The fundamental problem today is our fixation on creating individual icons out of protests rather than focusing on the issues. I am not referring to every sit-in, because those who truly understand the legacies of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Jyotirao Phule, and Periyar know better. A true movement is not merely about rhetorical slogans; it is much deeper. Look at the greatest revolutions brought about by Ambedkar and Periyar in India: they were silent revolutions. They did not merely seek to change others; they sought to equip the marginalized with knowledge and wisdom.

Ambedkarism is not merely the chant of “Jai Bhim.” It is the powerful legacy of keeping a movement alive even when it is not visibly occupying the streets. Its most potent aspect is its autonomy and its ability to cultivate leadership from the most marginalized sections of society. It refuses to merely pick up the flags of others or chant slogans for their causes.

Consequently, the central debate today is not between the Left and the Right, but about maintaining the independence of the Ambedkarite movement. People must understand that despite all the pulls and pressures that have existed since Baba Saheb’s time, the movement has refused to bow down. Today, everyone is chanting “Jai Bhim,” which reflects the power and success of the Ambedkarite movement. But consider the period before the 1980s, when academics rarely wrote about it, or the 1990s, when JNU liberals dismissed the Mandal Commission as “casteist.” Ambedkarism survived not because of patronage from the Left or the Right, but on its own foundational ground.

While I strongly advocate for alliances between the Left and other anti-caste forces, such unity must be predicated on a deep respect for the historical background of the anti-caste movement. We cannot work under the condition of a “patron.” Any alliance must accept the autonomy of Dalits, Backward Castes, and Adivasis. It is not merely an issue of “erasing caste” to fit into a mainstream narrative; it is about respecting the agency of those who have been historically wronged—not just by brutal physical oppression, but by Brahmanical intellectualism.

It is equally important to recognize the diversity of political thought, whether among the Left, Ambedkarites, or socialists. There are numerous factions within the Left, just as there is a rapid proliferation of Bahujan, Dalit, and Republican parties. Despite internal differences and fragmentation, both the RPI and the BSP have played massive roles in asserting the dream of Dalit political autonomy. There are resentments—not just in Left or liberal circles, but among Ambedkarites who wish to see the BSP rise but are disappointed by its current indifference. Chandrashekhar Azad is a new entrant, and while those with sentiments for the late Kanshiram Ji still prefer the BSP, many feel they would be a much more powerful force if they joined hands. This is the reality on the ground. Similarly, the Left has its own internal differences; for instance, AISA became far more powerful and widely accepted precisely because it engaged with caste discrimination and embraced an understanding of Ambedkarism.

We must also recognize that we are currently being co-opted by the modern warfare of capitalism. Many will not like to admit it, but capitalism creates “brands.” Often, these brands are built to demolish ideology, elevating the individual above the party. Political parties today thrive on branding, which is built on public events and optics. Young influencers are the products of this system; they create visible faces to be used accordingly. For example, when Rahul Gandhi invites a young Gen-Z face like Neha Bora instead of promoting traditional youth leaders like Deepankar Bhattacharya or the NSUI, it is a calculated branding exercise. Congress’s own people question why the NSUI isn’t being promoted, but the fact is, Neha represents both the youth and a marketable brand. The media will not bother with her party; it cares about her. That is how modern branding works.

Once you become part of an agitation, the media will ask you about everything—from Ambedkarism to Brahmanism. Caught in the limelight, many are ready to give their opinions on every issue under the sun. Sometimes, it is better to say, “I don’t know much about this,” but our current set of leaders feel compelled to speak on everything. Normal issues are deliberately made controversial so that the actual problem is ignored in favor of creating drama and securing screen time.

We need to stop dragging up historical grievances merely to critique contemporary individuals. Historical issues have been debated for decades, and we must understand that different parties have always formed alliances. It was never merely about individuals fighting; it was about parties fighting. Baba Saheb was supported by socialist leaders like Prof. N.G. Ranga and Ashok Mehta when he contested the Lok Sabha elections. Alliances are historical, but they must be principled.

The future of India will be secure if the Left forces, Ambedkarites, and Periyarists come together. But the essential ingredient of this togetherness is the acceptance of diversity and respect for the autonomy of individual parties and organizations. Ambedkarites face similar internal challenges within the Dalit movement, as hitherto unrepresented communities seek a share in the power structure. Nobody is ready to accept a dominant narrative, whether it comes from outside the movement or from within.

A true movement emerges from a long, arduous struggle, not merely from a sit-in or a viral protest. India’s oppressed fought for their share in society and politics on their own terms, and they secured it today. It is the victory of the self-respect movement of Dalits and the marginalized that all parties—which once opposed or ignored Dr. Ambedkar—are now compelled to chant “Jai Bhim.”

Yet, Ambedkarites must be careful: not everyone chanting “Jai Bhim” or “Jai Savitri” is a well-wisher of the community. The Dalit political struggle today is not about fighting to become backbenchers in a dominant-caste political structure. It will always be part of broader democratic movements, but only if its autonomy and independence are unequivocally respected and accepted.

*Human rights defender 

Courtesy: https://www.counterview.net

The post The spectacle of protest: Why the Ambedkarite movement must guard its autonomy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

He joins Teesta Setalvad examining what the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) means for millions of voters, the exclusion it risks, and the deeper questions it raises about India’s democracy.

The post “It Is Not Just Numbers”: Prakash Raj on the Exclusion of 13.6 Crore Indians | SIR | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“A police force has made itself the enforcement arm of a private legal notice,” the IFF said in its statement condemning the police action.

The following complete text is a statement issued by the Internet Freedom Foundation detailing how it was issued a legal notice on behalf of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh along with other organisations documenting censorship in India, and the police action that followed.

The Delhi Police has asked X to remove the Internet Freedom Foundation’s account, six of its posts, the accounts of SFLC and @geoblockedindia, and posts by 16 other users, on the ground that they defame the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The posts document and comment on a legal notice sent in the RSS’s name to IFF, SFLC and @geoblockedindia, which demanded that the three-stop criticising and documenting government blocking orders. IFF received copies of the two police notices from X on the morning of 3 November 2026.

IFF has called on the Delhi Police to withdraw both notices. If they are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court.

What happened thus far

On October 29, 2026 at 9:54 PM, IFF, SFLC and the operator of @geoblockedindia received a two-page “legal notice” said to be issued on behalf of the RSS. It asked the three to stop opposing the government’s blocking directions, stop documenting restricted content, stop posting details of geo-blocked posts, and confirm in writing within seven days that they would comply. It was signed by an unnamed “Authorised Signatory”. Several RSS office-bearers have since said on X that the notice is not authentic.

IFF replied to the notice, wrote to the RSS at its official address asking whether it had authorised it, and published both the notice and its reply just the next day, on October 30. Undeterred by whether or not the notice was authentic, on October 31, 2026 at 8:06 PM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police, filed an “Illegal Content Report” with X (reference LD-321926). It listed two posts: IFF’s post of October 30 on the notice, and SFLC post of the same day. The stated reason was that the posts are “defamatory towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023”. The boxes for “safety/security”, “defamation” and “other” were ticked. The fields for the nature of the court order and court order details were left empty. The desired action was “Remove/withhold content”.

There is more. On November 1, 2026, a Sunday, a second notice arrived in the RSS’s name. It said the matter had been handed to the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, that complaints had been filed in several states, and that requests had been made to block IFF’s X account and suspend the organisations. The Delhi Police had made its first request to X the previous evening. IFF did not know this until X told it on 3 November.

On November 2, 2026 at 8:51 AM, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) filed a second notice with X (reference LD-322956). It lists 40 URLs. Thirty-seven are posts. Three are the entire accounts of @internetfreedom, @SFLCin and @geoblockedindia. This time the boxes for “Hate speech”, “defamation”, “safety/security”, “enforcement of court order” and “other” were all ticked. The court order fields were again left empty. The stated reason reads: “The posts constitute defamation and illegal content under Section 356 BNS. Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) IT Act, lawful notices require action within 3 hours.”

The 16 other users are @ProdctiveUseful, @PanjwaniManoj, @jidge_, @RatanSharda55, @baxiabhishek, @SchrdingersDbag, @ashleshbiradar, @seemay, @NasirHussainINC, @Being_creat_ive, @AjoyDharmavaram, @othlaw, @_ananyaaa, @AimPoojaind, @incorigibleBhai and @rraoind.

Their posts, as far as IFF can tell, comment on the notice or on the notice about it. X forwarded both notices to IFF on 3 November 2026, at 8:47 AM and 10:03 AM, saying it was doing so “in the interest of transparency” and that IFF may wish to seek legal counsel and challenge the request in court. X’s emails do not say that it has acted on the requests.

The Delhi Police has not written to IFF, and no court has been approached, as far as the reports disclose. SFLC and @geoblockedindia have separately reported notifications from X about requests from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Telangana Police and the Delhi Police’s Cyber Crime unit, one of them against the whole of the @geoblockedindia account.

IFF’s position

IFF has unequivocally condemned this legal action. A police force has made itself the enforcement arm of a private legal notice whose authenticity the organisation it names has not confirmed, and whose demand was that three organisations stop documenting censorship.

The notices would deliver exactly what the notice asked for as they would also remove the accounts of the three groups in India that keep public records of what is blocked, and of who ordered it. The posts in question are about a legal notice sent to us. They quote it, criticise how it was drafted, and say that we will carry on with our work.

A person who receives a threat is entitled to publish it and answer it and that is not defamation of the sender. In the three weeks before the first notice, IFF assisted 86 people whose accounts were suspended or whose posts were withheld in India. SFLC’s Free Speech Tracker recorded about 268 content restrictions and 83 account restrictions in the first days 29 of October. @geoblockedindia publishes the orders behind such blocks when platforms disclose them. None of this is unlawful.

Documenting censorship and challenging it in court is what the Constitution expects of citizens. IFF will not delete the posts. If the Delhi Police does not withdraw the notices, we will challenge them in court.

Why the reports are unlawful

Defamation is not a police matter. Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is a non-cognisable and bailable offence. Under Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, no court can take cognizance of it except on a complaint by the person aggrieved.

Under Section 174 of the BNSS, the police cannot investigate a non-cognisable offence without an order of a Magistrate. The Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) is not the person aggrieved. The notices disclose no complaint by the RSS and no order of any Magistrate. Whether a statement is defamatory is for a court to decide after hearing its author, with the defences of truth, fair comment and good faith available to that author.

In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation on the strength of these safeguards alone. A police officer who asks a platform to remove speech as defamatory has decided the question himself, without a complainant, a court or a hearing. The posts are protected comment. Exceptions 1 to 3 to Section 356(1) protect the truth published for the public good, opinion on the public conduct of public servants, and opinion on the conduct of any person touching a public question. The posts publish a notice that was sent to us and give our opinion of it. The RSS, if it sent the notice, chose to enter a public question. If it did not, the posts defame no one.

Further, Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d) do not permit this. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court read down Section 79(3)(b) so that an intermediary acquires “actual knowledge” only through a court order, or a notification from the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are being committed. The court said that it would be difficult for intermediaries to judge the legitimacy of the millions of requests they receive, and that the burden must not be placed on them. Rule 3(1)(d), as amended in November 2025 and February 2026, now requires the intimation to come from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or Deputy Inspector General, to be reasoned, and to specify the legal basis and the nature of the unlawful act, subject to a monthly review by a Secretary-level officer. The three-hour window the notice invokes applies to a lawful order that meets these conditions. A web form that ticks “hate speech” and “enforcement of court order” while leaving the court order fields blank, and that gives one sentence of reasons for 40 URLs, is not such an order.

The notices by the Delhi Police are also disproportionate. They seek to remove three accounts in their entirety, with years of posts, over six, four and eleven posts respectively. They sweep in 16 third parties whose only connection is that they commented on a public controversy. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, the Supreme Court held that any restriction on speech must be necessary, proportionate and the least restrictive measure available, and that orders restricting speech must be published and reasoned. Removing an organisation’s entire account for criticising a legal notice fails each of these tests.

The effect is to silence documentation of censorship and providing legal aid to Indian internet users. The accounts named are those that record blocking orders in India. The notice asked them to stop. A takedown request that accomplishes the demand of an anonymous private notice is not law enforcement. It is the use of state power for a private end, which Article 14 forbids.

Demands put forward by the IFF

1. To the Delhi Police: Withdraw reports LD-321926 and LD-322956 and confirm the withdrawal in writing to X and to IFF.
2. To the Delhi Police: Disclose the complaint on which the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) acted, the authority under which the reports were filed, and whether any order of a Magistrate under Section 174 BNSS exists. Disclose every request made to any platform in this matter, including those made by the Cyber Crime unit against @geoblockedindia.
3. To X: Do not act on the reports. If any content is withheld in India, tell the affected user before acting, give them the full request, and name the legal basis. Publish both reports to the Lumen database, as the reporting form itself contemplates.
4. To the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Home Affairs: Have the Secretary-level review required by Rule 3(1)(d) examine these intimations, and tell police forces that Rule 3(1)(d) is not a remedy for defamation, which the law reserves to the person aggrieved and to the courts.
5. To the RSS: State publicly whether it authorised either notice or any complaint to the police. If it did not, say so to the Delhi Police. If the notices are not withdrawn, IFF will challenge them in court. We will continue to document blocking orders, to publish them, and to provide legal assistance to anyone whose account or post is withheld in India. Nothing in these notices changes that.

Related:

Extension of internet bans, suspension of social media accounts: state action on farmers’ protest focuses on suppression of voices

Judges differ on challenge against IT amendments of 2023, right to freedom of speech & expression hangs in balance

Broadcasting Bill adverse to freedom of speech & freedom of press: EGI

The post ‘We will challenge notices in Court’: IFF’s statement on legal notice over ‘defaming’ RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In constitutional jurisprudence, few distinctions are as crucial, or as frequently conflated, as the line separating the substantive protection of civil liberties from the procedural integrity of the rule of law. When state authorities deploy the machinery of criminal law to target citizens engaging in public protests, registering widespread First Information Reports (FIRs), executing indiscriminate detentions, and imposing coercive measures, the vindication of fundamental freedoms under Articles 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Indian Constitution is an urgent judicial duty. Yet, how a court achieves that protection determines whether its decision operates as a durable triumph of constitutional governance or as an act of unstructured, transactional equity.

The Supreme Court’s order of September 1, 2026, quashing over a hundred FIRs filed across multiple states during the student exam-irregularity protests, presents precisely this constitutional paradox. At first blush, the order appears to be an act of judicial benevolence since it relieves thousands of young student-protesters from the crushing burden of ongoing criminal prosecutions. However, a closer examination reveals that this relief was not achieved through judicial adjudication based in constitutional principle. Instead, it was delivered as the judicial rubber-stamping of a negotiated compromise between the executive branch and a protest organisation.

By invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to extinguish criminal proceedings en masse as part of a bilateral settlement, where the quashing of FIRs was effectively exchanged for the withdrawal of a planned protest march, the Supreme Court shifted its role from an independent court of record to an informal arbitral forum. In doing so, the Court’s methodology closely mirrored the traditional logic of a panchayat, an institution that prioritizes ad-hoc compromise, transactional peace-making. While protecting citizens from abusive state prosecution is unquestionably good, accomplishing it through judicial discretion en masse represents a subtle but dangerous denigration of the rule of law.

Relief as an Executive-Judicial Settlement

The legal proceedings surrounding the July 2026 student protests examination malpractices illustrate the operational mechanisms of this model. Following widespread demonstrations across Delhi, Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, and Maharashtra, law enforcement agencies-initiated dozens of FIRs naming thousands of participants. The pattern was remarkably similar, a stenograph-ed pattern of behaviour that reflected close, cross border communications between different state police! In response, litigations were brought before the Supreme Court, challenging the proportionality of state force, the use of metallic pellet guns, biometric surveillance, and arbitrary detentions.

None of the original writ petitions prayed for a blanket judicial extinction of all criminal cases across the country without trial. Rather, they sought constitutional accountability, judicial scrutiny of police brutality, guidelines on crowd control, and the enforcement of personal liberty under Article 21. On August 18, 2026, the Supreme Court took a step toward structured adjudication by constituting a High-Powered Enquiry Committee, chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge, to investigate police conduct, preserve drone and CCTV footage, and evaluate the legality of blanket prohibitory orders.

Later, the apex court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution. When the protest leadership agreed to withdraw a major national march scheduled for September 5, and in return, the state governments ‘consciously decided’ not to pursue the FIRs. On September 1, 2026, period and Court quashed 129 specified FIRs across five states, closing all unlisted FIRs nationwide arising from the same protest period, and recording the protest group’s formal withdrawal of its demonstration.

Why Procedure is Liberty’s Shield

To understand why this disposition degrades the rule of law, one must examine the architecture of criminal procedure. Criminal law is intrinsically individualised. An FIR is an assertion that a specific individual committed a specific statutory offence at a specific time and place. The statutory scheme for extinguishing criminal proceedings, whether through police final reports, executive withdrawal of prosecution under Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), or judicial quashing under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), requires judicial evaluation of specific material.

When a High Court or the Supreme Court exercises its inherent power to quash an FIR, the well-established legal standard requires the Court to ask whether taking the allegations in the FIR at face value, does a prima facie criminal offence exist, or is the prosecution demonstrably malicious and an abuse of legal process? This inquiry is the essential mechanism through which the judiciary holds the executive accountable for illegal criminalisation.

In the September 1 order, this entire statutory and analytical framework was bypassed. The Supreme Court quashed 129 FIRs, which encompassed disparate charges ranging from mild unlawful assembly and road blockades to serious allegations of rioting, destruction of public property, and attempted murder, in a single, wholesale decree. The Court did not evaluate whether the allegations were legally unsustainable or factually fabricated. By replacing judicial scrutiny with executive acquiescence, the Court failed to make a finding that the state’s mass registration of FIRs was unlawful. Consequently, the protesters were administratively spared prosecution as an act of state grace, rather than legally vindicated as citizens exercising a fundamental constitutional right.

The Arbitrary ‘Antecedents’ Exception

The risks of abandoning statutory procedure become even more transparent when examining the exceptions carved out within the order itself. While granting blanket immunity to the majority of protesters, Paragraph 7 of the Court’s order excluded approximately 2,873 individuals. These individuals were denied relief and subjected to fresh criminal investigation solely because state police affidavits asserted that they had ‘serious criminal antecedents’ according to national police databases and were ‘prima facie present’ at protest sites.

This carve-out demonstrates the problematic layering of uncanalised discretion. One is that Indian criminal law contains no statutory principle authorising the judicial exclusion of individuals from general legal remedies based merely on ‘antecedents.’ In criminal jurisprudence, an FIR relates to a specific alleged act, not a person’s prior history. Second, the list of 2,873 excluded individuals was compiled using automated facial recognition technology matched against police databases, an unverified process that the Court accepted without independent judicial verification or procedural testing. And then, If the mass filing of FIRs against peaceful assembly was an abuse of state power warranting Article 142 intervention, on what legal principle does prior criminal history deprive a citizen of protection against an admitted abuse of state power?

Discretion inevitably breeds further discretion. Having constructed an extraordinary amnesty unmoored from code procedure, the Court was forced to construct an equally arbitrary threshold to limit that amnesty, relying on unverified executive data to divide citizens into protected and unprotected classes.

Evasion of Constitutional Duty

Perhaps the most defenceless aspect of the September 1 order is its explicit concluding direction: that the invocation of Article 142 was based on ‘peculiar facts and circumstances’ and ‘shall not be treated as a binding precedent.’ In recent years, the practice of issuing sweeping orders while simultaneously stripping them of precedential value under Article 141 has emerged as a frequent judicial technique. From a constitutional perspective, this practice is deeply problematic.

The primary obligation of an apex constitutional court is to declare generalisable legal principles that bind lower courts, discipline executive power, and guide future adjudication. The rule of law requires that like cases be decided alike. When a court decides a dispute, applies legal standards, and then declares that its ruling cannot be cited by any other citizen in any other court, it effaces the decision’s standing as law. It transforms the judgment from a rule of general application into a one-time privilege conferred upon specific litigants.

This non-precedent mechanism severely harms civil liberties jurisprudence. A student protester in a distant trial court facing an identical, fabricated FIR cannot cite the Supreme Court’s order as a legal standard. Trial courts and High Courts remain bound by rigid procedural rules, while the Supreme Court reserves to itself the exclusive power to randomly grant extraordinary, ad-hoc relief. Instead of diffusing liberty-protective legal standards throughout the judicial pyramid, the Court centralises power within its own hall, creating a regime where fundamental rights are accessible not as of legal right, but as a matter of top-tier judicial audience and transaction.

Ad-Hoc Compromise vs. The Rule of Law

It is in this structural departure from legal principle that the resemblance to a panchayat becomes unmistakable. In traditional Indian legal theory and sociology, a village panchayat operates on principles fundamentally distinct from a constitutional court of record. A panchayat does not adjudicate rights according to pre-existing, neutral, written laws, nor is it bound by strict procedural rules or formal evidence. Its primary objective is transactional dispute resolution: ‘buying peace,’ brokering compromises between powerful factions, and restoring social harmony through ad-hoc equity.

While informal compromise has a legitimate place in customary community spaces or private civil mediation, it is the antithesis of constitutional adjudication. A constitutional court exists to enforce jus (principled justice), and not merely to secure social peace at the expense of legal standards. The Supreme Court conditioning the quashing of unlawful prosecutions on a political party agreeing to call off a protest march is the Court adopting the precise logic of the panchayat. It treats fundamental freedoms, such as the right to peaceably assemble under Article 19 (1) (b), not as non-negotiable constitutional guarantees, but as bargaining chips to be traded away in exchange for executive leniency.

This approach creates severe long-term institutional risks. It signals to the executive that mass criminalization is an effective strategy; the state can file thousands of baseless FIRs against peaceful dissenters, safe in the knowledge that if public pressure escalates, the Supreme Court will facilitate a negotiated settlement without ever holding police officers accountable or declaring the state’s actions illegal. Conversely, it signals to citizens that relief from state coercion depends on organizational bargaining power rather than constitutional entitlement.

Emergency judicial relief brings immediate comfort to citizens facing state coercion. When the Supreme Court uses Article 142 to clear criminal cases against peaceful protesters, individual lives are saved from endless prosecution. Problems emerge when that relief depends on political bargaining. Trading criminal dismissals for cancelled rallies produces informal settlements. Declaring these orders without precedential value removes their legal weight. The Court assumes the role of a village panchayat, brokering temporary peace between unequal sides.

The consequences of this approach appeared during the October demonstrations against the Chief Election Commissioner. In September, the Court wiped away FIRs from student protests while leaving foundational legal questions unresolved. The bench did not evaluate whether police could issue blanket prohibitory notices under Section 163 of the BNSS or close transit networks. By treating the September quashing as an isolated compromise, the Court allowed law enforcement to retain unchecked statutory authority.

When citizens gathered again in October, authorities deployed their usual tactics. Officials shut metro stations and stopped incoming trains. Police also detained working lawyers on their way to court. Lacking prior legal standards, the bench convened emergency Sunday sittings to hear contempt petitions. Justices issued oral warnings that regulation cannot equal total prohibition while ordering police to remove restrictive notices from around court gates.

Had the Court articulated binding constitutional boundaries in September, executive agencies would have faced clear limits. Setting prospective rules constrains state authority and protects public assembly across future disputes. Settling individual cases through transactional orders creates administrative convenience today while guaranteeing repeated overreach tomorrow.

Structural Remedies

The critique of the CJP order is not to suggest that the Supreme Court should have allowed thousands of innocent students to be dragged through decades of oppressive trials. Rather, it demonstrates that a truly liberty-preserving court must protect citizens by developing and applying legal principles, rather than resorting to ad-hoc, non-precedential amnesties.

In landmark constitutional jurisprudence ranging from Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner (1962) to Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court established that Article 142 cannot be used to supplant statutory frameworks or override fundamental rights. To genuinely protect civil liberties against state overreach, the Court must deploy structural remedies grounded in Public Law. The Court should formally evaluate mass FIRs against the standards of Article 19 (1) (b) and Article 19 (3), explicitly ruling that the routine criminalization of peaceful assembly is unconstitutional and illegal. Under the doctrine established in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Court should impose direct compensatory damages on state authorities for malicious prosecution and illegal detention, creating a genuine deterrent against police abuse. By declaring clear, generalizable legal standards under Article 141, the Supreme Court empowers trial courts and High Courts across India to swiftly quash abusive FIRs at the threshold, ensuring equal protection for all citizens.

The protection of civil liberties and the preservation of the rule of law are not opposing values; they are mutually dependent. A judicial order that delivers immediate relief by sacrificing procedural rigor and precedential integrity provides only a fleeting, fragile sanctuary. True constitutional justice demands that the Supreme Court remain an uncompromising court of law protecting the citizen not through the informal compromise of a panchayat, but through the enduring, equalizing power of constitutional principle.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

Related:

Public officials must face accountability for unlawful demolition actions, rule of law to be upheld: Supreme Court

A Constitutional Reset on Governor Assent: The Supreme Court’s opinion in the presidential reference on Articles 200–201

How permanent or temporary is Article 370?

Is Article 367 a tool for understanding or amending the Constitution? Abrogation of Article 370, Part 1

‘Reorganisation’ of J & K into two union territories, constitutional? Part III of the analysis in the 370 case

The post SC: Article 142, Mass Amnesties, and the Panchayatisation of the Rule of Law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A comprehensive new report published in September 2026 reveals that climate change has remained a marginal concern in the Indian Parliament despite the country’s growing vulnerability to extreme weather events. The study, titled India’s Parliamentary Discourse on Environment since the Paris Agreement, analyzed legislative engagement over the first ten years following the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Authored by Hajira Puthige and published by the Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), the report examined a dataset of 8,702 parliamentary questions raised in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha between December 2015 and December 2025.

The findings highlight a significant gap between the urgency of the climate crisis and the political attention it receives. According to the research, climate-related inquiries accounted for only 3.3 percent of all parliamentary questions asked over the decade. The study notes that legislative interest is heavily concentrated on Clean Energy and Decarbonisation, which made up 33.81 percent of the environmental questions. This focus aligns with what the report describes as prestige-heavy international targets.

Conversely, the study identifies severe blind spots in parliamentary scrutiny. Questions related to Climate Finance and Markets accounted for a mere 0.26 percent of the total, while Global Climate Governance represented just 1.2 percent. Forests and Land Use followed clean energy with 16.81 percent, and Extreme Weather and Natural Disasters took up 15.94 percent of the inquiries.

The report also sheds light on the partisan nature of these discussions. It found that ruling party members predominantly raise status-oriented questions designed to highlight and celebrate government programs. In contrast, opposition members tend to focus on implementation gaps, accountability, and the actual impact of climate policies on the ground.

Furthermore, the study is highly critical of the government’s responses to these parliamentary inquiries, accusing the administration of favoring public relations over substantive action. According to the study, the government consistently prioritises technological optics, such as the Flood Watch India App and the Van Agni portal, as evidence of action. Yet, it often lacks operational benchmarking; for instance, the Ministry has admitted to having no nationally benchmarked firefighting systems despite tracking fires with satellite precision.

When it comes to the health impacts of environmental degradation, the government has repeatedly pushed back against direct accountability. In response to questions linking air pollution to mortality, official replies frequently state that there is no conclusive data available to establish a direct correlation of death exclusively due to air pollution. The study notes that the Executive consistently maintains that there is no conclusive data available to establish a direct correlation of death or disease exclusively due to air pollution, citing overlapping factors like diet and lifestyle, thereby limiting the attribution of health outcomes exclusively to air pollution.

The post Climate change accounts for just 3.3% of Indian parliamentary questions over the past decade: Study appeared first on SabrangIndia.

SIR is a sinister, unconstitutional machinery created by the majoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and it is surprising that, instead of echoing the national stand of your party leadership, state leaders claim otherwise. Several of you state, surprisingly, that the “SIR has been properly conducted in our state (Karnataka).” This claim is not just a deception and a betrayal of the people. As the latest high exclusion figures show, and Karnataka has reduced its electorate by 18 per cent, second only to Arunachal Pradesh that saw a 22 per cent slashing of legitimate voters. It is more than evident that a devious game of selective exclusion of voters has also been played here. 

The SIR is an unlawful process that makes no distinction between states. During the on-going of the process here, for state Congress leaders to claim that “the process was properly conducted constitutes duplicity and betrayal. While it is true that within the various forms of manipulation, the “additional excesses” involving Mapping of the Voters and Form 7 deletions have occurred on a greater scale in other states than here, in Karnataka, this positive development followed the exposure of the internal machinations of the ECI by the Indian Express (September 23, 2026), that was further followed by a dharna (sit-in) by the Karnataka state cabinet in front of the Election Commission’s office in Karnataka. Hence, the excesses involving Mapping and Form 7 were somewhat less severe in Karnataka compared to other states.

However, these were just as many serious excesses committed within the SIR process.

In reality, the fundamental conspiracy of SIR lies in the ASDDO categories (categories of Absent/Shifted/Dead/Duplicate/Other) that the maximum exclusions have been in-built. The CEC, Karnataka (as also in other states) provides no details of these exclusions and these are, as has been established in West Bengal and elsewhere, clearly designed to deprive Dalits, oppressed communities, minorities and migrant workers of citizenship itself. 

The Congress party never opposed this method, either ideologically or politically, right from the beginning. While you loudly demanded the scrapping of SIR in states where Congress governments were not in power, neither your governments nor your party made appropriate and vigorous efforts to prevent it in states governed by Congress.

Instead, the public statements and whispers in the corridors of power from among your leaders during and after the SIR process (in Karnataka) clearly reveal either confusion or political selectivity: how to protect Congress voters alone within the SIR process. (The irony is that your party did not even manage to do that properly!). That is precisely why Karnataka has witnessed the highest number of SIR deletions in the entire country.

Despite the large numbers of deletions, here is what the state leadership of your party has to say “SIR has been properly conducted in Karnataka.”)

–At the start of the process, when the SIR process began in Karnataka, your then Chief Minister declared that he would not “politicise SIR.” Read this here.

— After D. K. Shivakumar became Chief Minister, he went even further. By threatening that people would not receive benefits under schemes such as Anna Bhagya and Gruha Lakshmi unless they filled out the Enumeration Form and actively participated in SIR, he worked to ensure the success of the ECI-union government’s sinister SIR process! Read this here.

—When the draft electoral rolls were released in August 2026 and 1.08 crore voters out of Karnataka’s total electorate of 5.54 crore were deleted, this did not appear to cause the Karnataka state Congress leadership any anxiety or raise alarm bells. Instead, the Cabinet Minister Ramalinga Reddy began speaking in tune with the BJP leadership. For example, Mr. Suresh Kumar (BJP). Arguing that Bengaluru’s electorate had fallen by nearly half and therefore there was no longer any need for six municipal corporations, he effectively endorsed the SIR conspiracy that had expelled 55 lakh former voters of Bengaluru, without questioning this dangerous development in the slightest. Read this here

—Now, last week, another Cabinet Minister, Satish Jarkiholi, has asserted that SIR was “properly conducted” in Karnataka. Read this here. After objections to this began to emerge, the explanations he offered were entirely about preventing the BJP’s Form 7 irregularities in Karnataka. However, he expressed neither concern nor outrage over the expulsion of one crore voters through the opaque ASDDO listings, which constitutes the fundamental method of exclusion in the ongoing SIR process.

Hence, cannot it be said that, through the Congress government’s and party’s indirect cooperation, token opposition and active indifference, the current ECI’s project has succeeded in expelling the largest number of eligible voters in the country in Karnataka? The deletion of one crore voters from Karnataka’s final SIR electoral rolls is itself proof of this. These are migrant workers, wage labourers, Dalits, Adivasis and minorities who are not even aware that their names have been deleted. To expel them without due process and any transparency and accountability is the very essence of the conspiracy behind the BJP-inspired SIR. 

If the Congress, too, defends this as proper, what difference remains between you and the BJP?

1) When such inherently anti-democratic exclusions and “conspiracy” is unfolding before your very eyes, are your leaders not betraying the one crore eligible voters of Karnataka by uncritically defending it with statements such as:

“…SIR has been properly conducted. Only dead persons, duplicate voters, or those who have migrated have been deleted.” Of the one crore voters deleted, only 25 lakh are supposedly dead or duplicate voters. (Even that calculation is problematic. Nevertheless…)

What about the remainder 75 lakh voters? Have 50 lakh voters of Bengaluru migrated out of the city during the past one year? When every other indicator establishes that more and more people are migrating to Bengaluru from every corner of the state, SIR alone comes up with the excuse that 75 lakh eligible voters have migrated away. It is these unfortunate migrant workers are who have been categorised as “Shifted” in their native villages and again as “Shifted” in Bengaluru. In neither location have they therefore retained their essential Constitutional right to Vote.

Where exactly has the Modi government shifted these poor migrant workers to? To the gallows of citizenship denial? 

Why is the Congress accepting such a massacre of voters by the BJP instead of rejecting it outright?

2) According to the Constitution and the law, voters categorised as “Shifted” or “Absent” are not thereby automatically disqualified voters.

The Supreme Court reiterated precisely proposition last week. Therefore, it is the duty of the Election Commission to trace these eligible voters wherever they are and bring them into the electoral process. Instead, through the SIR, the “BJP-influenced Election Commission” has been transferring this responsibility of retaining voters onto innocent voters themselves.

The question I ask is, by declaring that the SIR has been properly conducted, is the Congress not indirectly defending this betrayal by the BJP’s Election Commission and thereby becoming indistinguishable from the BJP itself?

3) Nobody is opposing the revision of electoral rolls. There are legally established procedures for doing so, namely SSR (Special Summary Revision) of the electoral rolls. 

For the past 78 years, electoral rolls have been revised through these procedures, and 18 Lok Sabha elections and hundreds of Legislative Assembly elections have been successfully conducted. Yet, the BJP and Gyanesh Kumar headed Election Commission introduced the SIR with the questionable motive not of electoral roll revision, but for citizenship revision. The Election Commission itself has admitted this before the Supreme Court.

This is essentially an unconstitutional process. By declaring that everything is proper within the SIR, is the Congress not endorsing the BJP’s Kar Seva against the Constitution?

4) Another justification offered by the BJP for conducting the SIR was the need to expel illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Before SIR, the BJP and the Sangh Parivar had created a huge uproar, claiming that there were more than 20 lakh Bangladeshi infiltrators even in Karnataka. The Congress Chief Minister D. K. Shivakumar, too, had indirectly accepted this claim. Now, it has become clear, that only one Bangladeshi has been identified in Karnataka.And across the entire country, at most 1,600 illegal foreigners!! Three-fourths of them are Nepali Hindus.

Election Commission’s SIR exercise identifies just 1,600 foreigners on voter lists in six states

https://t.co/bIRP1CUDeW

— Hindustan Times (@htTweets) October 29, 2026

Thus, the very objective of SIR was to use the pretext of Bangladeshi infiltrators to inflame anti-Muslim hatred across the country. And the same conspiracy was carried out in Karnataka too, was it not? If that is the case, does your argument that SIR has been properly conducted in Karnataka not amount to supporting the BJP’s fascist project?

Therefore dear Congress men and women, Reject the SIR too in Entirety! In states where your party is in power and all over India!

Related:

SIR’s elusive illegal immigrants: Bogey Busted but will the injustices heaped be corrected?

EXCLUSIVE – SIR: The total disenfranchisement of the Indian Voter is 16 crores, not 13.60 Crores?

SIR Karnataka: Six major ‘conspiracies’ exposed in the final electoral roll

Assam NRC: Seven years after 19 lakh people were excluded, rejection slips remain a non-starter

The post Need for Clarity on the SIR: An Open Letter to the Congress Leaders of Karnataka appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice RS Sodhi (retd) expressing extreme anguish on the 42^nd anniversary of the Sikh genocide stated:

“In Trilokpuri, Sultanpuri and Mangolpuri, men were dragged into the lanes and burned alive. Women were raped. Children watched their fathers die and then went hungry in relief camps. Trains arriving in and around the capital were stopped, and passengers wearing turbans were pulled out and killed. The Army was not deployed in time, and police personnel stood aside or lent a hand to the mob in many localities. Within weeks the new Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, said during a rally that when a big tree falls, the earth shakes. It was as if he had already reconciled himself with the tragedy.

“Justice was slow to come. By one count, as many as 11 commissions and committees of inquiry probed the killings, but almost nothing followed…Whenever there is a bus or train mishap, the State immediately accepts that it owes something to the families of the dead and announces compensation within a day or two. The victims of 1984 had a stronger claim because cops remained bystanders in several localities and those named by witnesses belonged to the ruling party. Yet the relief that followed was more for property and shelter than for compensating the families of the dead. Compensation for death was fixed at Rs 10,000, later Rs 20,000, against Rs 10,000 for a house wholly destroyed.

“The Rs 3.5-lakh relief that the High Court ordered in 1996 reached families only through a Central package in 2006, and a further Rs 5 lakh was approved in 2014 for the kin of 3,325 dead. The fulfilment of promises on pensions and jobs has been patchy. In 2023, 10 states had still not reported what they had paid. A State that pays promptly for accidents, but in instalments over four decades for a massacre it failed to stop, has told its Sikh citizens what their lives were worth.”

[‘India must never forget scars of 1984’, The Tribune, Chandigarh. Link: https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/india-must-never-forget-scars-of-1984/]

It was the same status on the eve of 41^st anniversary as stated by Shekhar Singh in The Tribune,

“Forty-one years ago, Delhi burned, not from a foreign enemy, but from within. Between October 31 and November 7, 1984, mobs roamed the streets hunting down Sikh men, torching homes, and setting gurdwaras ablaze. Officially, 2,733 Sikhs were killed in the capital even as survivors say the toll was over 3,000. Over four decades later, most of the ‘guilty’ still walk free.

“Of the 650 cases registered, chargesheets were filed in 362, but only 39 ended in conviction. Nearly 300 cases collapsed for want of evidence, witnesses or police will. Now, barely 20 cases remain alive, dragging on in Delhi’s trial courts or pending appeal in the high court. The rest have been swallowed by the system’s silence…a justice process that has moved slower than time itself.”

[‘Only 39 convictions in 650 cases, justice eludes 1984 riot victims’, The Tribune, Chandigarh, October 31, 2025. Link: https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/only-39-convictions-in-650-cases-justice-eludes-1984-riot-victims/]

Two kinds of Justice

Whenever the country witness’s large-scale violence against minorities and Dalits, the search for perpetrators continues endlessly and the criminals are rarely identified or punished. Major incidents of violence against minorities like Nellie massacre (1983), Sikh genocide (1984), Hashimpura custodial massacre of Muslim youth (1987), pre/post- Ayodhya Mosque demolition violence against Muslims (1990-92), Gujarat carnage (2002) and Kandhmal cleansing of Christians (2008) and continuing bloodbath of Kuki Tribals (who are mostly Christians) in Manipur are testimony to this reality.

But when the victims are Dalits or minorities no such urgency is shown. In such cases Indian State is fond of playing commission-commission. Enquiry Commissions after commissions would be constituted to see that the heinous crimes disappear from the public memory. The horrendous genocide of Sikhs in different parts of India in 1984 is a living testimony of this criminal attitude of the Indian justice system with the motto in Sanskrit: ‘Yato Dharma Tato Jaya’ [Where there are righteousness and dharma, there is victory]. Judiciary must explain what it means by Dharma. Does it include religions of minorities and right of Dalits also?

The scenario of the anti-Dalit violence is no different. The major incidents of persecution and massacre of Dalits; 1968 Kilvenmani massacre, 1997 Melavalavu massacre, 2013 Marakkanam anti-Dalit violence, 2012 Dharmapuri anti- Dalit violence (all in Tamil Nadu), 1985 Karamchedu massacre, 1991 Tsundur massacre (all in AP), 1996 Bathani Tola Massacre, 1997 Laxmanpur Bathe massacre (all in Bihar), 1997 Ramabai killings, Mumbai, 2006 Khairlanji massacre, 2014 Javkheda Hatyakand, (all in Maharashtra), 2000 Caste persecution in (Karnataka), 5 Dalits beaten/burnt to death for skinning a dead cow 2006, 2011 killings of Dalits in Mirchpur (all in Haryana), 2015 anti-Dalit violence in Dangawas (Rajasthan) are some of the thousands of incidents of the Dalit persecution. In almost all these cases perpetrators are yet to be identified. Even if identified the prosecution rate never exceeded 20%.

On the other hand, the Dalit, working class and minority ‘perpetrators’ of violence are efficiently put on trial by constituting special investigation teams and punished by fast-track courts. In order to meet the end of ‘justice’, ‘national security’ and ‘wish of society’ they are hanged and jailed. The overall reality is that whenever victims are minorities, working class and Dalits the State and judiciary go into coma.

Betrayal by Governments until 2014

After giving free run to the killer gangs, the government appointed one man Marwah Commission to find out the perpetrators of the 1984 ‘riots’. As this exercise was proving to be inconvenient, the Ved Marwah Commission was asked to disband itself within short period of its existence and a sitting Supreme Court Judge Ranga Nath Mishra was asked to conduct inquiry into 1984 ‘riots’ who submitted his report in 1987. Shockingly, this fact finding (or fact-hiding) commission headed by Misra observed that “riots which had a spontaneous origin later attained a channelized method at the hands of gangsters”.

The genocide was reduced to ‘riots’ as if Sikhs equally participated in the violence. It was a brazen lie. The ‘apostle of justice’, Mishra, champion of the theory of spontaneity was not, naturally, able to find out where these gangsters came from! According to Jarnail Singh author of the book, I Accuse: The Anti-Sikh Violence of 1984 for this service to the State he was awarded a berth in Rajya Sabha.

Betrayal by the present RSS-BJP Rulers

RSS claims to have always stood for Hindu-Sikh unity. It occasionally expresses its gratitude to Sikhism for saving Hinduism from the Muslim aggression. It may not be irrelevant to note here that RSS does not treat Sikhism as independent religion, which discarded Casteism and Brahmanical hegemony, but part of Hinduism. The RSS/BJP leaders blamed Congress for anti-Sikh violence Modi while addressing a public rally during last parliamentary elections at Jhansi, UP (October 25, 2013) asked Congress leaders to explain who “killed thousands of Sikhs in 1984” and “has anyone been convicted for the Sikh genocide so far”. Modi during Punjab elections and 2014 general elections kept on referring to ‘qatl-e-aam’ or genocide of Sikhs.

Modi, soon after becoming PM in a message (October 31, 2014) said that anti-Sikh riots in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination were like a, “dagger that pierced through India’s chest…Our own people were murdered, the attack was not on a particular community but on the entire nation.” Hindutva’s icon, RSS whole-timer, and PM Modi lamented the fact that culprits were yet to be booked and tried for this genocide. However, Modi did not tell the nation what NDA governments which ruled this country from 1998 to 2004 did to persecute the culprits. Modi also forgot to share the fact that as per the autobiography of LK Advani (“My Country, My Life” 2008, page 430); it was his Party which forced Indira Gandhi to go for army action infamously named as Operation Blue Star which killed large number of Sikh pilgrims.

Renowned journalist Manoj Mitta, author of the book When a Tree Shook Delhi: The 1984 Carnage and Its Aftermath straight forwardly tells that “Despite the BJP rule, there has hardly been any will to enforce accountability for the massacres that took place under the Congress. It’s as if there is a tacit deal between the sponsors of 1984 and 2002 (Gujarat genocide)”.

It was not oversight that during 2024 parliamentary elections 1984 genocide was totally forgotten. This is not what outsiders or critics of the RSS have been telling. The perusal of the contemporary RSS documents show that major focus was on condemning the Sikh extremism, eulogizing Indira Gandhi, and welcoming the crowning of Rajiv Gandhi as new prime minister.

RSS Ideologue Nana Deshmukh’s de-humanised attitude wards the Sikh Genocide

The most important proof of such a dehumanized attitude towards the genocide of Sikhs is a document circulated by Nana Deshmukh, a prominent whole timer and ideologue of the RSS [now deceased]. This document titled as ‘MOMENTS OF SOUL SEARCHING’ was circulated by Deshmukh on November 8, 1984, may help in unmasking the whole lot of criminals involved in the genocide of innocent Sikhs who had nothing to do with the killing of Indira Gandhi. This document may also throw light on where the cadres came from, who meticulously organized the killing of Sikhs. Nana Deshmukh in this document is seen outlining the justification of the genocide of the Sikh community in 1984.

This document also shows the true degenerated and fascist attitude of the RSS towards all the minorities of India. The RSS has been arguing that they are against Muslims and Christians because they are the followers of foreign religions. Here we find them justifying the butchering of Sikhs who according to their own categorization happened to be the followers of an indigenous religion. In this document we will hear from the horse’s mouth that the RSS like the then Congress leadership believed that the genocide of the innocent Sikhs was unavoidable.

This document was published in the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes, who later became Defence Minister of India in the NDA regime, in its edition of November 25, 1984, titled ‘Indira Congress- RSS collusion’ with the following editorial comment:

“The author of the following document is known as an ideologue and policy formulator of the RSS. After the killing of Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) he distributed this document among prominent politicians. It has historical significance that is why we have decided to publish it, violating the policy of our Weekly. This document highlights the new affinity developing between the Indira Congress and the RSS. We produce here the Hindi translation of the document.”

The original pages of the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes, reproduced below:

Deshmukh  in his document ‘Moments of Soul Searching,’  is seen outlining the justification of the genocide of the Sikh community in 1984. His defence of the carnage can be summed up as in the following:

1. The genocide of Sikhs was not the handiwork of any group or anti-social elements but the result of a genuine feeling of
2. Deshmukh did not distinguish the action of the two security personnel of Indira Gandhi, who happened to be Sikhs, from that of the whole Sikh community. According to his document the killers of Indira Gandhi were working under some kind of mandate of their
3. Sikhs themselves invited these attacks, thus advancing the Congress theory of justifying the genocide of the Sikhs.
4. He glorified the Operation Blue Star and described any opposition to it as anti- national. When Sikhs were being killed in thousands he was warning the country of Sikh extremism, thus offering ideological defense of those killings.
5. Sikh community as a whole was responsible for violence in
6. Sikhs should have done nothing in self-defence but showed patience and tolerance against the killer
7. These were Sikh intellectuals and not killer mobs which were responsible for the genocide. They had turned Sikhs into a militant community, cutting them off from their Hindu roots, thus inviting attacks from the nationalist Indians. Moreover, he treated all Sikhs as part of the same gang and described attacks on them as a reaction of the nationalist
8. He described Indira Gandhi as the only leader who could keep the country united and assassination of such great leaders such killings could not be avoided.
9. Rajiv Gandhi who succeeded Mrs. Gandhi as the PM and justified the nation- wide killings of Sikhs by saying, “When a huge tree falls there are always tremors felt,” was lauded and blessed by Nana Deshmukh at the end of the
10. Shockingly, the genocide of Sikhs was being equated with the attacks on the RSS cadres after the killing of Gandhiji and we find Deshmukh advising Sikhs to suffer silently. Everybody knows that the killing of Gandhiji was inspired by the RSS and the Hindutva Ideology whereas the common innocent Sikhs had nothing to do with the murder of Indira
11. There was not a single sentence in the Deshmukh document demanding, from the then Congress Government at the Centre or the then home minister Narsimha Rao (a Congress leader dear to the RSS who later silently watched demolition of Babri masjid by Hindutva goons as PM of India in 1992) remedial measures for controlling the violence against the minority community. Mind it, that Deshmukh circulated this document on November 8, 1984, and from October 31 to this date Sikhs were left alone to face the killing gangs. In fact, November 5-10 was the period when the maximum killings of Sikhs took place. Deshmukh was just not bothered about all
12. It is generally believed that the Congress cadres were behind this genocide. This may be true but there were other forces too which actively participated in this genocide and whose role has never been investigated. It could be one of the reasons that actual perpetrators remain unknown. Those who witnessed the genocide were stunned by the swiftness and military precision of the killer/marauding gangs (later on witnessed during the Babri mosque demolition, burning alive of Dr. Graham Steins with his two sons, 2002 pogrom of the Muslims in Gujarat and cleansing of Christians in parts of Orissa) which went on a burning spree of the innocent Sikhs. This, surely, was beyond the capacity of the thugs led by many Congress
13. It is shocking that Deshmukh presented 1984 genocide of Sikhs as an issue between Sikhs and Hindus. He wrote: “I feel proud of all those Hindu neighbours who protected lives and property of troubled Sikh brothers without caring for their lives. Such things one being heard from all over Delhi. These things have practically increased the faith in natural goodness of human behavior and particularly faith in Hindu nature.”He remained oblivious to the fact that these were not only Hindus but Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Communists who defended Sikhs’ lives and properties.

The RSS’ shameful attitude towards the Sikh Massacre

Deshmukh document did not happen in isolation. It represented the real RSS attitude towards Sikh genocide of 1984. It may be relevant to know here that the RSS cadres did not come forward in defence of the Sikhs. The RSS is very fond of circulating publicity material, especially photographs of its khaki shorts-clad cadres doing social work. For the 1984 violence they have none. In fact, Deshmukh’s article also made no mention of the RSS cadres going to the rescue of Sikhs under siege. This shows the real intentions of the RSS during the genocide.

The RSS English organ, Organizer in its combined issue dated November 11 & 18, 1984 carried an editorial titled ‘Stunning Loss’ which praised Indira Gandhi in the following words:

“It will always be difficult to believe that Indira Gandhi is no more. One had got so used to hearing her myriad voices for so long that everything looked so blank without her. The violent manner of her death is the most shocking horror story, giving the nation the creeps…It is a case of treacherous fanatics stigmatizing the whole nation by butchering a remarkable specimen of Indian womanhood…She literally served India to the last drop of her blood according to her own lights.” The same editorial ended with the words supporting newly installed PM, Rajiv Gandhi who “deserves sympathy and consideration”. 

The Organizer also carried statement of RSS Supremo; Bala Deoras titled ‘Balasaheb condemns assassination, Delhi carnage’ in a single column. He mourned and condemned the carnage but not even once referred to the fact that Sikhs were under attack. For him it was “infighting in the Hindu Samaj”. He also overlooked the fact that it was not only Delhi where Sikhs were butchered/burnt but in many other parts of India too. According to this statement “swayamsevaks have been instructed to form or help in forming Mohalla Suraksha Samitis” for restoring peace and rehabilitation of the sufferers. However, there are no documents available in the contemporary RSS archives to show how these Samitis functioned. It is a fact that RSS, which is fond of displaying photographs of its cadres doing social work did not publish any visual of the activity of these Samitis.

In the same statement Deoras reacting to the assassination of Indira Gandhi stated,

“It is shocking beyond words to express the feelings at the murder of PM                          Mrs.Indira Gandhi by some fanatic elements. She had been carrying on almost the entire burden of the country since 1966. She was loved and respected not only in this country but all over the world. Her passing away at this critical juncture will create a void in India and also in the world.”

According to the above-mentioned Organizer,

 “RSS Sarkyavah, Rajender Singh issued instructions to all the branches in the country to    hold a special meeting in Shakha condemning the dastardly murder of the PM and paying homage to the departed soul. He also issued instructions to cancel all public functions to be held by RSS during the period of mourning”.

Of course, RSS archives do not contain any instructions from RSS top brass ordering to mourn the Sikh victims.”

RSS against former Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh’s apology for the 1984 genocide

The RSS continues to downplay 1984 Sikh genocide will be clear by the perusal of charter of demands submitted to the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in last July. The senior RSS ideologue, Dina Nath Batra on behalf of RSS-affiliated Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas submitted five pages containing list of items to be removed from school text-books. Batra demanded that any reference to violence against minorities in the textbooks should be removed which included references to a simple apology tendered by the former PM Manmohan Singh over 1984 violence. It is to be noted that in an apology in Parliament on August 12, 2005, Manmohan Singh, the then PM of India stated:

“I have no hesitation in apologising to the Sikh community. I apologise not only to the Sikh community, but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution.” 

So, the search for finding the perpetrators of Sikh genocide of 1984 continues endlessly. The present RSS/BJP rulers who claim to be co-religionists of Sikhs prove no different from Congress. The only hope is that those Indians who have stakes in continuation of democratic-secular Indian polity will come forward to force the Indian State to identify and punish the killers. The scholars who have been involved in the study of religious violence are unanimous in the conclusion that if 1984 genocide was not allowed to happen, there would not have been 1992- 93 (violence against Muslims in pre/post Babri mosque demolition period), 2002 (genocide of Muslims in Gujarat), Kandhmal 2008 (cleansing of Christians) and many other massacre of the minorities of India. Allowing the 1984 genocide the Indian State, let it be known to all the majoritarian fascist organizations that in such criminal happening the former would remain silent! 

Nana Deshmukh awarded “Bharat Ratna’

As if it was not enough injustice to the martyrs and survivors of the 1984 genocide, on the eve of the Republic Day (January 25, 2019) RSS-BJP rulers of India, bestowed the highest national award BHARAT RATN (gem of India) on Nanaji Deshmukh. PM Modi praising Deshmukh said, “He [Nana Deshmukh] personifies humility, compassion, and service to the downtrodden. He is a Bharat Ratna in the truest sense”.

If anybody wants to understand the exact meaning of the proverb ‘to rub salt into the wound’ this Bharat Ratna to Deshmukh is the fittest example!

[This photograph is of a street theatre performance titled ‘Sadharan Log (common people) by Nishant Natya Manch against genocide of Sikhs in 1984. It was performed at more than two thousand places. The author is also doing a role.]

The criminal shirking of responsibility by the Indian State in finding the perpetrators of 1984 genocide was deliberate and conscious. Despite the identities of criminals involved being in public domain. Prominent human rights’ organizations, namely, People’s Union for Democratic Rights and People’s Union for Civil Rights had published a factual ground report by the end of November presenting comprehensive details of the city-wide incidents and names of the criminals involved. This report titled ‘Who Are the Guilty?’ was based on eye-witness accounts of the survivors, civil society members belonging to different religions who were against the genocide and played great role in defending and saving Sikhs at many places. The State consigned this report to the dustbin but remains the most authentic document of the genocide till date.

References:

Link for the full English text of the RSS ideologue Nana Deshmukh’s document: https://www.academia.edu/4890979/RSS_IDEOLOGUE_ NANA_DESHMUKH_J USTIFIED_MASSACRE_OF_SIKHS_IN_1984_From_R

SS_archives_Link of a 2023 interview of the author on 1984 Sikh genocide:

https://www.academia.edu/107044638/Victims_Will_Never_Forget_The_Violence_Shamsul_Islam_On_1984_Massacre_of_Sikh

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

The post 42nd Anniversary of 1984 Sikh genocide: Amnesia of the Indian state and society appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The demonstration, organised by Himkhand and Youth for Change (YFC) Arunachal, sought to draw attention to the escalating crackdown on indigenous communities opposing the proposed 11,200-MW project. Protesters were demanding the withdrawal of the project, the release of anti-dam activists and villagers arrested in Arunachal Pradesh, the withdrawal of criminal cases against them and the removal of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) personnel deployed in the Siang region.

According to accounts shared by protesters with Maktoob Media, the demonstration had barely continued for 15 minutes before Delhi Police personnel began forcibly detaining participants. Among those detained was Katon Moyong, popularly known as Abor Man, an environmental engineer and prominent voice in the anti-dam movement in Arunachal Pradesh. Protesters alleged that Moyong was manhandled during his detention, reportedly while interacting with the media.

The allegations of mistreatment extended beyond physical force. Vagheesha, a member of Himkhand who participated in the demonstration, alleged that several protesters were subjected to sexual assault and inappropriate touching by police personnel while being detained.

“My shirt was lifted, I was pinched on my private parts and brutally pushed into the buses,” Vagheesha said, describing the treatment meted out to protesters. The activist maintained that indigenous people from Arunachal Pradesh had travelled to the national capital to exercise their democratic rights and raise concerns about their ancestral land, only to face police brutality. In a video statement recorded while being taken away in a police vehicle, another Himkhand member alleged that protesters had been beaten and sexually assaulted. The protesters also said that police personnel did not initially disclose where they were being taken.

“My shirt was lifted, I was pinched on my private parts” alleges a peaceful anti-Siang Dam protester brutally detained by Delhi Police outside Arunachal Bhawan on Saturday.

Is this the Delhi Police whose job is to serve and PROTECT the PEOPLE?

The lengths that Home Minister @AmitShah’s forces are going to quash any kind of political expression is reaching depraved and disgusting new lows day by day.

The right to protest is constitutional. Who will hold the Delhi Police accountable?

— Pawan Khera ಪವನ್ ಖೇರಾ (@Pawankhera) November 1, 2026

SIANG DAM heat Reaches to Delhi as Protest Erupts amid Delhi Police Violent Detention of Tribals

Voice is Getting Louder
Siang नदी को बहने दो
#savesiang https://t.co/Z3uUqVuliq

— CJP Gems | (@GameonNewbie) October 31, 2026

The manner in which the detentions were carried out raised further concerns. Speaking to Maktoob, Kranti, another Himkhand member, said that three police vehicles transported protesters to different locations. Seven students from the Northeast were taken to Chanakyapuri Police Station, while other detainees were reportedly taken towards Najafgarh, near the Delhi-Haryana border. Men and women were separated during the process. An independent journalist, Baksheesh Lamba, was also allegedly picked up during the operation and taken away in a separate vehicle. Kranti said that Lamba was subsequently unreachable and that protesters had no information about his whereabouts.

Siang Dam Protest: Delhi Police Attack on Arunachal Protesters in New Delhi! https://t.co/xs6KM29ieT

— Roshni Haokip (@RoshniHaokipIN) November 2, 2026

Protest against the proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP) was held in New Delhi today, with people gathering in solidarity with the people of Arunachal Pradesh. Demanding the withdrawal of SUMP, the removal of police and security forces from the Siang Valley, and the release of Ebo Mili and other detained activists.
Katon Moyong also known as Abor Man were detained along with others in Delhi .

— Marina Dai (@itsMarinaDai) October 31, 2026

According to the organisation, around 40 people had been detained, with approximately 25-30 protesters initially remaining at Baba Haridas Nagar Police Station. Himkhand further alleged that women protesters continued to be detained late into the night and that detainees were asked to sign forms under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

𝙈𝙚𝙚𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞-𝙙𝙖𝙢 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙩 𝙆𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙣 𝙈𝙤𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙜 from Arunachal Pradesh leading protests against the Siang Dam Project. https://t.co/YIXHVxXg6k

— Kreately.in (@KreatelyMedia) November 1, 2026

*Urgent Action Alert*
Students and youth brutalised at Delhi Arunachal bhawan peaceful protest against Siang dam project! The brave youth led protest dared to protest despite the heavy militarisation that was done in Chanakya Puri, meant to terrorise anyone who dared to even https://t.co/eGla8q6nw1

— Anwar Mavericks (@AnwarMavericks) October 31, 2026

Lawyers representing the detainees reportedly waited outside the police stations as families and fellow activists attempted to establish contact with those in custody. Delhi Police had been approached for a response to the allegations of assault and arbitrary detention, but no response had been received at the time of the initial reports.

All protesters released after Congress intervention

All the Arunachal Pradesh youths and students detained during the Delhi demonstration have since been released following the intervention of senior Congress leaders. According to Echo of Arunachal, Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) president Bosiram Siram, accompanied by All India Congress Committee (AICC) in-charges for Arunachal Pradesh Dr A. Chellakumar and advocate Mathew Antony, visited Chanakyapuri Police Station after learning about the detentions. The leaders intervened with police authorities to secure the release of the protesters.

Around 40 young people had reportedly been detained and taken to three different police stations across Delhi. Their release brought immediate relief to the detainees and their families, but it does little to address the larger questions surrounding the police action, particularly the allegations of sexual assault and the circumstances in which the protesters were picked up.

Reacting to the development, Siram said that the voices of Arunachal Pradesh’s people could not be ignored and that young people must be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to peaceful protest. He stressed that concerns relating to land, identity, livelihoods, the environment and the future of indigenous communities must be heard rather than suppressed.

The APCC had earlier condemned the detentions, demanding that the police disclose the legal grounds for taking protesters into custody, communicate their whereabouts to their families and ensure that no peaceful demonstrator faced intimidation or harassment. The party also called for transparent engagement with affected communities, indigenous organisations, student bodies and civil society groups before the government proceeds with further activities related to SUMP.

While everyone is busy with the Ramlila Maidan protest, I would like to remind you that people are being detained in Arunachal Pradesh. https://t.co/olV9EyesLS

— Henry Singh (@HenrySingh_x) November 1, 2026

The crackdown in Arunachal Pradesh that brought protesters to Delhi

The demonstration outside Arunachal Bhawan was not an isolated protest. It was an extension of a growing movement against the proposed dam, which has faced sustained opposition from sections of the indigenous Adi and Galo communities in the Siang region. On October 23, youth groups and local organisations had called for a 12-hour bandh across Siang, Upper Siang and East Siang districts to oppose the proposed project. The demonstration in Pasighat subsequently turned violent, with police deploying tear gas and stun grenades as tensions escalated. Angry protesters allegedly vandalised and set fire to police vehicles, an NHPC office and the residences of political leaders, including local BJP MLAs and the state BJP president.

Following the violence, the Arunachal Pradesh government intensified its security deployment and initiated arrests under stringent provisions, including the Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (APUAPA). Ddozens of people had been arrested or detained, while families raised concerns that the police action had also affected ordinary residents and people who had participated in peaceful demonstrations. The deployment of additional security personnel in the region, reportedly including more than 30 companies of CAPF personnel, has further heightened tensions. The security presence has been linked to efforts to facilitate preliminary project-related exercises, including the preparation of a Pre-Feasibility Report (PFR).

The crackdown has also reportedly extended to government employees and traditional village institutions. The Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee has expressed concern over the suspension of government employees and action against gaon buras, or traditional village headmen, who have opposed the project.

Detailed report may be read here.

Why indigenous communities are resisting SUMP

The Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, being pursued by the Centre through the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), is envisaged as one of India’s largest hydropower and multipurpose storage initiatives. Its proposed capacity has been reported at approximately 11,200 MW. The Centre has repeatedly invoked strategic, water-security and flood-management considerations to justify the project, particularly in the context of China’s proposed large hydropower development on the Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet, which flows into India as the Siang.

However, for the indigenous communities living along the river, the proposed project is not merely an infrastructure or energy-policy question. It concerns the possible destruction of ancestral settlements, displacement, loss of agricultural land and forests, ecological disruption and the erosion of a way of life closely connected to the river.

Reports have indicated that as many as 27 villages could face submergence, with several dozen more potentially affected by the project. For the Adi community, the Siang, traditionally revered as Ane Siang, or Mother Siang, is central to cultural memory, identity, livelihoods and community life. The prospect of a massive dam on the river has therefore generated opposition that cannot be reduced to a disagreement over the technical feasibility of a development project.

Organisations such as the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum (SIFF), Adi Bane Kebang United and various student and youth groups have consistently questioned the project and demanded that the concerns and consent of affected communities be taken seriously.

Chief Minister Pema Khandu has maintained that the government is presently seeking cooperation only for the preparation of the PFR and that the project will not be imposed without public consultation. However, activists have questioned how meaningful public consultation can take place when people opposing the project are being arrested, criminal cases are being registered against them, and security forces are being deployed in areas where the project is proposed. SIFF spokesperson Tagori Mize has also questioned the government’s willingness to engage in genuine dialogue while protesters remain behind bars, and security deployment continues.

Congress demands withdrawal of project and action against protesters

The Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee has demanded that the proposed SUMP be scrapped and all those arrested for opposing it be released. It has also called for the withdrawal of cases registered against protesters under APUAPA, the revocation of suspension orders against government employees and the withdrawal of action against traditional village headmen.

The party has maintained that no development project should proceed at the expense of indigenous communities’ ancestral land, identity, culture and livelihoods. It has called for the removal of additional security personnel from affected areas, compensation for those who have suffered losses and medical assistance and rehabilitation for injured protesters.

In a statement, the APCC emphasised that the government’s assurances about public consultation must translate into actual democratic engagement. It argued that strategic considerations cannot become a justification for disregarding indigenous rights or bypassing the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The party has also urged the Centre and the Arunachal Pradesh government to restore peace through dialogue and confidence-building measures, rather than treating opposition to the project as a law-and-order problem.

“Different groups but one voice; different organisations but one collective resolve — Stop SUMP, Save Siang,” the APCC said in its appeal for solidarity among indigenous organisations, student unions, youth groups, civil society organisations and traditional institutions.

Related:

Arunachal’s anti-dam protests intensify as arrests, militarisation and threats to press freedom fail to silence resistance

From treating Adivasi communities to being branded an instigator: Odisha jails doctor Randall Sequeira

Assam NRC: Seven years after 19 lakh people were excluded, rejection slips remain a non-starter

Christian families assaulted, humiliated and forced into Durga Puja rituals in West Bengal village

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad 

The post From Arunachal to Delhi, anti-dam protesters face state crackdown; detained allege sexual assault appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Vidya Bhushan Rawat, public intellectual, activist and author of more than 25 books in English and Hindi approaches Bose through the lenses of secularism, social justice and the contributions of marginalised participants in India’s freedom struggle. His Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose: INA & India’s Freedom Movement examines what shaped Bose’s political convictions, who prepared the ground for the Indian National Army (INA), and why Southeast Asia became a centre of Indian anti-colonial mobilisation.

Published by the Institute of Objective Studies, New Delhi, this 454-page book seeks to recover a freedom movement that cannot be reduced to a single leader, community or political tradition. Its most compelling passages connect Bose’s personal trajectory with the forgotten histories of Indian soldiers, expatriate revolutionaries and political networks that preceded his arrival in East Asia.

A secular upbringing and an unconventional strategy 

The author places Bose’s secular outlook within the social history of his upbringing. The book describes his background in a secular aristocratic Kayastha family associated with service under Bengal Nawabs for centuries. This context matters because Bose’s nationalism cannot be understood without acknowledging his deeply secular views. His political project demanded the mobilisation of Indians across communal divisions.

His escape from British surveillance similarly reflected a willingness to pursue unconventional routes to independence. The author recounts his journey under the assumed identity of Mohammad Ziauddin, through Peshawar and Kabul, and onwards towards Europe and Japan. The author quotes the notes of Uttamchand Malhotra, an Indian shopkeeper in Kabul who maintained that Bose’s initial motive was to travel to the Soviet Union and how Bose was as critical of the Axis powers as he was of the British. However, the actions of Bose’s another host in Kabul, Bhagat Ram Talwar compromised his plans making him end up as a state-guest in Germany. ‘The Indian Spy’ by Mihir Bose highlighted Talwar as ‘a double agent working for both Germany and Britain’.

The author’s account invites readers to examine Bose’s choices in their historical context without treating the consequences of his alliances as beyond scrutiny.

The Singapore mutiny of 1915 & Komagata Maru: Rise of Giani Pritam Singh in Southeast Asia 

One of the book’s most striking contributions is its discussion of the Singapore mutiny by Muslim Rajput soldiers in February 1915. The episode reveals a history of military resistance that predates Bose’s leadership of the INA by decades.

The scale of the repression is chilling. The author’s account records that 41 soldiers were executed, 63 were sentenced to transportation for life, 69 received sentences of 10–20 years, and 52 were killed while attempting to flee. Approximately a quarter of the regiment was killed or removed. These figures convey the severity of the colonial response and the determination to turn the punishment into a public spectacle.

The book describes how, on March 22, 1915, twenty-one alleged principal instigators were sentenced following court-martial proceedings. A crowd of approximately 6,000 civilians assembled to witness the event. Sixteen men received sentences of transportation or imprisonment, while five were sentenced to execution by firing squad: Subedar Dunde Khan, Jamadar Chishti Khan, Havildar Rahmat Ali, Sepoy Hakim Ali and Havildar Abdul Ghani.

The author’s account argues that the spectacle of punishment was intended not merely to discipline soldiers but to instil fear among the wider civilian population, including Indians and Chinese living in Singapore.

Their story also cautions against treating Bose’s later mobilisation as the beginning of Indian military resistance to British rule.

The author’s account connects the growth of Indian revolutionary activity in Southeast Asia with the experiences of Indians subjected to racial discrimination and imperial coercion elsewhere. His discussion of the Komagata Maru episode describes how passengers were denied the right to land in Canada and the coercive treatment that followed. The book records the ship’s passengers being held under restrictions and the Canadian authorities’ use of armed force during the confrontation.

These experiences helped create a wider climate of resentment among Indians overseas. The book also discusses the Ghadar movement, the influence of revolutionary ideas among soldiers and expatriates, and the networks through which anti-British activity travelled between North America, Southeast Asia and India. The connection is important: East Asia did not suddenly become fertile ground for Indian nationalism when Bose arrived. Political grievances, expatriate networks and earlier revolutionary initiatives had already helped prepare the ground.

This is where the book’s treatment of Giani Pritam Singh becomes significant. The book presents him as an energetic revolutionary who sought Japanese assistance for the Indian independence movement. Its account of his interactions with Major Fujiwara shows that the process of building the Indian Independence League and the subsequent INA involved negotiations and organising before Bose assumed leadership.

Pritam Singh also requested Japanese assistance in establishing contact between the Indian Independence League and Bose in Berlin, as well as a broadcasting station to disseminate anti-British messages to India through Tokyo.

Yet the relationship with Japan was not free of reservations. The author records Pritam Singh’s awareness that many Indians viewed Japanese policy in Korea, Taiwan, China and Manchuria as expansionist and aggressive. It is also important to note that the first chief of the INA was Major General Mohan Singh who was later dismissed by the Japanese as he refused to follow their diktats. Rash Behari Bose was given the responsibility to lead it till Subhas arrived in Japan.

The history of the INA, therefore, begins before Bose’s arrival in Southeast Asia. The author’s recovery of these earlier networks challenges the tendency to make the movement appear as the creation of one extraordinary individual alone. The only factor is that Subhas’s presence and leadership ignited all Indians and gave them hope of an independent India.

Nehru, Bose and the politics of disagreement

The author’s discussion of Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose is among the book’s more politically significant sections because it moves beyond the familiar portrayal of two rivals locked in permanent hostility.

Their disagreements over political strategy and international alliances were real.

The author recounts Nehru’s opposition to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, while Bose maintained that assistance from the Axis powers could serve India’s struggle for independence. Their disagreement was therefore not simply personal: it concerned whether the enemies of Britain could become legitimate partners in the struggle against British rule.

Yet, the author places this disagreement within a wider ideological conversation. He emphasises Bose’s commitment to socialism and social justice, looking for an Indian approach rather than simply adopting European or British models. Bose’s writings sought to connect democracy and socialism with India’s own historical experience. His critique of private property as an institution and his search for an Indian form of communism indicate that his political imagination extended beyond the immediate objective of ending colonial rule.

The personal dimension further complicates the rivalry narrative. The author refers to Nehru’s emotional response to news of Bose’s death, drawing on Rudrangshu Mukherjee’s Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives. He also discusses documentary material concerning a ₹2 lakh trust for Bose’s daughter, Anita, involving Nehru and B.C. Roy in 1954. These details do not erase their political differences, but they caution against turning disagreement into a claim of personal enmity or indifference.

The author’s larger point is that Bose and Nehru must be understood through their competing strategies, and historical circumstances— not recruited retrospectively into opposing political camps.

Recovering a plural freedom struggle 

The book does not require Bose to be beyond criticism. His international alliances and strategic compromises remain subjects for scrutiny. But neither should those controversies erase his secular commitments or the diverse networks that helped sustain the struggle for independence. That way, it is not the biography of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose but a chronicle of Indian National Army as well as India’s freedom Movement. Students of Indian history interested in understanding the diversity of India’s freedom movement and important role played by the expatriates in Southeast Asia will find this book extremely useful. The glorious role played by the Sikhs and Muslims in building up the INA movement has mostly been neglected and author must be complimented for bringing highlighting the issue in details.

The larger lesson is that the INA and its affiliation with the Japanese did not emerge from a historical vacuum. It drew upon an earlier landscape of resistance, migration, discrimination and revolutionary organising. By recovering these connections, the author invites readers to look beyond the cult of Netaji and recognise the wider, plural history of Indians who challenged the British Empire.

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, INA and India’s Freedom Movement

Author: Vidya Bhushan Rawat

Publisher: Institute of Objective Studies, New Delhi

Related:

India’s Post Truth Era in ICHR’s Book on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

Netaji and Gandhiji would never support CAA: Chandra Kumar Bose

When History substitutes Governance: Hindutva’s Politics of Manufacturing Pasts

Temple Leases, Food Morality: Rajasthan’s new Panchayat order

The Taj Story & Resurgence of a Myth, the ideological engineering of a Brahmanical narrative of pseudo-history

The post Beyond Appropriation: Vidya Bhushan Rawat’s recovery of Bose’s inclusive nationalism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A thelawala by occupation, Kashem Ali earns his living by pulling a handcart through the heat and rain, working day after day to support his wife, Suraton Khatun, and their two sons, Sahjahan Ali and Sahajamal Ali. He is neither a politician nor a person of influence. He is a working man whose life has been consumed by a legal battle over his citizenship, despite documentary records linking his family to Assam decades before the March 25, 1971, cut-off date.

On October 25, 2026, Kashem finally received a measure of relief. The Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Bongaigaon, held that he had successfully discharged the statutory burden of proving that he was not a foreigner and was a citizen of India. The decision came after a prolonged legal fight, with assistance from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP).

But the end of Kashem’s ordeal does not mean the end of the family’s suffering. His wife, Suraton, was declared a D-voter in 2019 and remains unable to exercise her voting rights for ten years, until 2029. The husband has now been recognised as an Indian citizen, while his wife continues to live with the consequences of a citizenship-related determination that has deprived her of a fundamental democratic entitlement.

Kashem Ali, outside his home in Assam, looking through all his case related documents

A case registered in 2004, notice served only in 2022

The case, State of Assam vs Md. Kashem Ali, was heard by Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Bongaigaon, under BNGN/FT Case No. 1205/2010, arising from BNGN/IM(D)T Case No. 1944/2003. According to the case records, proceedings were registered in 2004 based on an order issued by the Superintendent of Police (Border). Yet Kashem did not receive notice until March 2022. Eighteen years had passed between the registration of the case and the service of notice upon him.

For a man dependent on daily earnings to sustain his family, such prolonged uncertainty carries consequences far beyond a courtroom. The years between registration and notice, followed by the legal proceedings themselves, meant that Kashem had to confront an allegation of foreign origin while continuing to make a living through manual labour. When his wife’s case had previously come up, Kashem was unaware of CJP and had incurred considerable expenses. This time, knowing that legal assistance was available, he approached the organisation for help.

CJP’s legal team, led by legal member Dewan Abdur Rahim and his two junior colleagues, took up his case before the Tribunal. The defence challenged both the basis of the allegation and the way the investigation had purportedly been conducted. In his written statement filed on December 10, 2025, Kashem put his position in straightforward terms: the case was not maintainable in law or on facts, he was not a foreigner, and he had been born in Assam.

Born in Assam, with family records predating 1971

Kashem Ali was born in 1968 in Village No. 1 Dhupuri, under Manikpur Police Station in Bongaigaon district, Assam. He was the son of Nojumuddin Sheikh, also recorded under variations of the name Naju Sheikh, and Panful Nessa, also known as Panful. His father died in 1974, while his mother died in 2018. His paternal grandfather, Najirulla, also recorded as Nojib, was the father of four children: Naju Sheikh, Yunus Ali, Khalek Miya and Khatim Bibi. Kashem has one sister, Toshiran Bibi, against whom, according to the information placed before the Tribunal, no foreigners case is pending.

Kashem married Suraton Khatun, daughter of the late Toyab Ali of Village No. 2 Dhupuri, in 1988. Together, they raised two sons. These were not merely family details. They formed part of the chain of relationships and documentary evidence through which Kashem sought to establish his identity and his connection to Assam.

The defence placed particular emphasis on records showing that Kashem’s parents were enrolled as voters in Assam in 1966, five years before the March 25, 1971, cut-off date relevant to the determination of citizenship in Assam. Subsequent electoral records also documented Kashem and his wife as voters over several decades. Despite this documentary trail, Kashem was compelled to establish before a Tribunal that he was not a foreigner.

Eighteen documents to establish what should never have been in doubt

To discharge the burden imposed under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Kashem produced 18 documents before the Tribunal, recorded as Exhibits A to Q, with Exhibit A-1 as an additional document. He also obtained a Panchayat certificate. The evidence included land and revenue records, historical electoral rolls, school records, identity documents and a death certificate. Together, these materials were relied upon to establish his family links, place of birth and long-standing presence in Assam.

Among the most significant records was the certified copy of the 1966 electoral roll for Dhupuri Part I under the Bijni Legislative Assembly Constituency. It recorded Nojumuddin, son of Nojir Ullah, and Panful, wife of Nojumuddin, as voters. The 1971 electoral roll for Dhupuri Part I also recorded Nojmoddin Sheikh, son of Nojib, and Panful Nessa, wife of Nojmoddin, alongside other members of the extended family.

The records connecting Kashem himself to the electoral rolls began with the 1997 list for Dhupuri Part II, which recorded Kasem Ali, son of the late Nasimuddin Sheikh, and Suraton Khaton, wife of Kasem. The 2008 list also included both husband and wife. Kashem appeared in the electoral rolls for 2010, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, with variations in the spelling of his name and his father’s name across different records.

The documentary evidence also included a land record showing Kashem’s father as the recorded owner and possessor of 4 bighas, 1 katha and 17 lessas of land under Annual Patta No. 27, with Dag Nos. 155, 156 and 200 in Village No. 1 Dhupuri. A revenue payment receipt in Kashem’s name accompanied the record.

A school certificate issued by the head teacher of 480 No. Dabaguri Lower Primary School recorded Kashem Ali, son of Noju Sheikh, as having studied in Class I in 1975. His Election Commission of India-issued Elector Photo Identity Card, dated March 6, 2024, was also produced.

Other documents included a ration card issued by the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department in the name of Suraton Khatun, identifying her as Kashem’s wife; Kashem’s PAN card and Aadhaar card; and the death certificate of Panful Bewa, issued by the relevant health authorities in Manikpur.

The documents did not all serve the same evidentiary purpose. Rather, the defence relied on them collectively to establish the links between Kashem, his parents, his wife, his residence and the historical records of his family. The sheer volume of documentation required to defend his citizenship underscores the burden imposed on ordinary people facing allegations of foreign origin. For Kashem, years of family history had to be assembled, authenticated, translated and placed before a Tribunal before he could obtain legal recognition of what he had maintained from the outset: he was not a foreigner.

Defence challenges the investigation

CJP Team Assam with Kashem Ali outside his home in Assam

A central part of the defence was its challenge to the investigation that had led to the reference against Kashem. The CJP legal team argued that the investigating officer had submitted a report without conducting a genuine inquiry. According to the defence, the officer had neither visited Kashem’s home nor recorded his statement, seized any documents or examined any witnesses. The defence further questioned the credibility of the witnesses named in connection with the case.

The allegation, the advocate argued, rested on the assertion that Kashem had entered Assam from a specified territory after March 25, 1971. Kashem denied this outright, maintaining that he had never come to Assam from East Pakistan or Bangladesh and had been born in the state in 1968.

The defence also addressed discrepancies in the spelling of names across official records. Kashem appeared as Kasem Ali or Kashem Ali, while his father’s name was variously recorded as Nojumuddin, Nasimuddin, Najim Uddin Sheikh and Nojim Uddin Sheikh. The legal team argued that these variations were clerical inconsistencies and did not establish that the records referred to different individuals.

Such discrepancies can create serious difficulties for people whose names are recorded across different government departments, particularly when records are handwritten, translated or entered by officials over several decades. For poor families with limited means to scrutinise or correct official documentation, a spelling variation can become a formidable obstacle in proving identity and family links. The defence maintained that the differences in Kashem’s records had to be assessed in their proper context, alongside the broader documentary evidence, rather than treated as grounds to doubt his citizenship.

Revenue official corroborates land records

Kashem and two other defence witnesses gave evidence before the Tribunal. One of them, Defence Witness No. 2, Subash Medhi, a S.K. of the Manikpur Revenue Circle, proved the Jamabandi produced as Exhibit A after furnishing official documents underlying its issuance. The revenue official’s evidence provided an official basis for the land record relied upon by the defence. It formed part of the wider evidentiary case through which Kashem sought to establish his family’s links to the land and locality.

After considering the evidence and arguments, the Tribunal concluded that Kashem had successfully discharged the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. It held that the opposite party was not a foreigner but a citizen of India. The decision brought relief after years of uncertainty and a prolonged legal battle. It also meant that the allegation of foreign origin could not stand in the face of the evidence accepted by the Tribunal.

A husband declared Indian, a wife still denied her vote

Yet Kashem’s relief is incomplete in the most painful sense: his wife continues to bear the consequences of a separate citizenship-related proceeding. Suraton Khatun’s case had come before a Foreigners Tribunal in 2019, when she was kept in the D-voter category. As a result, she remains unable to vote for ten years, from 2019 to 2029.

Her name appeared alongside Kashem’s in the 1997 electoral roll, and she was again recorded as a voter in the 2008 roll. The family ration card also identifies her as Kashem’s wife. She is the mother of their two sons and has shared the same home and family life through the years in which her husband was forced to defend his citizenship.

Nevertheless, the consequences of the proceedings against her remain in place. Kashem’s successful defence does not, by itself, restore Suraton’s voting rights or resolve her separate case. The contrast is stark. In 2026, a Tribunal recognised Kashem as an Indian citizen after examining the documentary evidence. His wife, whose name appeared in electoral records decades earlier, remains unable to participate in elections until 2029 because of her D-voter status.

For this family, the cost of citizenship proceedings is not measured only in legal expenses or years spent answering an allegation. It is also measured in the democratic rights lost while the proceedings cast a shadow over their lives.

CJP’s intervention brings relief, but the larger questions remain

On October 25, Advocate Dewan Abdur Rahim and CJP State In-charge Nanda Ghosh, representing Team CJP, visited Kashem’s home and handed him a copy of the Tribunal’s judgment. After years of uncertainty, he could finally breathe a sigh of relief. He welcomed the team with tea and expressed his gratitude to CJP for helping him navigate the legal battle.

For Kashem, the judgment is a hard-won victory. For CJP, it is another reminder of the importance of accessible legal assistance for people facing citizenship proceedings, particularly those without the financial means to sustain a prolonged fight on their own.

But his case also raises questions that extend far beyond one family. Why did a case registered in 2004 result in notice being served only in March 2022? What safeguards exist to prevent allegations resting on inadequate investigations from subjecting people to years of uncertainty? How should authorities assess discrepancies in names across decades of public records, particularly when historical documentation is inconsistent? And what happens to those who cannot assemble 18 documents, secure witnesses, pay legal expenses or find an organisation willing to help?

Kashem Ali with his wife outside their home in Assam

Kashem Ali is not a case number. He is a man who pulls a handcart to feed his family, a husband to Suraton, a father to two sons, a brother to Toshiran and the son of parents whose names appear in Assam’s historical records. His case demonstrates how the burden of proving citizenship can fall on ordinary people even when documentary records trace their families to Assam before the 1971 cut-off date. It also shows why legal aid can make the difference between confronting a case alone and having the opportunity to place one’s evidence before a Tribunal.

CJP’s intervention helped Kashem secure relief. But how many others face similar allegations without access to legal assistance, the resources to gather documents or the means to sustain years of proceedings?

And while Kashem can finally put this chapter behind him, Suraton must still wait for the restoration of her democratic rights. Their story is not simply one of a man declared Indian after a long legal battle. It is a reminder of the human cost of citizenship proceedings in Assam, where the right to belong can become a prolonged struggle for people whose lives, families and records are already rooted in the state.

The order may be read below:

Related:

Assam citizens’ forum demands scrapping of SIR, completion of pending NRC process; police block protesters at Guwahati Press Club

CJP helps secure Ajabha Khatun’s release after 772 days in Assam’s Matia detention camp

Floods | Documents | Courts: CJP’s Fight for Citizenship in Assam

Nationality Before Deportation: The Rajubala Das case

Aadhaar, Voter ID and PAN Cannot Prove Citizenship: Calcutta High Court’s Foreigners Order and the burden of belonging

Another CJP Victory: Barpeta Tribunal declares Alam Khan ‘not a foreigner’

The post After 22 years under suspicion, Assam’s Kashem Ali declared Indian by Foreigners Tribunal appeared first on SabrangIndia.