the Gujarat Legislative Assembly on February 20, Deputy Chief Minister Harsh Sanghvi said the proposed amendments are aimed at protecting women, preventing fraud, and making the system more transparent. While stating that the government has “no objection to genuine love marriages,” Sanghvi framed the proposed changes as necessary to prevent deception and exploitation, invoking the controversial narrative of men allegedly concealing their religious identity to lure women into relationships. Referring to such cases, he remarked that authorities would act strictly if individuals “pose as someone else” to trap women, as per Hindustan Times.

Sanghvi also invoked concerns about “love jihad,” a term widely used by right-wing groups to allege a conspiracy by Muslim men to target Hindu women through romantic relationships. The term, however, has repeatedly been rejected by courts and has no official recognition by the Union government, with several investigations failing to substantiate claims of any organised conspiracy.

Despite this, the proposed regulatory overhaul appears to embed many of the anxieties that underpin the “love jihad” narrative within the administrative framework of marriage registration. According to Sanghvi, the amendments are intended to prevent identity concealment and coercion while protecting what he described as “Sanatan traditions” and Indian marriage customs—phrasing that has raised concerns among civil liberties advocates about the increasing conflation of state policy with majoritarian cultural norms.

One of the most contentious proposals is the introduction of mandatory parental notification. Under the proposed system, when couples—particularly those entering into love marriages or eloping—apply for marriage registration, the bride’s parents will be formally notified within ten days. Applicants will be required to submit the Aadhaar details and verified address of the parents, and the issuance of the marriage certificate will be delayed by at least 40 days from the date of application to allow time for verification, consultation, or objections.

One can argue that such provisions effectively place adult relationships under familial surveillance and may expose couples—especially those in interfaith or inter-caste relationships—to intimidation or coercion. Under the existing framework, couples are able to register marriages by submitting basic documentation and witnesses without the need to inform their parents, reflecting the legal principle that consenting adults are free to marry without external approval.

The proposed amendments also seek to tighten documentation requirements, mandating the submission of Aadhaar cards, birth certificates, school leaving certificates, photographs, and wedding invitation cards where available. Witnesses from both sides would also have to provide photographs and Aadhaar details. In addition, the government plans to shift the registration process away from lower-level revenue offices and create a dedicated online portal to monitor registrations—particularly those categorised as love marriages.

Sanghvi justified the move by citing alleged irregularities uncovered during investigations in Panchmahal district, where authorities claim fraudulent marriage registrations were issued. Referring to villages such as Kankodakoi and Nathkuwa, he alleged that hundreds of nikah certificates had been issued despite there being no Muslim families residing in those villages. While the government says action has been taken in such cases, isolated administrative irregularities are increasingly being used to justify sweeping regulatory changes that disproportionately affect interfaith relationships.

As per Times of India, the amendments follow three months of consultations led by Law and Justice Minister Kaushik Vekeriya, during which about 30 meetings were held with community representatives. Among those welcoming the move is Patidar leader Dinesh Bambhaniya, who said the proposal addresses long-standing demands raised by caste organisations through rallies and memorandums.

However, the proposed amendments also appear to reflect a growing alignment between state policy and local social enforcement mechanisms that have emerged across parts of Gujarat. Even before the changes have been enacted into law, several villages and caste bodies have begun enforcing informal codes regulating how members of their communities marry.

In some areas, these community resolutions have hardened into quasi-legal declarations threatening couples who marry without parental approval with social boycott, ostracism, or exclusion from public life. From gram sabha resolutions in Kheda district to directives issued by caste organisations representing Patidar and Thakor communities, the common justification offered is that marriages without family consent threaten tradition, destabilise social order, and endanger women.

According to Times of India, a recent resolution adopted by the Gram Sabha in Nand village reportedly imposes a total social boycott on couples who marry despite opposition from their families. Such couples may be barred from using community facilities, attending religious gatherings, or participating in social events. The resolution also introduces restrictions on wedding and funeral expenses, bans DJs and what it calls “objectionable songs,” and prescribes fines for violations.

Taken together, the developments in Gujarat, along with Maharashtra, also appear to reflect a broader national trend in which state governments are increasingly seeking to regulate intimate relationships through legal and administrative mechanisms. By placing parental consent and community norms at the centre of the marriage registration process, the changes could erode the constitutional principle that consenting adults have the fundamental right to choose their partners—an autonomy repeatedly affirmed by courts in decisions protecting interfaith and inter-caste marriages.

Policing intimacy and identity

The deeper danger of these laws lies not only in their legal provisions but in the social narratives they reinforce. By framing interfaith relationships as conspiracies or threats, such legislation legitimises public suspicion of couples who cross religious boundaries.

This dynamic is particularly visible in the persistent invocation of the “love jihad” narrative, which portrays Muslim men as orchestrating a coordinated campaign to convert Hindu women through romantic relationships. Despite repeated claims by political actors, no investigative agency in India has produced credible evidence of any organised conspiracy of this nature, a point acknowledged in Parliament by the Union government itself.

Yet the political potency of the narrative continues to drive legislative action. At its core, the controversy reflects a deeper constitutional dilemma: whether the state’s role is to protect individual autonomy and minority rights or to police these in the name of social order and cultural anxieties.

Related:

Survey of Churches, anti conversion laws only empower radical mobs: Archbishop Peter Machado

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

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

September of Fear: Targeted Violence against Christians in Rajasthan exposes pattern of harassment after Anti-Conversion Bill

The post Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Bill: Legislating suspicion in the name of “love jihad” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the Hindustan Times, Manesar walked out of Sewar (Sevar) Central Jail in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, on the evening of March 8, 2026, after the Rajasthan High Court granted him regular bail earlier that week. He had spent approximately two-and-a-half years in judicial custody after being arrested in September 2023 in connection with the deaths of the two cousins whose charred bodies were discovered in Haryana’s Bhiwani district in February 2023.

His release was marked by a conspicuous public welcome. As provided by Indian Express, wearing a bulletproof vest and escorted by police, Manesar travelled by road from Bharatpur to his native village in Gurugram district, Haryana, where supporters greeted him with garlands, drum beats, and celebratory slogans. A large gathering of supporters—including individuals identified as cow vigilantes—had also assembled outside the jail during his release, prompting authorities to deploy additional police personnel to maintain law and order.

Background: The February 2023 killings

The case traces back to the night of February 14–15, 2023, when cousins Junaid (35) and Nasir (27), residents of the Pahadi area in Rajasthan’s Bharatpur region, went missing.

A day later, their charred bodies were discovered inside a burnt vehicle in Loharu in Bhiwani. The killings were widely suspected to be linked to vigilante groups who patrol highways in the region under the pretext of preventing illegal cattle transport.

According to police investigations, the victims were intercepted by cow vigilantes who suspected them of transporting cattle. However, investigators said that when the vigilantes allegedly found no cattle in the vehicle, the two men were assaulted and later killed.

Senior police officials later stated that interrogation of some accused indicated that Junaid died first after being assaulted in Ferozepur Jhirka. Nasir was allegedly strangled in Bhiwani before the attackers attempted to destroy evidence by dousing the vehicle and the bodies with petrol and setting them on fire, according to statements made by Bharatpur Range Inspector General Gaurav Srivastava during the investigation.

Forensic analysis later confirmed that the charred remains and blood stains recovered from the burnt SUV—later traced to a cowshed in Jind district—belonged to Junaid and Nasir.

Reports may be read here, here and here.

The criminal case and investigation

The criminal case was registered at the Gopalgarh Police Station based on a complaint filed by Khalid, a relative of the victims. The FIR named Manesar and several others as accused in the abduction and murder of the two men.

The case included charges under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to abduction, abduction with intent to cause grievous hurt, wrongful confinement, and related offences.

During the investigation, police announced a reward of ₹5,000 each for eight suspects and circulated their photographs publicly. Two suspects were subsequently arrested in May 2023 from Dehradun, as per Hindustan Times.

The case also became politically contentious in 2023. At the time, Manesar had gone absconding, triggering a public dispute between the then Congress-led Rajasthan government under Ashok Gehlot and the Haryana government led by Manohar Lal Khattar. Gehlot accused the Haryana Police of failing to cooperate in apprehending the accused, while Haryana authorities in turn registered a case against the Rajasthan Police over jurisdictional issues, as reported by The Indian Express.

Manesar was eventually detained by the Haryana Police in September 2023 in connection with communal violence in Nuh. He was subsequently handed over to Rajasthan Police, who arrested him in the Junaid–Nasir case.

The bail order

A Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman of the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to Manesar on March 5, 2026.

The court noted several factors while allowing the second bail application. Most prominently, it observed that despite more than two years having passed since the accused’s arrest, not a single witness out of the 74 prosecution witnesses had been examined during the trial, according to The Indian Express.

The judge also took note of the fact that a co-accused, Anil Kumar, had already been granted bail earlier by the Supreme Court of India on January 28, 2026.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the court concluded that the prolonged incarceration and slow progress of the trial justified granting bail.

Manesar was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh along with two sureties of ₹50,000 each. The court imposed conditions requiring him to appear before the trial court whenever summoned and to mark his presence at the concerned police station once every three months until the trial concludes.

The order also warned that, given his criminal antecedents, he must not become involved in any other offence while on bail.

Defence and prosecution arguments

Manesar’s legal team, led by advocate Ashvin Garg and others, argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case. They contended that he stood on “better footing” than co-accused Anil Kumar, whom they described as the principal accused, while Manesar was alleged only to be part of a conspiracy, reported The Indian Express.

The defence also pointed out that he had been in custody since October 7, 2023, and had already spent more than two years and four months in jail without trial progress. They further submitted that although three criminal cases had previously been registered against him, he had been acquitted in two and granted bail in the third.

Opposing the plea, Public Prosecutor Vijay Singh and Senior Advocate Syed Shahid Hasan—appearing for the complainant—argued that the gravity of the alleged offences and the evidence collected during the investigation warranted continued detention.

Fear and despair among the victims’ families

The bail decision has deeply distressed the families of the two men killed in the incident.

Jameel Ahmed, a relative of Nasir, said the development had intensified their grief and created anxiety about the safety of witnesses.

“The families are disappointed and panicked with Monu Manesar’s bail. Our sorrow has increased. There is apprehension that they can do something untoward in the future and pressurise our witnesses. There is immense despair,” Ahmed told reporters of The Indian Express.

Family members of the victims have long maintained that Junaid and Nasir were kidnapped, assaulted, and murdered by members associated with the right-wing group Bajrang Dal—an allegation the organisation has denied.

A case that continues to test the justice system

Despite the bail order, the legal proceedings in the Junaid–Nasir case remain ongoing. However, the fact that none of the 74 prosecution witnesses have been examined even after more than two years has drawn attention to the chronic delays that often plague criminal trials in India—particularly in cases involving communal violence and vigilante attacks.

Related:

Monu Manesar, 20 others named in Bhiwani Double Murder: Rajasthan

The poster boy of cow vigilantism, Monu Manesar, is back

Monu Manesar not an accused in Junaid Nasir murder

Haryana Horror: Migrant worker lynched and teenager fatally shot amid rising violence

2024: Cow vigilantism escalates in July and August with rumour-driven raids and violent assaults on Muslim while legal consequences for perpetrators missing?

Anatomy of Violence in the Hitherto peaceful Nuh

Indian minorities must be protected, GOI needs to take steps: IAMC report

The post Bail for Monu Manesar, along with his grand welcome, rekindles fear and grief in Junaid–Nasir Lynching case appeared first on SabrangIndia.