The incidents varied significantly in their immediate triggers. In some cases, police and media reports described clashes between groups following arguments and slogan-shouting; elsewhere, disputes centred on religious imagery, procession routes, sound systems or alleged acts of provocation. Yet a common feature ran through many of the reports: once videos began circulating on social media, competing narratives about who had provoked whom spread rapidly, often well ahead of verified police findings.

• Mumbai: Parel-Chinchpokli turns tense after Eid procession

The most prominent incident in Maharashtra was reported from Mumbai’s Parel-Chinchpokli area on the night of August 26. According to The Indian Express, tension erupted near Laxmi Cottage after two groups clashed following an Eid procession. Police said they suspected that both groups had raised slogans, leading to a verbal altercation. Reports of stone-pelting and the use of mild police force subsequently emerged. The Free Press Journal similarly reported that a scuffle and stone-pelting occurred near Laxmi Cottage during the Eid Milad-un-Nabi procession. It reported allegations that banners were torn and slogans were raised, while videos circulating online showed crowds blocking roads and police attempting to disperse those involved.

The police response was immediate. Mumbai Police Joint Commissioner (Law and Order) Dr Manoj Sharma said senior officers were present and appealed to people not to believe rumours, stating that the situation had returned to normal. Additional police personnel were deployed in Parel, Chinchpokli and surrounding areas, while roads leading towards the area were blocked as a precaution. The Byculla-Lalbaug-Parel Bridge was also shut to vehicular traffic temporarily.

The incident has since generated sharply divergent accounts on social media. One set of claims alleges that Muslim youths were assaulted by Hindutva activists after a dispute over the alleged desecration or disrespect of a flag associated with the procession. Videos circulated online appear to show a physical altercation involving several people. However, subsequent reporting indicates that police were still investigating the precise trigger.

The Times of India reported on August 27 that three people had been booked following the Parel clash, while additional police personnel were deployed to prevent further disturbances. A later report by ABP Majha provided another version of the sequence, reporting that the confrontation occurred during police nakabandi and involved bikers allegedly violating traffic rules. It said the altercation began late on August 26 and continued into the early hours of August 27, with some police personnel also injured and three people booked.

• Bengaluru: Hindutva activists named in FIRs as police investigate competing complaints

A more detailed picture emerged from Bengaluru, where a clash took place in Basavanagudi during an Eid Milad procession. According to The Hindu‘s reporting, tensions flared near Garadi Apartments on KR Road when members of a Hindutva group, including activist Puneeth Kerehalli, allegedly raised slogans as the procession passed. Police intervened, but a youth identified as Murali was subsequently allegedly assaulted with a weapon.

Police later registered multiple FIRs arising from the confrontation. One case, based on a complaint by Abdul Razak Khan, invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to promoting enmity between groups, unlawful assembly, assault and criminal intimidation. Kerehalli, Gopi Gowda and Vinod Nayak were among those arrested in connection with that case.

At the same time, a second FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint by Kerehalli. That case included allegations of attempt to murder and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Three people, namely Kamal Pasha, Abubakar Siddiq and Syed Anas, were arrested in that case, while two juveniles were produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.

A third case was registered by traffic police concerning obstruction of a public road. Police were examining CCTV footage and recording statements as the investigation continued. The Times of India reported that complaints had been filed by both sides following the Basavanagudi confrontation, with police maintaining additional security in the area.

• Rajasthan: Religious imagery triggers dispute in Chittorgarh

In Rajasthan, a separate confrontation was reported during an Eid Milad procession in Bassi town of Chittorgarh district. The Times of India reported that controversy arose over religious images on plastic sheets allegedly thrown into the air from a tempo-mounted setup accompanying the procession. The incident led to protests, and around 200 people from the Hindu community reportedly gathered near the old bus stand, shut shops and recited the Hanuman Chalisa. Police intervened and stopped the throwing of the plastic sheets. Additional forces were deployed and officials negotiated with representatives of the two communities. The procession was subsequently allowed to continue to its destination.

A complaint was later filed and Bassi police registered a case against unidentified persons under Sections 125, 299 and 302 of the BNS, according to The Times of India. Another report by Aaj Tak described the dispute as involving fariya, sheets or objects thrown during the procession, which allegedly contained images of Hindu deities. Hindu organisations objected and sought action from the administration.

• Gwalior: Confrontation over DJ music

Gwalior also witnessed a dispute during Eid Milad celebrations over the playing of DJ music. Reports from Madhya Pradesh said an argument broke out after police attempted to stop the DJ. A report by IBC24 News provided that the confrontation reportedly involved heated exchanges between police personnel and people participating in the procession.

The social-media battle begins almost immediately

The events of August 26 also demonstrate another increasingly familiar feature of communal tension in India: the speed with which isolated incidents become competing communal narratives. Within hours of the Mumbai incident, videos circulated claiming to show Muslims attacking Hindus; other accounts alleged that Hindutva activists had attacked Muslim participants. Neither narrative can safely be adopted merely because a video appears dramatic.

In fact, The Indian Express explicitly cautioned that reports of stone pelting and police use of force had not been independently verified. Meanwhile, as reported by Free Press Journal, Mumbai police publicly appealed to citizens not to believe rumours and said senior officers were monitoring the situation.  This is particularly important in communal incidents because the first version of events can acquire a life of its own. Once a video is captioned as an “attack by Muslims” or an “attack by Hindutva activists”, subsequent users often circulate it without checking its date, location, sequence or context. The result is not merely misinformation. It can itself become an accelerant of violence.

One cannot ignore the pattern of violence as well and hold that the August 26 incidents did not occur in a vacuum. Mumbai had already witnessed tension earlier in the week after eggs were allegedly thrown at a Ganesh idol procession in Mazgaon. Hindustan Times had reported that organisers alleged eggs were hurled at the Ganesh procession, following which tensions escalated and police deployed additional security. The Parel incident occurred only days later, and local accounts cited by Free Press Journal linked the atmosphere to the earlier Mazgaon episode. This is precisely where the responsibility of political actors, religious organisations, police authorities and media platforms becomes critical.

The August 26 incidents also expose a broader challenge for Indian cities entering the peak festival season: equal enforcement of public-order rules. If authorities prohibit provocative slogans, the prohibition must apply regardless of who raises them. If loudspeakers and DJs are regulated, the same standards must apply to every religious procession. If roads are blocked, organisers of every community’s procession must comply with traffic restrictions. If religious symbols are damaged, the police must investigate regardless of whose symbol was targeted. Selective enforcement does more than create resentment. It undermines public confidence in the neutrality of the State and provides fertile ground for competing narratives of victimhood.

Related:

Amnesty Investigation finds unlawful and deadly force against CJP-led protesters in Delhi and Siwan

From the violence of 2024 to the Bakri Eid tensions of 2026, a fact-finding report examines Mira Road’s deepening communal fault lines

Water Cannons Instead of Answers: Bihar’s recruitment crisis and the state’s crackdown on protest

Address Discrimination & Hate Crimes India told: CERD, UN

A people on the brink: The fight to protect the Shompen of Great Nicobar   

The post Eid Milad 2026: Processions, clashes and the politics of communal provocation across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Shompen of Great Nicobar Island stand out as one of India’s most distinctive and endangered tribal communities. Living deep within the island’s forests, they have traditionally followed a semi‑nomadic life of hunting, gathering and horticulture. Their diet—coconuts, bananas, tubers, fish, wild animals and honey—reflects a sophisticated understanding of the forest ecosystem. Their indigenous methods of storing water in bamboo, their linguistic uniqueness and their customary practices have long fascinated anthropologists and administrators. Yet these very characteristics also make them exceptionally vulnerable to external pressures.

Historically, the Shompen have maintained minimal contact with outsiders, a factor that helped preserve their culture but also left them exposed to new risks as interactions increased. Their population numbers tell a story of extreme demographic fragility. Estimates have fluctuated sharply over the past century: 348 in 1901, 375 in 1911 and 1921, dropping to 200 in 1931, plummeting to 20 in 1951, rising again to 212 in 1981, falling to 135 in 1991 and reaching 229 in 2001. These swings must be interpreted cautiously, given the difficulty of enumerating isolated communities, but they nonetheless reveal how even minor disruptions—disease outbreaks, habitat loss or food scarcity—can have catastrophic consequences for such a small population.

Health remains one of the most serious concerns. Indigenous groups with limited historical exposure to communicable diseases are at heightened risk when contact with outsiders increases. The Andaman Islands have witnessed outbreaks of measles, mumps and tuberculosis among other tribal communities, underscoring the dangers of uncontrolled interaction. For the Shompen, healthcare policy must strike a delicate balance: ensuring access to essential services without exposing them to infectious diseases or creating dependency on external institutions. Preventive, culturally sensitive strategies—surveillance, vaccination where appropriate, nutritional support and emergency response—must be designed with respect for autonomy and minimal intrusion.

The Shompen’s survival is inseparable from the forests of Great Nicobar. Their traditional economy depends on access to wildlife, water sources and forest produce. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956 sought to safeguard indigenous territories by restricting land transfers and outsider access. Yet protected areas can create dilemmas when conservation measures unintentionally limit indigenous communities’ access to resources they have relied on for generations. Protection must therefore prioritize tribal rights rather than impose rigid administrative boundaries. Encroachment, agricultural expansion, commercial extraction and unauthorized entry threaten both the forest ecosystem and the Shompen’s livelihood security.

Contact with outsiders remains one of the most sensitive policy issues. Tourism, settlement and infrastructure development have increased opportunities for interaction, often with harmful consequences. Experiences involving other indigenous groups in the islands reveal how treating tribal communities as tourist attractions can lead to exploitation, cultural disruption and nutritional decline. When traditional food systems are replaced by market commodities, diets may become inadequate or unhealthy. Policy must follow the principle of minimum necessary contact, ensuring that interaction occurs only for essential purposes such as healthcare, protection or administration.

Tourism, in particular, demands strict ethical safeguards. The controversies surrounding the Andaman Trunk Road illustrate how commercial interests can overshadow indigenous rights. The Shompen must never be approached, photographed or displayed for entertainment. Their privacy, dignity and right to determine the nature of contact must take precedence over tourism revenue. Responsible tourism requires prohibiting exploitative encounters and preventing entry into protected tribal territories except under strictly regulated conditions.

Education presents another complex challenge. The Shompen possess their own language, ecological knowledge and cultural practices. Conventional schooling, if imposed without sensitivity, may erode indigenous knowledge and produce limited outcomes. Experiences from Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh show that educational programmes become more effective when they incorporate local languages and traditional learning systems. For the Shompen, flexible, community‑based approaches—introduced only with their consent—may be more appropriate than mass‑schooling models.

Government policy in the islands has evolved from colonial settlement and penal administration to post‑independence efforts aimed at protecting tribal communities. The 1956 Regulation established a legal framework for safeguarding indigenous territories, and subsequent measures strengthened restrictions on unauthorized access, tourism and photography. Research institutions have contributed to documenting tribal societies and informing policy. Yet legislation alone cannot ensure protection; effective implementation, monitoring and coordination are essential.

The Shompen require a policy approach tailored to their unique circumstances. Their territorial rights must be protected from encroachment. Contact with outsiders should be strictly regulated. Healthcare interventions must prioritize disease prevention and nutritional security. Cultural preservation—including documentation of language and traditional knowledge—should be undertaken only with community consent. Traditional food systems and livelihoods must be strengthened rather than replaced. Tourism must never compromise their dignity. Governance should respect their choices and customary institutions. Data collection must be careful, ethical and non‑intrusive.

The way forward lies in protecting the Shompen’s relationship with their environment. Their traditional practices—hunting, gathering and horticulture—are finely adapted to Great Nicobar’s ecology. Development interventions must avoid disrupting this balance. Infrastructure and economic projects in the Nicobar Islands must be planned with sensitivity to ecological and tribal concerns. The goal is not assimilation into mainstream society, nor romanticized isolation that denies essential services. The appropriate path lies between these extremes: protection without exploitation, assistance without dependency, development without displacement and contact without coercion.

The Shompen’s future depends on decisions made today. Their small population, isolation and dependence on natural resources make them acutely vulnerable. The history of tribal administration in the islands shows that even well‑intentioned interventions can produce unintended harm when indigenous autonomy and ecological realities are ignored. Policy must therefore place the Shompen’s life, land, health, culture and dignity at its centre. Their survival should not be measured by integration into mainstream society, but by their ability to retain identity, knowledge, territorial security and dignity while receiving essential protection when needed.

*Associate Professor (Retd.), National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD)

Courtesy: CounterView

The post A people on the brink: The fight to protect the Shompen of Great Nicobar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pradip Prabhu, Pradipbhau to many, particularly villagers among whom he worked, breathed his last on August 25 at the age of 78. He studied at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in his early years (later he also taught here and contributed in many ways to this prestigious institute). However he found his true calling when he played a leading role in the setting up of the Kashtkari Sangathan (translated as organization of those who toil) in Dahanu (Maharashtra) in 1978. Here he was involved in many struggles against exploitation and injustices, which ultimately helped to bring many-sided benefits to marginal and small farmers as well as landless workers, mainly of Adivasi (indigenous, tribal) communities.

It was in the course of these struggles that Pradip developed the deeper understanding and perspective which helped him later to contribute in important ways to national level legislations for strengthening the rights of tribal communities in the form of Forest Rights Act and PESA or Panchayats (Exension to Scheduled Areas) Act.

At various stages of his life Pradip Prabhu was closely associated with several prestigious academic and training institutes including, apart from TISS, the National Institute of Rural Development and the Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy. Apart from his continuing work in the the Kashtkari Sangathan, he contributed in important ways to several other social movements including the Bharat Jan Andolan, Shoshit Jan Andolan, Campaign for Survival and Dignity and Barefoot Academy of Governance.  In fact it is in the course of the meetings of Bharat Jan Andolan that I first met him. Dr. B.D.Sharma, former Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Tribes in the Government of India, had after his retirement mobilized this social movement with the help of social activists in several parts of the country and one of the main demands that emerged in the course of this mobilization was in the form of extending decentralization of governance to tribal communities in a stronger form. Dr. Sharma found in Pradip Prabhu a very important friend and firm supporter to take this forward.

While rural decentralization in the form of Panchayati Raj was sought to be improved significantly in 1993, one criticism was that even the new law had not adequately strengthened the wider rural community as more powers were vested in the few elected representatives rather than in the community. However as this law did not apply to scheduled areas and there was provision of enacting different legislation for scheduled areas where most of the tribal communities live, there was still an opportunity for empowering entire tribal communities.

At this juncture an important role was played by Bharat Jan Andolan and its convener Dr. B.D.Sharma. This movement and Dr. B.D. Sharma along with friends like Pradip Prabhu played an important role in advancing the cause of a different decentralization law for scheduled areas which would strengthen tribal communities.

In the middle of a continuing campaign for this a committee under the Chairmanship of Dilip Singh Bhuria, Member of Parliament, consisting of several MPs and experts, was appointed for suggesting a suitable frame of decentralization legislation for scheduled areas. This committee submitted its report in January 1996.

However when there was no suitable follow-up action after this, representatives of Adivasi (indigenous, tribal) communities from various parts of the country went on a fast at Rajghat in Delhi. Both Dr. Sharma and Pradeep joined this fast. Members of various political parties came to extend their support and finally a consensus could emerge on new and different decentralization legislation for scheduled areas which would go a long way in strengthening the tribal communities.

On December 24, 1996 the Parliament finally passed the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 which is popularly known as PESA legislation. This legislation which applies only to scheduled areas (having a significant tribal population) firmly establishes the Gram Sabha as the most basic unit of Panchayati Raj in these areas. Section 4(d) of this Act says, “Every Gram Sabha shall be competent to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of the people, their cultural identity, community resources and the customary mode of dispute resolution.”

Section 4(e) says every Gram Sabha shall approve the plans, programs and projects for social and economic development before such plans, programs and projects are taken up for implementation by the panchayat at the village level. Section 4(f) states that “Every panchayat at the village-level shall be required to obtain from the Gram Sabha a certification of utilization of funds by that panchayat for the plans, programs and projects referred to in clause (e).”

Other clauses give the Gram Sabha important rights before any village land can be acquired for various projects or before any village land can be auctioned for its minor minerals. Similarly the Gram Sabha has been given significant power regarding minor forest produce, preventing alienation of land and restricting the sale of liquor.

Thus it is clear that the Adivasi (indigenous, tribal) communities in the form of Gram Sabhas in scheduled areas have been empowered in very significant ways under by the PESA law. While this has been widely appreciated by several people, this has also evoked a good deal of opposition by powerful interests. Hence there have been several obstacles in the implementation of this legislation and taking this forward in the right spirit for empowering tribal communities in a big way has been a big challenge.

The absence of Pradip Prabhu will be deeply felt whenever such challenges are being faced. He is survived by his wife Shiraz Bulsara who is a very highly regarded activist and scholar in her own right. Pradip’s memory will be cherished, apart from family members and close friends, by a very large number of people who stand for justice, by his numerous students and fellow-activists and by the people among whom he worked with continuity for many decades.

(The author is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now)

Related:

20 Adivasi activists accused of sedition in Jharkhand

Chhattisgarh: Adivasi rights activists condemn large scale tree-felling in Hasdeo, question the state’s first Adivasi CM

Arrest of activist of Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sanghatan condemned

The post Pradip Prabhu, who brought hope to the oppressed, is no more appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to KPSS, a communication dated August 23 and attributed to an outfit calling itself the United Liberation Council (ULC) has surfaced on social media. The communication reportedly carries the names and personal details of Kashmiri Pandit employees. The organisation says security agencies are examining its authenticity and origin, while reports have described the ULC as a suspected Lashkar-e-Taiba-linked proxy. KPSS stresses that irrespective of the eventual findings of the investigation, the circulation of a communication containing identifiable personal information is serious enough to warrant an immediate, transparent and credible security response.

The distinction is important. The press release does not present the authenticity of the threat as an established fact; rather, it calls for the authorities to investigate precisely that question. What KPSS argues is that the potential danger cannot be measured merely by whether the communication is ultimately proven genuine. The very fact that personal details of individuals are allegedly being circulated in a threatening context raises questions about how the information was obtained, who prepared and disseminated the material, and whether any local network or facilitation was involved.

SabrangIndia’s detailed reports featuring conversations with Sanjay Tickoo, president of the Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti, on the two threatening letters can be read here, here and here.

A new medium for an old language of fear

For KPSS, the significance of the episode lies not only in the contents of the alleged threat but in the history it evokes. The organisation draws a direct parallel with the forms of intimidation experienced by Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s. Threats that once travelled through walls, posters, mosque loudspeakers and whispered warnings can now circulate through social media, digital platforms and encrypted channels. The technology may have changed, but, KPSS argues, the psychological objective remains disturbingly familiar: creating the perception that a Kashmiri Pandit’s birthplace is conditional, his property negotiable, his presence temporary and his safety dependent upon the permission of others.

That history makes the present threat particularly significant for those who have attempted to return to or continue living in the Valley. KPSS argues that a Kashmiri Pandit does not become an outsider because extraordinary circumstances forced him or her to leave an ancestral home. Nor does the passage of decades erase ancestral belonging. The organisation frames the right to remember one’s home, return to it and live there without fear as questions of belonging and security rather than matters for which the community should have to seek permission or sympathy.

‘Brotherhood’ cannot replace protection

The press release also takes issue with recent remarks attributed to BJP General Secretary (Organisation), J&K, Ashok Koul, reportedly made at Tirth Raj Kapal Mochan Nagbal in Shopian while speaking about the return of Kashmiri Pandits and the need for social cohesion. According to KPSS, Koul was reported as saying that “targeted killings won’t stop” while emphasising the need to build brotherhood. KPSS says the statement should not be sensationalised or selectively interpreted, but argues that it nevertheless raises an unavoidable question: what does security mean for a community being encouraged to return if targeted violence is presented as something that may continue?

The organisation’s objection is not to the idea of brotherhood itself. It explicitly recognises social harmony as indispensable. Its argument is that social harmony cannot be treated as a substitute for institutional protection. “Brotherhood” without security, KPSS contends, risks becoming an appeal made to those who are already vulnerable while leaving the structural conditions of that vulnerability untouched. Protection requires functioning security mechanisms, intelligence, accountability and preventive action—not simply assurances following an incident.

The question is therefore not whether Kashmiri Pandits should have faith in their neighbours or in Kashmir’s pluralistic traditions. It is whether institutions can guarantee that such faith does not require them to accept an unacceptable level of risk.

The burden of return

KPSS also highlights what it sees as a contradiction in the political and social discourse surrounding the return of Kashmiri Pandits. The community’s return has frequently been described as essential to restoring Kashmir’s pluralistic character. Yet, the organisation argues, returning Pandits are repeatedly asked to adjust to the prevailing situation; concerns over security are met with assurances that conditions are improving; questions over ancestral property are directed towards the future; and when threats emerge again, those same individuals are expected to display patience and faith.

This leads to the central question posed by the press release: How many times must the victim prove his commitment to Kashmir before Kashmir proves its commitment to him?

For KPSS, the answer cannot be another appeal to resilience. Returning home should not require extraordinary courage. It should be an ordinary exercise of citizenship.

Avoiding collective blame—but not collective denial

The press release is also careful to distinguish between militant violence and the wider Kashmiri population. KPSS states that the majority community should not be collectively held responsible for crimes committed by militants, and that the actions of a few should not be indiscriminately attributed to an entire society. At the same time, however, it argues that society must be willing to examine the environment in which intimidation can emerge, personal information can circulate and threats can again be directed at a vulnerable minority.

This distinction is central to the organisation’s argument. Rejecting collective blame, it suggests, cannot mean refusing to examine the social and institutional conditions that allow threats to emerge or circulate.

The real test of security, KPSS argues, is not the response after violence has occurred but whether warning signs are recognised before they become violence. A society’s commitment to its minority communities cannot be measured only by the solidarity expressed after a killing; it must also be measured by whether people can live, work, worship, own property and return to their homes without having to first become victims for their humanity to be acknowledged.

What investigators must establish

The organisation’s most concrete demand is for scrutiny of the threat itself. Rather than reducing the episode to the question of whether a poster or digital communication is authentic, KPSS asks authorities to establish who prepared it, who circulated it, how the personal details were obtained, whether it represents a genuine operational threat, and whether there was any local facilitation or network involved in its preparation or dissemination.

These questions have a significance beyond this particular incident. If personal information belonging to vulnerable employees has been obtained and circulated in a threatening communication, determining the source and pathway of that information is essential to assessing the seriousness of the threat and preventing further targeting. KPSS consequently characterises these not as political questions but as security questions requiring credible answers.

Return must mean more than physical presence

The final portion of the press release turns from the immediate threat to the larger question of what a meaningful return of Kashmiri Pandits would actually entail. KPSS argues that genuine brotherhood must manifest itself through protection, institutional accountability, social vigilance and an unequivocal rejection of intimidation. It says Kashmiri Pandits do not need ceremonial expressions of solidarity but confidence that their lives will be protected before violence occurs. They also need safeguards for ancestral property and institutions capable of identifying threats before they become fatal.

The organisation’s broader concern is that Kashmir cannot convincingly claim to have moved beyond the past if threats against Kashmiri Pandits continue to reproduce the same underlying fear, even through different mediums and under different circumstances. The question, as KPSS frames it, is stark: will Kashmiri Pandits be able to return and live as equal citizens, or will every return continue to carry the warning that their presence is temporary and their safety uncertain?

Its demands are consequently straightforward: threats must be investigated, security must be guaranteed, personal information must be protected, ancestral property rights must be safeguarded, and the right to return must be treated as a matter of security and justice rather than courage and chance.

The complete press release may be read below:

Related:

‘Wherever You Go, We are watching’: Second threat letter to Kashmiri Pandits

How Can Rehabilitation Work If We Are Not Safe?’ Sanjay Tickoo on the fresh threat to Kashmiri Pandit employees

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

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

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

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

A Kashmiri Pandit fact-checks The Kashmir Files

10 reasons why Kashmiri Pandits feel betrayed in the Valley

The post KPSS: Kashmiri Pandits need security, not ceremonial brotherhood appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In his letter dated August 25, 2026, Shivakumar said the SIR exercise had thrown up figures that required “serious attention”. According to the letter, Karnataka has 5.54 crore electors, of whom nearly 1.08 crore have been placed in the category of Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate and Others (ASDDO).

The Chief Minister further pointed to the situation after publication of the draft electoral roll on August 24. He said verification notices were expected to be issued to roughly 43.8 lakh electors over “logical discrepancies” or absence of a link to the 2002 electoral roll.

In Bengaluru alone, according to the letter, 46.88 lakh electors have been placed under the ASDDO category. Shivakumar said the combined figures translated into about 1.5 crore voters in Karnataka facing possible deletion unless they submit claims for continuation or fresh inclusion.

Concern over voters marked absent or shifted

The Chief Minister said a significant number of voters categorised as “Absent” could be genuine electors who were unable to submit their enumeration forms because they were away from home when Booth Level Officers (BLOs) visited.

He cited work, health and other legitimate reasons as possible circumstances that could have prevented electors from being present during the verification exercise.

Shivakumar also raised concerns regarding voters who had shifted residence. According to him, electors who moved to a different polling station were not given an opportunity to submit enumeration forms at their new residence during the BLOs’ house-to-house visits.

Their names, he said, were consequently deleted from the electoral roll at their previous addresses.

Urban mobility could affect polling-station mapping

The letter specifically highlighted the implications of movement within cities. In Bengaluru and other urban areas, Shivakumar said even moving across the street could result in a change of polling station.

He argued that this could leave lakhs of genuine voters facing disenfranchisement under the “Absent” and “Shifted” categories and require them to file Form 6 for inclusion.

He also pointed to another category of voters who may not receive notices because notices are being sent only to electors identified under “logical discrepancy” and “unmapped” categories.

Such voters, the Chief Minister said, may not even be aware that their names have been deleted from the electoral roll.

‘Mobility should not translate into disenfranchisement’

Shivakumar said the issue was particularly significant in a society where individuals and families routinely move between neighbourhoods, cities, towns and villages for employment, marriage and other reasons.

“Mobility should not translate into disenfranchisement,” he said in the letter.

He also stressed the potential impact on poorer and marginalised citizens, who may move frequently and may not readily possess or have access to documents required to establish their eligibility.

The Chief Minister said the SIR exercise should protect the voting rights of every eligible citizen while maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the electoral roll.

ECI has dual responsibility, says Shivakumar

The Karnataka Chief Minister said the Election Commission has a dual responsibility: preparing accurate electoral rolls while ensuring that no genuine and eligible voter is excluded.

According to Shivakumar, these objectives were not inherently conflicting and could both be achieved if adequate time and proper procedures were provided.

On this basis, he urged the ECI to consider four specific measures during the ongoing revision.

Demand to extend claims and objections period

The first request was for an extension of the claims and objections period.

Shivakumar said the period should be sufficiently long to enable genuine electors whose names were absent from the draft roll, including those placed in the ASDDO category, to ascertain their status and file claims through Form 6.

He referred to Paragraph 11.3.1 of the 2023 Manual, stating that it permits the Election Commission to extend the prescribed period by notification.

The Chief Minister also pointed out that there was no election due in Karnataka in the near future and argued that an extension was therefore “eminently feasible”.

Ward Committees and Gram Sabhas should be convened

The second request concerned implementation of the prescribed verification procedure.

Shivakumar asked that the Chief Electoral Officer specifically direct District Election Officers to convene Ward Committee meetings in urban areas and Gram Sabhas in rural areas, with adequate advance publicity.

At these meetings, he said, the draft roll should be read out and omissions and errors identified.

He referred to Paragraph 11.2.4(vi) of the 2023 Manual in this regard.

The Chief Minister noted that the CEO’s demarche, or letter, dated August 20, 2026, referred to the relevant provision but did not specifically direct that such meetings be convened.

According to Shivakumar, merely referring to the provision could result in “pro forma compliance” rather than creating an effective mechanism for identifying and correcting errors.

Three to four weeks sought for voters facing verification

The third demand related to the time available to voters facing verification over logical discrepancies or the absence of a link to the 2002 electoral roll.

Shivakumar described the proposed period of roughly 45 days for issuing notices and disposing of such cases as highly compressed. He said giving an elector approximately one week to respond, followed by a second notice, could place an unreasonable burden on working people, migrants and elderly citizens. The problem, he said, could become more difficult where voters are required to obtain documents or travel in order to respond to the verification process.

The Chief Minister therefore requested that each elector be given a minimum of three to four weeks to respond and furnish the necessary documents. He said this would ensure a meaningful opportunity for electors to establish their eligibility before any adverse decision was taken.

More Additional EROs and DEOs sought

The fourth request concerned the administrative machinery responsible for processing claims, objections and applications.

Shivakumar acknowledged that the ECI had appointed Additional Electoral Registration Officers (Additional EROs) to deal with the large volume of objections and applications expected to come for inclusion. However, he said the additional manpower would remain inadequate given the enormous workload and limited time available. He warned that unrealistic deadlines combined with insufficient manpower could result in avoidable errors and unfair exclusions.

The Chief Minister consequently asked the ECI to consider appointing Additional District Election Officers (Additional DEOs) in districts recording high numbers of ASDDO cases and logical discrepancies.

Karnataka offers administrative and logistical support

The Karnataka government, Shivakumar said, was ready to provide all possible assistance to the Election Commission.

This would include mobilising the local administration for Gram Sabha and Ward Committee meetings, undertaking widespread publicity to reach affected voters, and providing any other coordination or logistical support required by the Commission.

The offer comes against the backdrop of the large number of electors identified for further verification and the corresponding requirement for voters to understand their status and exercise their opportunity to file claims.

CM seeks roll that voters can trust

Concluding his letter, Shivakumar said the objective should be an electoral roll that the people of Karnataka can trust.

He said such a roll should ensure that every eligible citizen is included, every ineligible entry is removed, and no citizen is deprived of the franchise merely because of inadequate time, information or an opportunity to establish eligibility.

The letter was addressed to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at the Election Commission of India in New Delhi.

The Chief Minister’s intervention therefore centres on four issues: extending the claims and objections period, enforcing the prescribed local verification process, giving affected electors substantially more time to respond, and strengthening the manpower available to process the large volume of cases generated by the SIR exercise.

The Letter forwarded to ECI dated 25.08.2026 can be read here

Related:

ECI revises Maharashtra SIR schedule, final voter list to be published on November 4

Maharashtra SIR: 2.08 crore (20.8 million) voter forms “uncollected” hence may not be listed in August 24 draft electoral roll

SIR 2025-26: Dismantling the very Idea of India?

21 Opposition parties to CJI: SIR process is irregular and illegal, must be suspended

SIR and the Making of a Stateless Citizen? | R. Rajagopal Speaks Out | Teesta Setalvad

The post Karnataka CM urges ECI to extend SIR claims period, ensure due process amid possible 1.5 crore deletions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sonya was both feminist and communist, committed to working class and agrarian rights as much as gender consciousness within. She was secretary of the Maharashtra All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), known to all as Janwadi Mahila Sanghatana in Maharashtra and in the state party. Together with fellow women activists also committed to the laal bauta (red flag) she would learn about and organise women from the BDD Chawls Worli and Delisle Road, also in central Mumbai. As fellow AIDWA leader Mariam Dhawale recalled, when she took charge as AIDWA secretary in Maharashtra, she overcame the language barrier and took the organisation forward in the state.

Less than a week ago, Sonya and Sainath were in Hyderabad to celebrate his elder sister’s 75th birthday. That sister-in-law was bereft today as she travelled from afar to bid her farewell. She recalled to me what her mother, Sonya’s ma-in-law, would often say to Sainath, admiring the couple’s work, “You – you do all the writing, but Sonya does all the work!”

One moment she was there and the next moment she is gone, Sainath said to me, lips trembling as sobs took over, while the now familiar CPI(M) party tribute and farewells were paid this afternoon at the Janshakti office in central Mumbai. Fellow women activists from the Janwadi Mahila Sanghatana, AIDWA, Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) Mumbai and national CPI(M) members, as also writers, civil liberties activists from fraternal organisations paid tribute. Comrade Sonya Gill ko Laal Salam, Comrade Sonya Gill Amar Rahe, were the slogans that burst forth accompanied by the raised arm and fist!

Never before have I witnessed this man of suave turn of phrase, depth of thought and perspective so bereft, at a loss, shaking his head in utter disbelief at the loss of a forty-year steely companionship. Forty years, Sainath said to me, forty years we were together, how do I even think of how I will cope?

Not a week passed that she did not visit either the Worli or Azad Maidan offices of the party, constantly at work, rebuilding a vision of left mass organisations and politics, he said.

This party, the people stand by you through thick and thin, he said, still in disbelief. Last evening, after her sudden demise, Sainath had, apart from his Sonya now gone, Sugandhi Francis, a 38-year old saathee from Janwadi, a fellow working class organiser, Shailendra Kamble, Mumbai president of the party, CITU’s Dr Vivek Monteiro, all by his side while the formalities were completed. Today, comrade S.K. Rege and Mariam Dhawale, national vice president of AIDWA were also present.

Sugandhi, wife and partner of Dr Monteiro is heartbroken. They were, for many of Mumbai activists, a duo seen everywhere, their close cameraderie of 38 years, one an academic trained at the famed Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), the other a foot soldier of the party from the working class. Sugandhi recalls the ease with which Sonya related and reflected with all. Sugandhi was self-effacing about her own natural ease and charm with people and within the organisation.

The first post on social media that I read, bringing this loss to us all, was from the revered People’s Archive of Rural India (PARI) network, of which Sainath was founder and Sonya the cofounder and trustee. Among the first of many to deepen notions of reportage and journalism, PARI has grown to be a formidable voice over the past decades.

People’s Democracy, the CPI(M)’s weekly organ, the Janwadi’s booklets and pamphlets, all had writings by Sonya Gill, be it on public health, right to an equitous public distribution system or communal harmony. They can still be read online.

But it is the training workshops conducted by the mass women’s organisation of the party, where activists were trained, where Sonya Gill with other women comrades regaled new recruits with historical accounts of valour by women comrades – the February 1946 shooting to death of veteran communist comrade Kamal Donde during the Royal Indian Navy (RIN) uprising at the Parel junction in Mumbai, while Ahilyatai Rangnekar and Kusum Ranadive also faced the bullets – that are remembered with awe.

Sonya Gill’s own quiet revolutionary journey will and must be treasured, by comrade husband Sainath, family, women saathees and party as it undoubtedly will. Adieu and Lal Salaam, Sonya.

Teesta Setalvad is co-editor of Sabrang India and secretary of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP).

Courtesy: The Wire

The post Farewell, Sonya Gill, Feminist, Communist, Meticulous Organiser – Lal Salaam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

But to reduce the events to a story of “students versus police” would obscure the larger crisis. The agitation is rooted in a much deeper and longstanding grievance over recruitment delays, examination irregularities, alleged paper leaks, the changing format of competitive examinations and a lack of confidence in the State’s recruitment machinery.

The violence on August 25 is therefore not an isolated law-and-order episode. It is the latest flashpoint in a protest movement that has been building for weeks — and one that has also produced disturbing allegations of excessive and abusive use of State power.

A protest over jobs, examinations and a system students no longer trust

Students have been holding a sit-in at Patna’s Gardanibagh since August 18. More than a dozen student and youth organisations have joined the agitation, with demands extending across the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC), Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC), teacher recruitment and other government examinations.

At the centre of the immediate dispute is the fourth Teacher Recruitment Examination, or TRE-4. Students want the examination to be conducted in a single stage rather than the proposed preliminary-and-main format. They are also demanding the removal of negative marking, greater transparency in recruitment examinations and 100% domicile-based recruitment in government jobs and teacher appointments.

The scale of the recruitment opportunity is significant. The BPSC announced that TRE-4 would cover 32,388 teaching posts. According to The Indian Express, the proposed examination is expected to be held in December 2026 or January 2027, with applications scheduled from September 1 to September 30.  Students have also demanded cancellation of the 70th BPSC examination over alleged irregularities and a paper leak. The BPSC has rejected these allegations, saying that material circulated online was fake. It has also denied allegations of discrimination against Hindi-medium candidates..

Protester Vikas Bhatt, speaking to the media, pointed to the long delays in recruitment for posts such as librarians and the absence of regular examination calendars for several recruitment bodies. The New Indian Express reported his allegation that some recruitment processes announced through the BSSC had remained pending for years. The question confronting the Bihar government is consequently not merely whether students are willing to accept its assurances. It is whether the State has given them sufficient reason to trust those assurances.

The August 25 confrontation

On August 25, more than 1,500 students backed by 17 student organisations marched from the JP Roundabout near Gandhi Maidan under a call to “gherao” the Chief Minister’s residence, according to The Indian Express.  Police had erected barricades at Dak Bungalow Chowk to prevent the protesters from proceeding further. Students pushed through the barricades, leading to a confrontation with the police. The State responded with water cannons and a lathi-charge. Several students were detained. Two police personnel were also injured in the confrontation, according to The Telegraph, which reported that around 25 students were detained and later released without formal charges.

Other reports said students threw stones and that a police officer and a woman constable were injured. The violence cannot be ignored or excused: protesters who attack police personnel or damage public property must be held accountable through lawful procedures. But that does not settle the question of the State’s response.

A democratic government does not acquire unlimited authority merely because a protest becomes disorderly. The use of force must remain lawful, necessary and proportionate. The existence of barricades and a restricted area cannot by itself transform every protesting student into a threat requiring a coercive response.

The images from Patna — students facing lines of police personnel and water cannons — are particularly stark because the protesters were not demanding an overthrow of the constitutional order. They were demanding jobs, recruitment dates, examination reforms and accountability.

When the language of the State becomes dismissive

The confrontation was preceded by another controversy that exposed the widening distance between the administration and the protesters. BPSC Examination Controller Rajesh Kumar Singh, while responding to questions about the agitation, quoted the Hindi proverb: “Haathi chale bazaar, kutta bhaunke hazaar.” Protesters interpreted the remark as comparing them to barking dogs.

Singh subsequently expressed regret and said the statement had been taken out of context. But the Bihar government went further and suspended him following the controversy, according to The New Indian Express.  The suspension is significant. An official responsible for an examination system under intense public scrutiny cannot afford to speak about protesting candidates in language that can reasonably be understood as contemptuous or humiliating. Even if the proverb was not intended literally, the choice of language was extraordinarily insensitive given the circumstances. There is an important democratic principle here: the State must not dehumanise the citizen before it attempts to manage the protest. The students are not an inconvenience to be ignored until the barricades have to be erected. They are citizens raising grievances against institutions that exercise enormous power over their futures.

A much darker story lies behind the August protests

The allegations surrounding police conduct in Bihar go beyond what happened on August 25. A public hearing convened by the Bihar unit of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) on August 22 documented testimonies concerning police action during protests between July 21 and July 27.

According to the account published by Counterview, the hearing recorded 19 direct testimonies and allegations spanning physical assault, illegal detention, custodial torture, raids on homes, sexual violence against women protesters and other forms of intimidation. The allegations were made by protesters and activists and should be independently investigated rather than treated as established judicial findings.  The allegations are deeply disturbing. PUCL’s public hearing reportedly documented claims of targeted lathi-charges, police firing, the use of firearms, custodial abuse and violations during arrests and detention. Some testimonies also alleged that women were subjected to misogynistic abuse and physical assault.

There were also allegations concerning raids on homes. According to the report of the hearing, families claimed that police entered residences at night, assaulted residents, damaged property and subjected women to degrading treatment.

These are not allegations that a democratic government can simply dismiss as the inevitable excesses of policing. If even a fraction of these claims is true, the matter goes far beyond “crowd control”. It becomes a question of systemic abuse of police power. The PUCL hearing also raised allegations of discriminatory treatment of Muslims, Scheduled Caste persons, women and activists associated with CPI(ML), as well as allegations involving minors being detained without being produced before the appropriate authorities within legally prescribed timelines. These claims require independent verification and, if substantiated, prosecution and institutional accountability.

Even lawyers allegedly became targets

Perhaps the most alarming allegations concern those attempting to provide legal assistance to protesters. According to the PUCL public hearing account, two PUCL lawyer-members who were providing pro bono assistance to detained protesters were themselves allegedly confined and booked on charges that included liquor consumption and obstructing police duties. They were reportedly handcuffed and paraded in public.

If independently established, such conduct would strike at the heart of the right to legal representation and the functioning of the criminal justice system. Lawyers representing arrested protesters cannot be treated as extensions of the protest movement merely because they are providing legal assistance. A State that intimidates legal aid provider’s risk transforming access to justice itself into a casualty of protest policing.

PUCL has consequently demanded an independent investigation into police action between July 21 and July 27, including allegations of illegal detention, custodial torture, use of firearms and the alleged targeting of its lawyer-members. It has also sought withdrawal of 64 FIRs filed against protesting students and compensation for those injured in firing in Siwan. These demands should not be dismissed as political rhetoric. They warrant an impartial investigation capable of establishing what actually happened.

Detailed report may be read here.

The State cannot answer institutional failure with police power

The central contradiction in Bihar is difficult to miss. The students are protesting because they believe recruitment processes are unreliable. The government’s response has been to insist that their concerns have been addressed while simultaneously deploying a large police presence to prevent them from marching.

On August 25, the government announced the launch of Vidyarthi Sahyog Shivir, student support camps to be held on the fourth Tuesday of every month, along with an online grievance portal and helpline 1100. The stated purpose is to allow students to place their grievances directly before government officials.  Dialogue is welcome. But a grievance mechanism cannot become a substitute for substantive accountability.

Related:

Maharashtra: After backlash, govt. moves to withdraw FIRs against student protesters but questions remain

Youth Uprising: A protest, a brute crackdown, a continuing countrywide response

Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

Brute Police Action: Mumbai’s crackdown on protestors in solidarity with CJP & Student Groups, AISF, SFI & AISA

The post Water Cannons Instead of Answers: Bihar’s recruitment crisis and the state’s crackdown on protest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The investigation, released on August 26, draws on witness testimony as well as video and photographic material examined and verified by Amnesty International’s Evidence Lab. According to the organisation, its findings show the use of pellet-firing shotguns, tear gas launchers and grenades, batons, electric shock devices and firearms against protesters between July 20 and July 24 in Delhi and Siwan, Bihar. Amnesty says the manner in which these weapons were deployed breached international human rights standards as well as domestic policing guidelines.

The findings directly challenge the Delhi Police’s public account of the crackdown. Delhi Police had denied allegations of disproportionate force and described its handling of the protest as “professional”, including before the Supreme Court. Amnesty, however, says the evidence it verified contradicts that version of events.

For Amnesty International India Chair Aakar Patel, the episode represents something more serious than a conventional crowd-control operation. He described the authorities’ response as beginning with restrictions on communication, movement and assembly before escalating into what he called unnecessary or excessive force against peaceful protesters, including children. The organisation has characterised the response as “state-sanctioned violence masked as crowd control” and has pointed to the absence of accountability a month later as evidence of continuing impunity.

Evidence of pellet firing

One of the most serious findings concerns the use of shotguns capable of firing pellet ammunition. Amnesty’s Evidence Lab verified 17 videos filmed in central Delhi on July 20, covering areas around Jantar Mantar, Sansad Marg and Connaught Place, as well as two videos from Siwan in Bihar recorded on July 24. The Delhi footage was found to show personnel belonging to the Delhi Police, Rapid Action Force (RAF) and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).

Two videos verified by Amnesty show an RAF officer firing a shotgun into a crowd at the Connaught Place–Sansad Marg intersection. Two other verified videos show protesters near the same location with injuries consistent with birdshot wounds. Amnesty also verified CCTV footage showing two RAF officers carrying shotguns elsewhere in the area.

The significance of the finding lies in the nature of the ammunition. Birdshot consists of multiple small metal pellets and is inherently inaccurate, Amnesty says, creating a serious risk not only to the intended target but also to bystanders. The organisation states that birdshot has been associated with deaths and blindness in other contexts and argues that it has no legitimate place in law enforcement.

A protester interviewed by Amnesty described being struck from behind while attempting to flee. According to the testimony, the individual sustained approximately 25 to 30 pellet wounds and required hospital treatment. The protester said doctors confirmed that the injuries were caused by pellets and that the incident had left extensive scarring.

The alleged absence of a warning is also significant. India’s Bureau for Police Research and Development guidelines recommend that security forces warn protesters before deploying less-lethal or lethal force. International standards similarly require law-enforcement agencies to exhaust non-violent means wherever possible and issue a clear warning before resorting to force when circumstances permit. Amnesty says the protester it interviewed reported receiving no warning before the pellet firing.

The allegations had previously been rejected by Delhi Police, which described reports of pellet injuries as “Fake News” and called them “completely false and misleading”. The police also warned that legal action could be taken against those allegedly spreading rumours.

However, the Amnesty investigation comes alongside other reporting cited in the organisation’s findings. The Hindu reported that an RAF unit fired two ballistic cartridges loaded with plastic pellets on the evening of July 20 on the orders of a Deputy Commissioner of Police. An internal CRPF inquiry reportedly found that RAF personnel had fired at least seven rounds containing metal pellets. An RTI response cited by The Hindu indicated that at least ten people were injured by pellets during the protests.

Tear gas used against protesters

Amnesty’s investigation also raises concerns about how tear gas was deployed. One verified video shows a tear gas grenade landing close to a group of protesters and exploding with a heavy blast. Amnesty says another verified sequence showed the grenade exploding immediately after landing near protesters, with one person attempting to escape before being thrown to the ground.

Eyewitnesses told Amnesty that tear gas grenades were fired directly towards protesters rather than being launched at an angle above their heads. The organisation says this is inconsistent with UN guidance on less-lethal weapons. More fundamentally, Amnesty argues that the use of tear gas should be restricted to situations involving widespread and serious violence. While acknowledging that there were isolated incidents of protesters throwing stones, it says the available evidence does not indicate violence on a scale that would meet that threshold.

This distinction is crucial. Crowd-control powers are not unlimited simply because a protest becomes difficult to manage. The question is whether the force used is necessary and proportionate to the threat actually posed. Amnesty’s findings suggest that, in several instances, the authorities crossed that line.

Lathis, including against peaceful protesters

The investigation further documents what Amnesty describes as frequent misuse of long, flexible batons, or lathis. The organisation verified eight videos showing Delhi Police and RAF personnel striking protesters, including a young boy who, according to Amnesty, offered no provocation or resistance. In some instances, officers allegedly struck people indiscriminately across different parts of their bodies. One verified video shows a man who had been knocked to the ground being repeatedly struck while he was unable to move or pose an apparent threat.

Amnesty notes that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has described such long flexible batons as inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading because they can deliver greater kinetic force than conventional batons, increasing the risk of serious injury. The investigation also identifies another accountability concern: the presence of plain-clothes men participating in beatings.

In at least two verified videos, men in plain clothes—including some wearing black helmets marked “Delhi Police”—are seen beating protesters with lathis. Uniformed officers appear to escort them towards the crowd but do not intervene, according to Amnesty. The organisation also points to the apparent absence of visible identification such as name tags or badge numbers, which it says violates the principle that law-enforcement officials must be identifiable during encounters involving the use of force.

Electric shock weapons under scrutiny

Amnesty also verified a video showing an RAF officer using an electric shock baton against a peaceful protester. The organisation argues that direct-contact electric shock devices cause severe pain without necessarily incapacitating a person and that there are less harmful alternatives available to law enforcement. Amnesty, together with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, has called for their complete prohibition because of the risks of severe suffering, psychological harm, lasting disability and, in cases of prolonged use, death.

The finding therefore adds another layer to the concerns raised by the report: the issue is not simply the quantity of force used, but the choice of weapons and methods deployed against people participating in an assembly.

An assault rifle in Siwan

Perhaps the most alarming footage examined by Amnesty comes not from Delhi but from Siwan, Bihar. Two videos filmed on July 24 and verified by Amnesty show a state police officer firing an AK-type assault rifle towards protesters. Amnesty notes that such firearms are designed to kill and, under international standards governing assemblies, may only be used where there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury to a specific individual and only as an absolute last resort. The organisation says it found no evidence that such a threat existed in the incident examined.

The report says authorities have made no public commitment to investigate or prosecute officers involved in the alleged use of firearms, birdshot, tear gas, lathis and electric shock weapons. Amnesty is calling for a prompt, impartial and effective investigation, with the findings made public. It has specifically demanded an immediate end to the deployment of birdshot ammunition and direct-contact electric shock devices.

The crackdown began before the first baton was raised

The Amnesty investigation also places the use of force within the wider restrictions imposed on the “Chalo Sansad” march. Authorities denied permission for the march, imposed an internet shutdown around the proposed protest areas, prohibited gatherings of more than five people, closed several Delhi Metro stations and erected barricades across central Delhi.

Amnesty argues that these measures themselves raise serious freedom-of-assembly concerns. Under international human rights law, peaceful assemblies are not supposed to depend on prior permission. Where notification requirements exist, their purpose should be to allow authorities to facilitate an assembly rather than provide a mechanism for restricting it. The organisation further argues that the prohibitory orders effectively amounted to a blanket ban on the march and failed the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality. It reaches a similar conclusion regarding the blanket internet shutdown imposed around the protest.

This is an important aspect of Amnesty’s findings. The report does not examine the July 20 violence simply as an isolated confrontation between protesters and police. It places the physical use of force within a broader sequence of restrictions—communication blackouts, movement restrictions, barricading, transport disruption and prohibitory orders—that had already narrowed the space for protest.

More than 400 injured

The scale of the confrontation was substantial. According to Delhi Police, more than 400 people, including police personnel and protesters, were injured. Amnesty also notes that at least three people were injured in Siwan, including a bystander who was shot and sustained a bullet wound to the neck. The report’s findings therefore raise questions extending beyond individual incidents captured on camera. If hundreds were injured during the police response, and if independently verified footage shows the deployment of weapons in circumstances Amnesty considers unlawful, the central question becomes one of institutional accountability: who authorised the force, who carried it out, who monitored it, and who is responsible for investigating it? A month after the events, Amnesty says there has been no public commitment from the authorities to investigate or prosecute officers involved.

Amnesty places the July events against the longer history of pellet-gun use by Indian authorities. The organisation has previously documented extensive injuries, including blindness and deaths, linked to the use of birdshot-loaded shotguns for crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. A committee established by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2016 to consider alternatives recommended restricting the use of such weapons to the “rarest of rare cases”, although it did not recommend a complete prohibition.

In 2018, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights called on India to end the use of pellet-firing shotguns for crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. A petition seeking to decommission the use of pellet-firing shotguns by law-enforcement agencies for policing assemblies was also filed before the Supreme Court in July 2026. The Delhi allegations therefore revive a longstanding question about whether weapons that have caused severe and sometimes permanent injuries in crowd-control situations should be used at all.

From “crowd control” to accountability

The central thrust of Amnesty International’s investigation is ultimately about the limits of state power. The State unquestionably has a responsibility to protect people, maintain public order and respond to violence. But policing a protest does not give authorities an unrestricted licence to use force. International standards require force to be lawful, necessary and proportionate, with lethal force reserved for exceptional circumstances involving an imminent threat to life or serious injury.

Amnesty’s evidence raises questions on each of those fronts. Its investigation alleges pellet firing into crowds, tear gas deployed directly at protesters, repeated baton strikes against people who were not resisting, the use of an electric shock device against a peaceful protester and the firing of an assault rifle in Siwan. It also documents restrictions on communication and assembly before and during the protest.

The significance of the report lies not merely in its catalogue of weapons. It is the combination of restriction, force and apparent absence of accountability that makes the findings particularly troubling. The Delhi Police has maintained that its handling of the protest was professional. Amnesty’s investigation reaches a sharply different conclusion, backed by 19 videos it says its Evidence Lab verified across Delhi and Siwan, alongside witness testimony and photographic evidence.

The complete report may be viewed here.

Related:

From the violence of 2024 to the Bakri Eid tensions of 2026, a fact-finding report examines Mira Road’s deepening communal fault lines

Bihar: Not just Delhi, Patna, Siwan too saw brute police violence against demonstrating students: PUCL

Inside the SSP’s Office: Allegations of beatings, torture & police impunity against farmer leaders in Meerut, UP

‘Wherever You Go, We are watching’: Second threat letter to Kashmiri Pandits

The post Amnesty Investigation finds unlawful and deadly force against CJP-led protesters in Delhi and Siwan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its report released Tuesday, August 25 in Geneva, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has, first and foremost, criticised the implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, and raised concerns about the subjecting of Bengali-speaking Muslims to “systematic and structural racial discrimination”.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has published findings on India first time after 2007, after 19 years, and urged the Indian government to address discrimination, hate crimes: this UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) evaluates every country on the basis of its implementation, or not, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The CERD Committee has therefore called for the suspension of the NRC and urged New Delhi to review its legislative framework, and “urgently address discrimination, hate speech, and hate crimes against Rohingya, Bengali-speaking Muslims, migrants, and asylum-seekers”.

Interestingly, the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process was also called out in the observations, with the committee raising concern that Bengali-speaking Muslim voters were reportedly disproportionately impacted in West Bengal and Assam.

The “concluding observations” on the combined twentieth and twenty-first periodic reports of India raised wide-ranging concerns over caste discrimination, attacks on minorities, shrinking civic space, racial profiling, the treatment of migrants and the implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in India.

“The Committee was gravely concerned about reports of large-scale violations perpetrated by law enforcement officials against ethnic and ethno-religious groups, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, including Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, particularly Dalits, and non-citizens,” the press release has stated.

“These included racially motivated violence, excessive use of force, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary and prolonged detention without due process, torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence.”

The Committee called on India to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into all such allegations and ensure accountability for those responsible.

Hence, the UN’s CERD Committee has called upon the Indian government to urgently address discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes against Rohingya, Bengali-speaking Muslims, migrants and asylum-seekers.

The Committee urged the State Party to protect their rights, refrain from collective expulsions and ensure access to international protection in line with the principle of non-refoulement.

The Committee welcomed the submissions of the State Party and constructive dialogue that took place earlier this month on August 11 and 12 with Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, leading the high-level delegation.

Despite this pushback from the Indian government, during the session, Stamatia Stavrinaki, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said independent monitoring recorded over 1,300 anti-Muslim hate-speech incidents in 2025, including recurring rhetoric attributed to senior officials.

The delegation responded that legislation from 2023 criminalised acts amounting to hate speech and hate crimes. When offences were conducted against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, additional protections applied.  Freedom of religion was a constitutional guarantee in India, the delegation added.

In the concluding observations, the Committee also highlighted the increase in law enforcement operations targeting Rohingya, Bengali-speaking Muslims, migrants and asylum-seekers, particularly following the 2017 Home Affairs order and the April 2025 Pahalgam attack in Kashmir.

The Committee noted that the statistics provided by the State Party on scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and refugees are based on the results of the 2011 population census. It also notes the information provided by the delegation about the launch of the census in April 2026, after a five-year delay, which will collect data on caste and incorporate the principle of self-identification.

The CERD Committee remained concerned about the lack of disaggregated data on Indigenous / Tribal Peoples, ethnic and ethno-religious groups and non-citizens, such as migrants, refugees, asylum-seekers and stateless persons.

The Committee is also concerned that Bengali-speaking Muslims are categorised as “non-original inhabitants”, while noting the absence of a clear definition of this category in the legislative framework, and are reportedly subjected to more rigorous standards compared to other categories in relation to the verification process of the National Register of Citizens.

The entire report released on August 25 may be read here.

Related:

Int’l Day to Combat Islamophobia: UN Chief’s Remarks | United Nations

Hate crimes: Report documents 602 hate crimes, 345 hate speech incidents in 1st year of Modi’s third term

As the date for the general assembly election approaches, hate crimes in India continue

The post Address Discrimination & Hate Crimes India told: CERD, UN appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bhati, president of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BR Ambedkar faction), has alleged that he was beaten with shoes, fists, kicks, belts and wooden sticks, while Jatav, the organisation’s Meerut district president, allegedly suffered similar treatment. Bhati was left with a heavily swollen eye and other visible injuries, as reported by The Wire.

A meeting with the SSP that allegedly turned into an assault

According to Bhati’s account, he and Jatav went to meet then-SSP Avinash Pandey on August 19. They were seeking relief in a case arising from protests held on July 8 over the murder of Lalita Gautam, a young Dalit woman from Meerut. Bhati has maintained that he was not present at the protest and wanted his name removed from the FIR connected with the demonstration. He said the two men had been trying to meet the SSP for several days and were eventually asked to come to his office.

Bhati alleged that the conversation quickly became hostile, with Pandey abusing him and questioning his credentials as a political and farmer leader. He said that when he objected to the alleged abuse, police personnel dragged him into another room. There, he alleged, the SSP assaulted him. Bhati has described being kicked, punched and beaten with shoes and a belt. He specifically alleged that Pandey kicked him around the eye several times after he fell to the floor.

The Indian Express, which spoke to Bhati, reported his allegation that he was assaulted for an extended period before he and Jatav were taken to the SOG office. Bhati also alleged that wooden planks and sticks were used against them and that the soles of their feet, backs and waist were beaten.

His visible injuries have become a central element of the controversy. Photographs showed substantial swelling around his eye, while videos released by Bhati showed him describing the alleged assault.

“मेरठ SSP के दफ्तर में किसी बात पर वाद विवाद हुआ। बात खराब हो गई, हिंसा का प्रयोग हुआ। सहारनपुर रेंज DIG से इस पूरे केस की जांच कराई जा रही है”

मेरठ में किसान नेता दिग्विजय भाटी की बर्बरता से पिटाई पर ADG भानु भास्कर ने कहा !! https://t.co/SCjEgECz3g pic.twitter.com/xeiUsdPHXc

— Sachin Gupta (@Sachingupta) August 21, 2026

Meerut police claims Samajwadi Party leader Digvijay Singh Bhati sustained the torture injuries after he fell from his scooty while returning from police office. https://t.co/7otICjnVLZ pic.twitter.com/e0TecnoXtc

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) August 21, 2026

SSP kicked me in the eye multiple times, says Samajwadi party leader tortured in custody

Samajwadi party leader Digvijay Bhati claims he was brutally assaulted by Meerut SSP Avinash Pandey over Bhati’s involvement in a protest over murder of a Dalit girl. Later, he was taken to… pic.twitter.com/75JspJ8P09

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) August 21, 2026

Spoke to Digvijay Bhati, who according to UP’s Meerut police, fell from a scooty while returning from police office. pic.twitter.com/tHyUhpEkmQ

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) August 21, 2026

From the SSP office to the SOG office

Bhati has alleged that the incident did not end inside the SSP’s office. According to his account, the two men were subsequently taken by SOG personnel to another location. There, he alleged, their hands and legs were tied and they were beaten repeatedly with sticks and belts. He has described being punched around the head and temple and suffering repeated assaults. He further alleged that the men were denied ordinary dignity during the episode, including being given water in the cap of a bottle.

Perhaps the most disturbing allegation concerns their alleged humiliation after the physical assault. Bhati has alleged that police personnel played the Hindi film song “Choli Ke Peeche Kya Hai” and forced the two men to dance despite their physical condition. India Today reported the allegation that the two were forced to dance to the song, while The Indian Express also reported Bhati’s account of being humiliated after allegedly being beaten at the SOG office.

Jatav, meanwhile, has alleged that he was threatened with an encounter. Bhati has also claimed that the police threatened them with further consequences if they spoke about what had allegedly happened.

The police initially offered a dramatically different version

Meerut police initially rejected the allegations as “false and baseless”. According to the police version reported by The Wire, Bhati and Jatav had visited the police office in connection with an earlier FIR. The police claimed that the two subsequently fell from their scooter while returning home, sustaining the injuries visible in photographs. The police further said that the two men themselves submitted a written application concerning the incident, which was entered in the general diary at Civil Lines police station.

The controversy intensified when Avinash Pandey was transferred from his position as Meerut SSP on August 20 and attached to the DGP headquarters in Lucknow. Pandey was among nine IPS officers transferred in the reshuffle. Unlike officers who were given new district postings, he was attached to the state headquarters. Times of India reported that the transfer came amid the allegations of illegal detention and custodial torture.

The following day, Additional Director General of Police, Meerut Zone, Bhanu Bhaskar announced an inquiry. Saharanpur Range DIG Abhishek Singh was tasked with investigating the allegations and submitting a report. The police leadership initially described the incident more cautiously, saying that a dispute had arisen at the SSP’s office on August 19, after which violence allegedly took place. The case was therefore no longer simply an allegation made by two activists. It had become an official police inquiry.

Eight policemen sent to the lines; inspector suspended

The administration subsequently took further action. After taking charge, new Meerut SSP BBGTS Murthy ordered eight police personnel to be sent to the police lines, including Civil Lines SHO Akhilesh Gaur, two sub-inspectors and five constables. On August 23, Gaur was suspended. Times of India reported that the suspension was ordered on grounds including alleged negligence, apathy and arbitrary conduct in the discharge of his duties.

By August 25, reports indicated that Gaur had been suspended while the other personnel remained subject to administrative action, with the inquiry continuing. The investigating team has also begun examining the physical locations and documentary evidence. Navbharat Times reported that DIG Abhishek Singh inspected the relevant locations and examined CCTV footage and duty records, while questioning personnel connected with the allegations.

This controversy did not begin on August 19

The allegations against the police must also be viewed against the backdrop of what happened in Meerut in July. The entire chain of events goes back to the killing of Lalita Gautam, a 20-year-old Dalit student whose body was recovered in May after she went missing. Her death generated anger among Dalit groups and local residents, who questioned the police investigation and demanded that additional people allegedly connected with the crime be arrested.

On July 8, protesters gathered in Meerut demanding justice. The protest subsequently escalated, with police using force to disperse the demonstrators. Times of India reported that nearly 100 members of the Dalit community had gathered and that the confrontation escalated after protesters blocked roads and demanded that senior officials personally hear their grievances. A video from the confrontation also showed then-SSP Avinash Pandey repeatedly slapping a protester inside a police vehicle.

VIDEO: Meerut SSP Enters Police Van, Slaps Protest Detainee

Meerut SSP Avinash Pandey was seen entering a police custody vehicle and slapping a detainee during action taken after the Dalit community protest.

According to police, the detainee has been identified as Ravi Gautam,… pic.twitter.com/FLHa02gYSk

— Atulkrishan (@iAtulKrishan1) July 8, 2026

The police subsequently registered cases against protesters. According to Times of India, 13 people were named and around 50 others were booked on serious charges, including attempt to murder and allegations concerning women police personnel. Seven people were arrested and sent to judicial custody.

Those proceedings subsequently changed. On July 21, Times of India reported that serious non-bailable charges against the protesters had been dropped, following developments surrounding the case and intervention by the courts.

The July crackdown had also attracted the attention of the National Human Rights Commission. The NHRC sought an action-taken report from the Uttar Pradesh DGP and Home Secretary after a complaint alleged that Meerut police had used excessive force against protesters and caused serious injuries, reported The Hindu. Times of India reported that the Commission sought a detailed report within 15 days.

The ‘history-sheeter’ argument cannot answer allegations of torture

One of the most revealing aspects of the police response has been its emphasis on Bhati and Jatav’s criminal cases. Police have said that Bhati has several cases registered against him and that Jatav also has multiple cases. Bhati has disputed the circumstances and nature of several of these cases, saying many relate to protests and allegations arising from political activity. But even assuming every case cited by the police is genuine and pending, that does not resolve the central allegation. A criminal record, or a history sheet, does not authorise custodial violence.

Related:

Bihar: Not just Delhi, Patna, Siwan too saw brute police violence against demonstrating students: PUCL

The State Wants the Delete Button: India’s new architecture of digital censorship

When Suspicion Becomes Deportation: The case of Sahida Fakir and the dangerous criminalisation of Bengali identity

Supreme Court: UP Gangsters Act ‘stillborn’ for prescribing punishment without creating an offence

‘Wherever You Go, We are watching’: Second threat letter to Kashmiri Pandits

The post Inside the SSP’s Office: Allegations of beatings, torture & police impunity against farmer leaders in Meerut, UP appeared first on SabrangIndia.