Teesta Setalvad speaks with Saurav Das about youth activism, intergenerational solidarity, “School Thik Karo”, social audits of government schools, police accountability and the right to protest.

They discuss the Supreme Court’s intervention on protest-related FIRs, the violence faced by protesters, and why citizens must keep questioning institutions meant to serve them.

And then, humour: why satire, irreverence and a refusal to be solemn became part of the movement itself.

A conversation about young citizens, public institutions and the courage to ask questions.

The post This Regime Is Anti-Fun; Humour Can Strip Its Legitimacy | Saurav Das | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Significantly, this citizens’ convention that was attended by over 300 eminent personalities from various fields has demanded immediate completion and publication of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) prepared on the basis of the 2014 electoral roll, and expressed complete oppose to the highly controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Assam.

The convention was held on September 20 at the L. Baruah Sadan, Guwahati, at the call of eminent citizens, writers, poets, social workers and the leader of various social organization under the initiative of the Forum for Social Harmony. It was presided over by Dr. Ghanashyam Nath, Senior journalist Munin Bayan, Farmer Organizer Jayanta Gogoi and Professor Taiz Uddin Ahmed, and the days agenda was conducted by Harkumar Goswami, Debajit Choudhury and Arup Baishya. Harkumar Goswami explained the objectives of the convention on behalf of the Forum.

The programme began with the lighting of lamps before the portraits of Zubeen Garg and Dr. Bhupen Hazarika by retired Gauhati University professor Dr. Abdul Mannan. A minute’s silence was observed in memory of Zubeen Garg and in memory and honour of the working-class people in Assam who have recently died untimely deaths or by suicide due to state neglect. The convention condemned the government for not declaring September 19 a special day and a public holiday this year and demanded that September 19 be declared ‘Zubeen Divas’ every year. The Zubeen Sankalpa was recited by eminent Assamese young artist Shanku Niranjan Nath.

The discussions were divided into thematic sessions. Speaking on the recent floods in Upper Assam, the withdrawal of environmental protection in Kaziranga, and what was seen by many participants as ‘corporate loot’, Dr. Padmalochan Nath, social worker Manoram Gogoi and former Mayor of Jorhat Prashanta Bora said the recent floods are the result of indiscriminate plunder of natural resources with government patronage. They also strongly criticised the government for failing to take adequate measures for the rehabilitation of the affected people. Manoram Gogoi added that even small markets dependent on Assam’s own produce are coming under the control of large pan-Indian business houses, which is devastating Assam’s agrarian economy and threatening its distinct regional existence.

Eminent writer and advocate Arup Borbora elaborated on how civil rights are being curtailed one after another and how the threat of authoritarian rule is intensifying.

Several speakers highlighted the citizenship issue. They apprehended that by keeping the NRC pending and effectively ‘throwing it into the dustbin’, the Government of India intends to impose another mode of bureaucratic harassment, the SIR in Assam! Activist associated for close to a decade with the Citizens for Justice and Peace, Nanda Ghosh spoke on Citizenship, cited examples of case histories that revealed the inhuman plight of marginalised and working peoples, especially women during the NRC process (2009-2019). He also presented a realistic, ground-level picture of human rights violations taking place through the D-Voter, Foreigners Tribunal, and pushback mechanisms. He said the NRC in Assam was not carried out to end political debate over the foreigner issue; rather, it was used to create a reign of fear and to establish a relationship where citizens are treated as slaves to the state and mere subjects of the rulers. Nanda Ghosh demanded the immediate issuance of Rejection Slips to the 19 lakh excluded people and completion of Tribunal proceedings within a fixed time frame. Since there are no specific rules governing Tribunal proceedings, they can drag on for decades. Therefore, the process should be concluded quickly based on the revised 2014 voter list, which was revised using 1971 as the base year.

Significantly, the convention firmly rejected the government’s anti-people move to impose SIR in Assam. Ghosh also suggested building a body of all-India public opinion against SIR jointly with organisations like ‘Vote for Democracy’. The original charter of demands for the convention had clearly stated that SIR must not be allowed in Assam. He also explains the day-to-day ground reality on citizenship gleaned by e team members of the Citizenship for Justice and Peace (CJP)’s with heir experience in 19 districts of the state.

Advocate Shantanu Borthakur spoke out against the indiscriminate and unlawful evictions being carried out by government authorities, without following any law or the Constitution, using force to hand over Assam’s water, land, forests and cheap labour to corporates. The government’s promise of land rights and pattas is nothing but a form of deception.

Advocate Kishor Kalita observed that land rights, eviction and citizenship are interlinked, and that all people’s rights are in crisis due to the aggressive role of the state.

Prabhat Das Panika, a leading organiser of tea workers’ and state-wide Adivasi struggles, Nilim Dutta, and Dhrubajyoti Asom, leader of gig workers, spoke on the plight of tea workers and gig, platform-based and app-based workers. They said the government is indifferent to their income and social security because it is more interested in serving corporate owners.

Prominent Political Analyst and activist Arup Baishya offered an excellent political analysis of the events and drew an outline of an action plan on how to confront fascism.

The convention analysed how the relationship between citizen and worker on the one hand, and between state and citizen on the other, is being restructured. To uphold citizens’ rights, workers’ rights and democracy, greater unity between intellectual and manual workers is essential to build an effective and successful resistance. The condition of lakhs of new workers in the service sector — transport, gig economy, construction, projects and women workers — is extremely miserable, as evidenced by the untimely deaths of many migrant workers.

Almost all speakers emphasised that the nexus between politics and corporate capital and the resulting centralisation of power in Delhi has undermined the constitutional structure and devastated Assam’s federal regional identity. The only way to establish civil rights, mass rights and democracy is to rise above all narrow divisions and build united resistance.

A powerful five-minutes long protest dance-drama was performed by the “Oikatan Sanskritick Gosthi” which added a distinct dimension to the programme.  During the break, poems were recited and protest songs were performed by Laynu Das Kalita, Prahallad Mili and Nilab Saurav.

The meeting conveners subsequently decided to undertake outreach programmes around the demands raised at this day-long convention. The convention concluded with a brief address by the presidium.

Related:

SIR Phase 3: 1.58 crore names deleted from draft rolls across 12 States and UTs

Supreme Court issues notice on plea for time-bound reverification of Assam NRC over “large-scale errors”

Assam FT deems Assam NRC to be final NRC

The post Assam: ‘No to SIR!’ Complete the pending NRC!  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The circumstances immediately preceding his death have become a central part of the investigation. Doolla was reportedly the invigilator during Wakode’s examination and, according to the institute’s initial account (later regretfully denied by IIT Mumbai), Wakode had been found using a mobile phone and had uploaded the examination question paper to ChatGPT to obtain answers. IIT Bombay initially stated that no disciplinary action had been initiated against him and that he had been counselled by the concerned faculty members.

But that account quickly became contested. Students and Wakode’s family alleged that the incident involved threats of disciplinary action and suspension and that Wakode had been humiliated. The Indian Express has since reported that Crime Branch investigators are examining CCTV footage from the examination hall showing Doolla approaching Wakode and asking him to leave the hall. The footage is now part of an investigation that is attempting to reconstruct what happened between the examination and Wakode’s death.

What remains equally important is what happened before September 18. Wakode’s family has alleged that the examination incident was not an isolated interaction but occurred against the backdrop of months of caste-based and mental harassment. Those allegations have not been established, and the Crime Branch investigation must determine whether they are supported by witness statements, communications, institutional records and other evidence. But the absence of a prior formal complaint cannot, by itself, be treated as proof that discrimination did not occur.

Breaking: IITB accepts that cheating allegation against Sahil Wakode are not proven, backtracks earlier letter

This is what we have been saying

Cheating allegation are not proven. IIT already backtracking

Prof Dulla should be arrested and investigated properly… https://t.co/BHjmciyQNv

— Ravi Ratan (@scribe_it) September 21, 2026

IIT Bombay has now suspended Professor Suryanarayana Doolla and also apologized over the matter.

The professor had falsely accused Sahil Wakode of using ChatGPT to cheat, an allegation that seriously damaged his academic career. pic.twitter.com/oQUlAb8WrM

— The Dalit Voice (@ambedkariteIND) September 21, 2026

Four suicides in one year at IIT Bombay. This is not a tragedy. This is institutional failure. This is institutional murder.

SFI stands with the students of IIT Bombay demanding action, accountability and transparency. pic.twitter.com/wSz7CastFD

— SFI (@SFI_CEC) September 20, 2026

It was never about cheating.

People justifying cheating leading to student ending his life in another pathetic view I came across.

I wish none of this happens to their kids. https://t.co/TaP02RiYKP

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) September 21, 2026

अब तो IIT Bombay ने भी बिना किसी जांच के साहिल पर चीटिंग के आरोप लगाने पर माफीनामा जारी कर दिया है।

पहले साहिल को आत्महत्या पर मजबूर किया गया और अब उसके सांस्थानिक हत्या को जायज भी ठहराया जा रहा है! शर्मनाक है! https://t.co/e5cg5jPdNB pic.twitter.com/pjkLlCT16B

— Priyanka Bharti (@priyanka2bharti) September 21, 2026

The apology came only after the institution had already framed the story

The most troubling aspect of IIT Bombay’s handling of the matter may be the speed with which the institution initially presented a particular account of Wakode’s final hours. Its first public communication foregrounded the alleged use of a phone during the examination and the uploading of the question paper on ChatGPT. That communication effectively placed an allegation of academic misconduct at the centre of the public narrative before the circumstances surrounding the death had been independently established.

On September 21, however, IIT Bombay apologised and acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to set out or characterise details relating to the events preceding Wakode’s death before they had been established through the appropriate investigative process. The Times of India reported that the institute apologised for its earlier communication concerning the examination incident, while The Indian Express reported that students had specifically demanded an apology over what they described as the “defamation” of Wakode.

That reversal matters as the question was not whether academic misconduct should be taken seriously. It should. The question is whether, when a student dies hours after an interaction with institutional authority, the first responsibility of the institution should be to establish facts carefully rather than to publicly foreground an allegation that potentially shifts attention towards the student’s conduct.

The institute itself has now acknowledged that the circumstances had not yet been duly established. That acknowledgment should also invite scrutiny of how institutions speak about students after their deaths, particularly when those students belong to communities that have historically experienced discrimination within educational institutions.

Doolla has been removed as Dean. But only as Dean

IIT Bombay has temporarily relieved Professor Suryanarayana Doolla of his duties as Dean of Administrative Affairs pending an investigation. But, as The New Indian Express reported, Doolla continues to remain a professor in the Energy Science and Engineering department. The Times of India similarly reported that the action was limited to his administrative responsibilities and that he would continue as a professor.

This distinction is important because students had demanded that Doolla be removed from his academic duties as well. Their concern was not necessarily a demand that the professor be treated as guilty before investigation, but that a person named in an FIR concerning the death of a student should not continue exercising academic authority over students while the circumstances are being investigated.

The institute has justified his removal from the administrative post as a step intended to ensure an independent and unbiased investigation. That is understandable as an institutional measure. But it also leaves an obvious question: if independence from administrative authority is necessary for the inquiry, what safeguards are in place to ensure that students who may have information relevant to the investigation do not feel vulnerable when the professor continues to teach and exercise academic authority?

The FIR is not the investigation. But neither is institutional denial

The FIR records allegations made by Wakode’s family. The Crime Branch investigation must determine what happened, whether there was sustained harassment, whether caste-based discrimination occurred, whether any conduct contributed to Wakode’s distress, and whether any institutional response failed him. At the same time, IIT Bombay’s statement that no complaint had previously been made to its SC/ST cell or administration cannot settle the question either. The Indian Express reported that the institute relied on the absence of any such formal complaint when responding to the family’s allegations.

Caste discrimination does not necessarily announce itself through a formal written complaint. Students may hesitate to complain against professors who control grades, academic progression, recommendations or other aspects of university life. The possibility of retaliation, stigma or simply the belief that an institution will not act can itself become a barrier to reporting. That is precisely why an investigation into allegations of discrimination cannot be reduced to a search for whether a complaint was filed in the correct institutional forum.

What exactly is IIT Bombay defending?

The response from sections of the IIT Bombay faculty has introduced another dimension to the controversy. The Faculty Forum of IIT Bombay publicly expressed solidarity with Doolla, saying that he had been discharging his duties according to institute-approved academic procedures and that the faculty was distressed by what it described as the tarnishing of his reputation. The Indian Express reported that faculty members gathered in support of Doolla after he was removed as Dean, while faculty bodies at other IITs also expressed support for him.

There is nothing inherently improper about insisting upon due process or resisting a presumption of guilt. But due process cannot mean that institutional solidarity with a faculty member becomes a substitute for investigating allegations made by a student’s family. The two principles can coexist. Doolla is entitled to a fair investigation and should not be declared guilty merely because he has been named in an FIR. At the same time, Wakode’s family is entitled to have allegations of caste-based harassment and institutional failure investigated seriously, independently and without the investigation being overshadowed by a defence of the professor’s professional reputation.

The concern becomes particularly acute when the institution itself had initially issued a public account that it later apologised for.

This is not the first IIT Bombay student death to raise questions about caste

The most difficult part of the present controversy is that IIT Bombay cannot claim to be encountering these questions for the first time. In February 2023, Dalit student Darshan Solanki died by suicide at IIT Bombay. His death generated allegations of caste discrimination and intense campus debate over whether students from marginalised communities were adequately protected within the institution.

Three years later, Solanki’s father, Ramesh Solanki, has returned to the IIT Bombay campus in connection with protests following Wakode’s death. The Indian Express reported that parents of previous IIT Bombay suicide victims joined the protests and raised concerns about transparency, accountability, discrimination and the treatment of students from reserved communities. Ramesh Solanki reportedly continues to question aspects of the investigation into his son’s death.

The significance of Darshan Solanki therefore cannot simply be historical. His death forms part of the institutional memory against which the present case is unfolding. The question now is not only what happened to Sahil Wakode. It is also what IIT Bombay learnt from Darshan Solanki’s death, what institutional mechanisms were changed afterwards, and whether those mechanisms could identify and address the forms of exclusion that students may experience without ever making a formal complaint.

And then there are the other deaths

Wakode’s death has also occurred amid wider concerns over student suicides at IIT Bombay. Reports have referred to other student deaths this year, adding to the sense among students and parents that the problem cannot be treated as a single tragic incident. Moneycontrol, reporting on the aftermath of Wakode’s death, noted that the episode had once again brought student suicides at premier engineering institutions into focus. The protests at IIT Bombay have consequently expanded beyond the circumstances of one student’s death to include demands relating to mental-health support, institutional accountability and student welfare.

This is important because individualising every death can prevent institutions from examining common structural conditions. If students repeatedly experience academic pressure, fear of disciplinary action, inadequate grievance mechanisms, social isolation or discrimination, then treating each death as an entirely separate personal tragedy leaves the institutional environment itself largely unexamined.

The 18 demands show how much larger the crisis has become

The student protests have made clear that the controversy is no longer limited to the question of what happened inside one examination hall. According to The Indian Express, students placed an 18-point charter before the IIT Bombay administration. Their demands included an independent inquiry, changes to student welfare mechanisms, student representation on committees, a formal mechanism for complaints against professors, greater accountability of institutional authorities and stronger mental-health support, including access to psychiatric care.

These demands matter because they reveal what students themselves see as the larger problem. They are not asking only for an answer about September 18. They are questioning how decisions affecting students are made, who exercises authority over them, what happens when a student has a complaint against a professor, and whether students have any meaningful role in institutions that make decisions about their academic and personal lives.

An institution can have rules on paper and still leave students without meaningful protection if those rules are difficult to invoke against powerful members of the faculty.

The protests have also brought the role of IIT Bombay Director Professor Shireesh Kedare under scrutiny. Students demanded his resignation as part of their broader charter. Reports also emerged suggesting that he had agreed to resign, although IIT Bombay subsequently denied that he had stepped down.

A campus divided between solidarity and accountability

The response to the protests has also raised questions about how dissent is being handled around the campus. The Indian Express reported that police detained activists from different organisations who were protesting outside the IIT Bombay campus. Ramesh Solanki, whose son Darshan died in 2023, was among those participating in the protest and seeking accountability over the earlier case.

The present situation has produced an uncomfortable divide. Faculty groups have rallied around Doolla and emphasised academic integrity and due process. Students have demanded accountability and institutional reform. Wakode’s family has alleged caste-based harassment. The police are investigating. IIT Bombay has apologised for its initial public account while simultaneously maintaining that the circumstances remain under investigation.

The question IIT Bombay must now answer

The academic misconduct allegation has also become central to the public discussion. But academic integrity and caste discrimination are not mutually exclusive questions. Even if the investigation establishes that Wakode violated examination rules, that would not automatically disprove allegations that he may have experienced caste-based discrimination or harassment. Conversely, allegations of caste discrimination cannot be used to establish that an examination rule was not violated.

The two questions require separate examination. The tragedy is that IIT Bombay’s initial public statement blurred those questions by placing the examination incident at the centre of its account of Wakode’s death. Its subsequent apology acknowledged that the circumstances preceding his death should not have been characterised before they were established through investigation.

The most important question is not whether IIT Bombay can defend its procedures. It is whether those procedures are capable of protecting students when the person they may need protection from is someone who exercises institutional authority over them.

Detailed reports on Darshan Solanki suicide case may be read here, here, here, here and here.

Related:

Mumbai Dharna for Darshan Solanki makes calls for law against caste discrimination

The Normalisation of Suicide at IITs: Institutional blindness and failure

A Long Battle, A Swift Stay: The Fight for Equitable Campuses

The Anatomy of Humiliation: Defining caste violence in the Constitutional era

Another student lost to suicide at IIT-Delhi

IIT Kanpur: Third incident of suicide in five weeks, a 29-year-old PhD scholar found dead in her dorm room

Another student, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, dies by suicide in IIT

Crucial evidence overlooked by IIT Committee, internal survey by SC/ST Cell contradicts report findings

The post Three years after Darshan Solanki, Sahil Wakode’s death shows IIT Bombay still has no answer on caste, power and student deaths appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement has been Initiated jointly by Javed Anand and Feroze Mithiborwala (Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy-IMSD), Zakia Soman and Noorjahan Safia Niaz (Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan-BMMA), Shamsuddin Tamboli (Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal) and Bader Saeed (Roshni).

The signatories to the statement include Naseeruddin Shah, Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Sultan Shaheen, Teesta Setalvad, Ram Puniyani, Tushar Gandhi, Amol Palekar, Mallika Sarabhai, Ratna Pathak.

Read the full statement below: 

Progressive Muslim activists, intellectuals and women’s rights advocates strongly oppose the ill-conceived nationwide ‘Save India, Save Shariat’ campaign launched by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB).

• A Political Gift to Polarisation: 

Following the 2024 Lok Sabha elections where civil society and opposition parties rallied under ‘Save the Constitution’, the AIMPLB’s campaign inadvertently gives the BJP and the sangh parivar a platform to posture as defenders of constitutional norms. Ahead of crucial state assembly elections, this campaign reinforces false narratives and fuels propaganda that Indian Muslims reject the law of the land.

• Defending Patriarchy in the Name of Faith: 

The so-called “God-given Shariat Law’ in India is nothing but man-made personal laws, male interpreted patriarchal interpretations defended by the AIMPLB. In its September 2016 Supreme Court affidavit in the Triple Talaq case (Sayara Bano v. Union of India), the AIMPLB through its affidavit claimed divorce rights belong primarily to husbands because men allegedly possess “greater power of decision-making” and “control emotions.” It even argued that without quick separation option, a husband “may resort to illegal, criminal ways of murdering or burning her alive”—a disturbing rationalization of domestic violence. While claiming these laws are divine, the Board admitted in Paragraph 46 that “India is a patriarchal society, and therefore personal laws of all communities are aligned with the patriarchal notion…”

• Selective Use of the Constitution:

The AIMPLB selectively invokes Articles 25–30 (Religious Freedom), ignoring that these rights are explicitly subject to public order, morality, and health. They conveniently bypass Articles 14 and 15, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit sex or religion-based discrimination.

• Global Precedents of Reform:

Muslim-majority nations worldwide—including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tunisia, and Morocco—have codified and reformed personal laws to protect women’s rights. Millions of Muslims live in secular democratic nations with uniform family codes without putting “Islam in danger.” The Muslim community’s current legal predicament in India is the direct result of the AIMPLB and conservative leaders failing to proactively reform and codify Muslim Personal Law.

• Exposing Political Exploitation:

While mainstream parties often ignore Muslim women’s civil rights, the Hindu Right exploits the UCC debate for political polarization. Genuine family law reform must guarantee Muslim women equal rights regarding minimum marriage age, abolition of polygamy, mutual divorce, equal inheritance, child custody, adoption, and a ban on female genital mutilation and halala.

• BJP, Sangh Parivar’s Hate Campaign:

While secular parties rarely support the rights of Muslim women, the BJP and the Hindu Right do so with an obvious motive: communal polarization. The sangh parivar sheds crocodile tears for Muslim women while ignoring relentless hate speech (love jihad, land jihad…) and hate crimes—mob lynching, bulldozing homes, demolishing masjids, and economic boycotts, with chants of Jai Shri Ram to strike fear and intimidation. This accompanies state actions targeting Muslims: Waqf Amendment Act, draconian anti-conversion laws, and a weaponised SIR (Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls) to disenfranchise vast sections of the electorate.

• Ignoring Everyday Survival Concerns:

While ‘Saving Shariah’ tops the AIMPLB’s agenda, real life everyday challenges facing Indian Muslims—socio-economic marginalization, security, education, and employment—are ignored. The ulema must address survival issues rather than furthering retrogressive norms.

• Our Call:

We call upon all progressive forces, civil society organizations, and secular political parties to intervene actively to ensure that the demand for a gender-just, religion-neutral Uniform Civil Code is rooted in equality and human rights, rather than weaponized for communal division.

Signatories:

1. Javed Anand, Convenor, Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD), Mumbai
2. Zakia Soman, Co-convenor, Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), Ahmedabad
3. Noorjehan Safia Niaz, Co-convenor, BMMA, Mumbai
4. Feroze Mithiborwala, Co-Convenor, IMSD, Mumbai
5. Shamsuddin Tamboli, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
6. Bader Sayeed, Former MLA, lawyer, President, Roshni, Chennai
7. A. J. Jawad, Lawyer, Arbitrator, IMSD, Chennai
8. Afroz Javed Inamdar, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal Bengaluru
9. Ajij Sayyed Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal Pune
10. Akbar Shaikh, Social Activist, IMSD, Farmer, Solapur
11. Altaphusen Ramjan Nabab, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
12. Amar Tamboli, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal Satara
13. Amol Palekar – Actor, director, film producer – Pune
14. Anand Patwardhan, Documentary Filmmaker, Mumbai
15. Ani Zonneveld, President, Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV), USA, and Founder Member, Alliance of Inclusive Muslims (International)
16. Anita Cheria, Indian Christian Women’s Movement, Bangalore
17. Anjum Rajabali, Film Script writer, IMSD, Mumbai
18. Anwar Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
19. Arshad Alam, Columnist, editor, IMSD, Delhi
20. Ashok Dhiware IPS, Rtd. Additional DIG of Maharashtra State, Pune
21. (Dr) Ashwini KP, UN independent Expert, Bangalore
22. Asim Sayyed, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
23. Askari Zaidi, Veteran journalist, IMSD, Delhi
24. (Prof) Azharuddin Patel, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
25. Azim Pathan, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
26. Benazeer Tamboli, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
27. Benazir Kazi, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Solapur
28. Bismilla Sayyed, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Jalana
29. Dilawar Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
30. Gulab Attar, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Kolhapur
31. Hasan Ibrahim Pasha, Writer, IMSD, Allahabad
32. Hasina Khan, Bebaak Collective, Mumbai
33. Hilal Ahmed, Scholar and Author, Asst Professor, CSDS, Delhi
34. Iqbal Ahmad, BBC, Delhi
35. Irshad Wadgavkar, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Kolhapur
36. Jamir Momin, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
37. Jamir Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
38. Jeibunnisa R, BMMA, Tamil Nadu
39. Jyothi Yedulla, Vice-President, Casteless Society of India, Hyderabad
40. Khadijah Faruqui, Feminist and human rights consultant, Delhi
41. Dr. Lata Pratibha Madhukar, Bahujan Feminist Writer and Critique, Founder of Manomitr
42. Madan Lal Hind, Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Delhi
43. Madhu Bhaduri, Retd. Ambassador, Indian Foreign Service, Delhi
44. Madhu Bhushan, feminist, social activist, Bangalore
45. Mallika Sarabhai, Classical dancer, activist and actress, Ahmedabad
46. Mariya Salim, feminist development professional, Delhi
47. Mohammad Waheed, President, Casteless Society of India, Hyderabad
48. (Dr) Mohd Farooque Khan, Associate Professor, Marathwada University, Sambhajinagar
49. Mufid Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak, Mandal, Pune
50. Munir  Shikalgar Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Sangli
51. Muniza Khan, IMSD, CJP, Varanasi
52. (Adv) Nazrana Ahemad, Social activist, academician, Dibrugarh (Assam)
53. Naseeruddin Shah, Actor, Mumbai
54. Nasreen Contractor, Co-convenor, IMSD, Mumbai
55. Nasreen M, BMMA, Karnataka
56. Naureen Sophie Musvee. EC member, Roshni, Chennai
57. Parvin Altaphusen Nabab, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Satara
58. Peehu Pardeshi, PEHEL Foundation, Mumbai
59. Preeti Oza, Development Professional, Gandhinagar
60. Qaisar Pasha, Homemaker, Allahabad
61. (Prof.) Radha Kumar, renowned academic, former GOI Interlocutor for J&K, Kodaikanal
62. Rajesh Singhi, Social Sector Consultant, Alwar, Rajasthan
63. (Prof) Ram Puniyani, Author, Activist, President, CSSS, Mumbai
64. Ratna Pathak, Actor, Director, Mumbai
65. SR Darapuri, IPS(Retd), National President, All India Peoples Front, Lucknow
66. Sabah Khan, Parcham, Mumbai/Mumbra
67. Sachendra Pratap Yadav, Activist, Lucknow
68. Salim Momin Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Sangli
69. Samina Pathan Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
70. Samreen Khan, Socio-political Blogger, Kolkata
71. Sandeep Pandey, General Secretary, Socialist Party of India, Lucknow
72. Sandhya Gokhale – Author and activist, Pune
73. Sayara Mulani Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Kolhapur
74. Shabana Dean, IMSD, Pune
75. Shagufta Musvee, President Soroptimist International, EC member, Roshni
76. Shahed Shaikh, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
77. Shaikh Yusuf Baba, Convenor, Duniyadari Social Reform Movement, Hyderabad
78. Shahjahan Patel, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Mumbai
79. Shakun Mohini, feminist, social activist, Bangalore
80. Shama Zaidi, filmmaker, script writer, Mumbai
81. (Dr) Shaniya Zarina Khan, Dentist, Delhi
82. Shriya Maini, Advocate, Supreme Court, Delhi
83. (Dr) Shujaat Ali Quadri, Convener, Muslim Youth organization of India
84. Sultan Shahin, Editor-in-chief, New Age Islam (online portal), Delhi
85. (Dr) Suresh Khairnar, Social Activist, Nagpur
86. Suresh Nautiyal, India   Green Party (IGP), Garhwal, Uttarakhand
87. Teesta Setalvad, Journalist, activist, educationist, Secretary Citizens for Justice & Peace, IMSD, Mumbai
88. Tushar Gandhi, President, Hum Bharat ke Log, Mumbai
89. Ummid Shaikh Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, Pune
90. Yash Paranjpe, Writer, Navi Mumbai
91. (Dr) Zaheer A Sayeed, Neurologist, Chennai
92. Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Islamic Scholar, Director-General, Wisdom Foundation, Mumbai

The post Shariat Campaign: Ulema’s Boon to Hindutva appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Open letter may be read below:

To

The Hon’ble Governor of West Bengal Lok Bhavan, Kolkata

Your Excellency,

We are senior academics from various institutions in West Bengal and elsewhere in India. We are writing to express our deep concern about the West Bengal Universities and Colleges (Administration and Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The bill was passed in the Assembly on 10 September 2026. It would allow transfer of academic and non-academic staff between various state universities.

The reasons for our concern are both academic and procedural. The crucial academic issues are as follows:

1. Each university is a distinct organic entity with its own rationale, structure and programmes of It appoints its faculty in accord with these factors. To move staff from one institution to another would impair the structural balance of both institutions and hamper their teaching and research programmes. Such programmes cannot be readily revised or interchanged.
2. Taught courses and research orientation programmes are planned by and for particular teachers and would be impeded if they were transferred. Research work would be no less affected. A university has specialized faculty who attract fresh researchers in that field. Laboratory and library facilities are developed to provide for those special If those faculty members are transferred, young research students would be left without resort. The material resources would lie unused or underused, while the human resources – i.e., the relevant faculty – would be underemployed at a new institution.
3. Major research funding is invariably linked to the assurance of expert faculty members as Principal Investigators. No funder would agree to fund a project without this assurance. Interdisciplinary and multi-institutional projects would be especially On the other hand, the presence of core senior faculty in the field ensures a succession of projects, creating a node of research excellence. This is the case with many of our older universities. Transfer of faculty would impair the working of these research nodes.
4. At this point of time, even those older universities are impoverished of resources, material and human. Hundreds of posts are lying This is a particularly bad moment to deplete them of their remaining faculty.
5. We are anxious that the new universities should be developed productively, but this cannot be done by sporadic transfer of faculty from elsewhere. At present, all or most of the new universities are grossly lacking in staff, infrastructure and facilities. Some of them have no full-time teachers at all. These needs must be met with due planning and sufficient funding, with extensive recruitment of permanent staff at all Unless this is done, a handful of teachers brought in on transfer would be left to operate in a vacuum.
6. A more fundamental issue must also be Any such move would spell the end of academic autonomy. All the universities would be brought under centralized administrative control. They could no longer develop freely, each according to its bent. Academic productivity would suffer seriously if university faculty felt they could no longer control their own affairs. This is an intangible factor, but its importance cannot be overstated. We would particularly request you to consider this earnest appeal, made based on our lifetime’s experience.

Needless to say, there would also be endless procedural problems in coordinating the different terms of employment at various universities. Above all, there is the fundamental issue of whether faculty originally appointed to non-transferable posts could be subjected to this radical change in their terms of employment. We are not expanding on these legal and administrative issues as we wish to stress the dire academic consequences of the change.

In short, it is our strong opinion that this change, if implemented, would severely affect the functioning of the older and more established universities without material benefit to the new ones. We earnestly appeal to you to consider our arguments and refrain from giving your consent to the bill.

Yours faithfully

(Names in alphabetical order)

Amita Chatterjee, Professor Emerita, Jadavpur University, and former Vice-Chancellor, Presidency University

Amitava Raychaudhuri, former Palit Professor of Physics, University of Calcutta and former Director, Harish-Chandra Research Institute (DAE), Prayagraj

Anup Sinha, former Professor of Economics, Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta

Anupam Basu, Raja Ramanna Professor, Jadavpur University; former Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur; former Director, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur

Ashok Ranjan Thakur, former Vice-Chancellor, West Bengal State University and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology

Partha Chatterjee, former Director, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta

Partha P. Majumdar, Emeritus Professor, Indian Statistical Institute, and former National Science Chair

Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury, former Vice-Chancellor, Rabindra Bharati University

Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Professor Emeritus, former Director and Distinguished Professor, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

Samaresh Bhattacharya, Former Professor, Department of Chemistry, Jadavpur University and recipient of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar prize

Sobhanlal Datta Gupta, former S.N. Banerjee Professor of Political Science, University of Calcutta

Siddhartha Datta, former Professor of Chemical Engineering and former Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Jadavpur University

Sukanta Chaudhuri, Professor Emeritus, Jadavpur University Supriya Chaudhuri, Professor Emerita, Jadavpur University

Related:

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

I AM MALALA! Afghanistan or Ahmedabad why are fundamentalists wary of the right to education?

Galgotias University’s AI Expo Debacle: What it says about Contemporary Indian Education & Public Culture

The post Refrain consent to WB University & Colleges Amendment Bill, 2026, will affect autonomy & functioning: Academic to Governor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 19t and 20 2026, representatives of NAPM from Maharashtra and several other states across the country met and interacted with fisherfolk, Adivasis, farmers, die-makers, landless people, workers, and other affected communities in the Vadhavan area.

The Vadhavan Port project proposes to reclaim approximately 1,448 hectares of the sea to create land. In addition, large areas of land will be required for roads, railways, and other associated infrastructure. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has publicly stated that Vadhavan Port will transform Maharashtra’s economy, turn Palghar into a “Fourth Mumbai,” and create lakhs of jobs. But the fisherfolk, Adivasis, farmers, die-makers, and other local communities protesting along the Vadhavan coast do not want a form of development that destroys their lives and livelihoods.

The proposal for a port in the Vadhavan area had been questioned earlier as well on environmental grounds. Today, various agencies of the Union and State governments are taking the project forward. Yet the environmental and social concerns raised earlier remain unresolved, even as the scale of the project has expanded many times over. The experience of JNPT and other ports must be studied – including the traffic, urbanisation, pollution, impacts on fishing, and expansion of infrastructure that they have brought to coastal areas – and an independent assessment of the overall impacts of Vadhavan must be carried out. The damage already witnessed elsewhere should serve as a grave warning.

“We do not want a Fourth Mumbai. Our sea, our farms, our forests and our villages must remain as they are!”

With this demand, communities across the area have united under the leadership of the Vadhavan Bandar Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti to oppose the port. Beyond the port itself, the project entails approximately 1,448 hectares of marine reclamation, over 10 kilometres of breakwater, large-scale dredging, road and rail connectivity, storage and logistics infrastructure, and industrial and commercial development. In other words, this is a project that will transform the entire coastline. In NAPM’s view, this is not a chain of development, but a chain of destruction. The government speaks of an investment of Rs. 76,220 crore and the creation of lakhs of jobs. But alongside government agencies, major international port, terminal, logistics, and dredging operators are participating in this project. Who, then, will count the cost to the generations-old livelihoods of local fisherfolk, Adivasis, farmers, and small producers?

According to government studies, the 16 fishing villages in the project area are home to 20,809 fisherfolk belonging to 5,333 households. Fishing is the principal livelihood of these communities. Skill training or compensation of a few lakh rupees cannot replace the sea for a fisher. Traditional fishing, local fish resources – including lobster – and the entire economy built around them must be protected. Vadhavan lies within the ecologically sensitive Dahanu region. The cumulative impacts of massive marine reclamation, dredging, and the breakwater on sea currents, sediment movement, fishing grounds, and tidal ecosystems must be examined seriously.

A fundamental question remains: Have the traditional knowledge of local communities, their lived experience of the sea, and data on local biodiversity been adequately reflected in these studies?

If mangrove areas are affected, marine ecosystems could be destroyed. Such ecosystems are nearly impossible to recreate elsewhere, making their protection and conservation critically important. The impacts of sourcing material for Vadhavan’s reclamation and associated infrastructure – including quarrying in hilly areas, impacts on Adivasi areas, and deforestation – must also be taken into account. Cutting down a forest in one place and planting trees in another district cannot compensate for the loss of that ecosystem.

Official information indicates that private land, Adivasi land, forest land, and government land will be required for the roads and railways connecting the port. The impact of the project will therefore not remain confined to the port area. For Adivasi communities, land cultivated over generations is the very basis of survival. We cannot accept taking away these lands in the name of development – blasting hills, cutting forests, and dumping reclamation material, and calling this “development.”

It is misleading to present Vadhavan as simply a “container port.” According to official documents, it is a deep-draft major port with the capacity to handle bulk chemical and crude cargo in addition to containers. Under the Central Pollution Control Board’s classification, ports, harbours, jetties, and dredging operations fall under the Red Category, while ports handling only containers fall under the Orange Category.

Government documents claim a sea depth of 20 metres. However, the local Sangharsh Samiti says that measurements taken at low tide found the depth to be lower. Activists say that although this issue was raised during the public hearing, no satisfactory response was provided.

The NAPM has demanded:

—Put a halt to the Vadhavan Port project immediately.

—Immediately halt tree-felling and all related infrastructure works.

—-Conduct an independent and transparent cumulative impact assessment, with the participation of local fisherfolk, Adivasis, farmers, and women.

—-Independently re-measure the depth of the sea, including verification of the claim of a 20-metre depth. The exercise must be public and conducted in the presence of local communities.

—-Protect the generations-old livelihoods of fisherfolk. Traditional fishing must not be destroyed in the name of compensation or alternative employment.

—Protect Adivasi land and forests, and safeguard all their legal rights, including rights under PESA.

—-Protect the local ecosystem instead of afforestation in distant districts as compensation for the destruction of local forests.

—-Instead of imposing uncontrolled urbanization in the name of a “Fourth Mumbai,” establish schools, colleges, hospitals, healthcare services, and employment opportunities based on the needs of the local people.

Finally, the statement issued by NAPM states that the people’s movement at Vadhavan is not a struggle against one port alone. It is a struggle to defend the coastline, fisherfolk and Adivasi communities, agriculture, forests, and biodiversity.

“The people of Vadhavan do want development – they want schools, a college, hospitals and doctors; they want markets for their agriculture and horticulture; fisherfolk need facilities and fair prices; and young people need dignified employment in their own region.

“NAPM stands firmly with the Vadhavan Bandar Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti and with the fisherfolk, Adivasis, and local communities fighting this project. We reject a model of development built by destroying the sea, forests, land, and livelihoods.NAPM appeals to people’s movements across the country to express their solidarity with the sit-in protest that has now continued for the past 48 days.”

NAPM has been part of this struggle, which has continued for several decades, from the very beginning. Medha Patkar, the late Thomas Kocherry, Rambhau Patil, N. D. Koli and many other activists have stood with this struggle over the years.

The statement has been issued by Sanjay Mangala Gopal, Suniti S. R – National Convenors (from Maharashtra), Sujay More, Sirat Satpute, Maharashtra State Convenors. The Solidarity Team Members include Prasad Chacko, Ahmedabad; Pranjali Tripathi, Jaipur; Adv. Mini Mathew, Bandra; Siddharth Chakravarti, Bengaluru; Sakshi Samant, Thane; Nandkumar Pawar, Mumbai; Ramesh Koli, Uran; Mangesh Koli, Uran; Mayur Koli, Uran; Dhananjay Shinde; Rajshree Shinde, Mumbai

Related:

Dahanu locals reject JNPT survey that pushes for a new port at Vadhavan

Maharashtra’s fishing community fights to protect its ‘golden belt’ coast

50,000 strong Adivasi, farmers march from Charoti to Palghar, hold indefinite dharna for land rights

The post Stop construction of Vadhavan Port, have open discussions with local communities: Climate change activists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In this context the Delhi unit of the human rights platform has demanded the following:

– A Dedicated Hate Speech Monitoring Cell to track rallies, campaign speeches, TV, print and social media.

– Public helpline & complaint mechanism so citizens can report hate speech promptly.

– Immediate legal & electoral action against violations of law and the Model Code of Conduct.

– Accountability of officials who fail or refuse to act on reported hate speech.

– Public awareness campaign explaining what constitutes hate speech and its legal consequences.

Elections must be free from fear, intimidation, communal hatred and violence.

The call was given by T.S. Ahuja, general secretary, PUCL Delhi and advocate Vertika Mani

Secretary (media), PUCL Delhi

Related:

CJP files four complaints over hate speeches at gatherings across Maharashtra

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

Nazia Elahi Khan faces multiple FIRs over alleged hate speech

The post Act Against Hate Speech: PUCL Delhi to ECI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Paul had been arrested on August 7, 2026, in connection with FIR No. 464/2026 registered at Trombay Police Station over an October 12, 2025, event at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). The FIR invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Maharashtra Police Act, with a maximum prescribed punishment of five years. The bail came after Paul spent more than a month in jail.

The case arose from a campus gathering organised to commemorate the death anniversary of former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba. According to the FIR, students participating in the event raised slogans including “Rest in power G.N. Saibaba” and slogans demanding the release of jailed activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Nine people were booked in connection with the incident, with Paul named as accused No. 3.

From campus slogans to allegations of Maoist links

The prosecution sought to portray the gathering as something far more serious than a student commemoration. It alleged that the event was part of a pre-planned conspiracy intended to create ideological divisions among TISS students and disturb law and order. It further alleged that Paul had deleted secret groups, WhatsApp chats and the Signal application from his phone and that he had threatened witnesses and police personnel.

The prosecution also relied heavily on material recovered from Paul’s mobile phone, including PDFs of books concerning Maoism. It argued that these materials demonstrated support for Maoist ideology and suggested the possibility of links with banned organisations. The police went further, alleging that documents relating to the Purba Bangla Maoist Party indicated the possibility of cross-border connections and a larger organised network. The Court, however, did not accept that an ideological or political inference could simply be converted into criminal culpability.

The Magistrate noted that the investigation had sought to connect Paul’s activities to threats against national unity and the possibility of creating hatred in society. Yet, after examining the material placed before it, the Court found no prima facie incriminating material establishing his involvement in activities against the nation. His membership of the Progressive Students Forum, participation in the commemoration and raising of slogans did not, by themselves, provide sufficient material to establish the alleged Maoist connection. Most significantly, the Court rejected the attempt to draw a Maoist connection merely from the presence of Maoist literature in digital form.

“The allegations against the accused as per FIR is prima facie of conducting activity of commemoration of death anniversary and slogan and during investigation, it appears that the investigating officer has made suspicious activities of the accused by connecting with nation and made suspicion that the possibility of creating hatred in the community and in the society. Therefore, the investigation was undertaken on the said aspect, however, prima facie there is no incriminating material on record to justify involvement of the accused against the nation and only because accused is member of Progressive Students Forum of TISS and participation in the activity of commemoration and the uttering slogans along with the investigation carried out by the investigating officer prima facie does not found supporting material that the accused has got benefit of social network and prima facie no material to connect the accused with the mind set of Maoist merely because of finding of pdf books the inference of connection with the mind set of Maoist cannot be drawn.” (Para 15)

Reading books is not evidence of criminal association

The order draws an important line between possession or study of literature and proof of participation in a banned organisation or criminal activity. Relying, among other things, on the Bombay High Court’s reasoning in Jyoti Chorge v. State of Maharashtra, the Magistrate noted that literature which is not itself banned cannot automatically become incriminating merely because of its ideological content. The Court recognised that students may read and collect material as part of their academic engagement and pursuit of knowledge, and that such conduct cannot, without more, establish participation in a Maoist or Naxal movement.

This distinction is crucial in the present case. The prosecution’s case sought to move from what Paul allegedly read, what slogans he allegedly raised and which student organisation he belonged to an inference about his ideological allegiance and, ultimately, his supposed threat to national unity. But the Magistrate found that the evidentiary bridge between those facts and the criminal allegations had not been established.

The Court specifically recorded that there was no material demonstrating that Paul had used social networks to obtain a benefit for, or establish a connection with, a banned organisation. Nor did the material placed before the Court establish that merely possessing the PDFs meant that Paul shared the “mind set” of Maoists.

Custody cannot continue on suspicion alone

The Court also considered the length and purpose of the investigation. Paul had initially obtained interim protection from arrest from the Sessions Court in October 2025, which continued for several months. His anticipatory bail application was ultimately rejected on August 7, 2026, after which he was taken into custody. His mobile phone and laptop had already been seized and he had been interrogated.

The Magistrate found that the investigating agency had already been given sufficient time to investigate the allegations. In the Court’s assessment, the subsequent custodial interrogation had not produced material capable of establishing the alleged Maoist or anti-national connection.

“It is material to note that while consideration of ABA 2071 of 2025 and the aspect of involvement of the accused in the light of investigation was considered and the application of the accused was rejected for custodial interrogation to extract truth, however, prima facie except suspicion there is no material to link the activities of the accused with mindset of Maoist or against the nation or associating with banned organization against the India. The interrogation against the accused is carried out for sufficient period and in such circumstances, no further custody of the accused is required, therefore, in such circumstances, in comparative to the order passed in favour of accused Kamakhya Das by the Hon’ble High Court, the present accused has made out ground to release him on bail with imposing conditions to monitor the activities of the accused and safeguard the objection of prosecution.” (Para 17)

The Court consequently held that further custody was not required. It also took note of the Bombay High Court’s August 14, 2026, order granting protection to co-accused Kamakhya Das in connection with the same allegations. The High Court had, prima facie, considered whether participation in the event and the alleged slogans constituted an offence and granted protection subject to conditions, including attendance before the police for investigation.

Keeping him behind bars would not be just

The Magistrate also placed weight on Paul’s age and educational circumstances, observing that continued incarceration in the absence of incriminating material could adversely affect his career. The Court concluded that, where the investigation had had sufficient time and the material before it remained at the level of suspicion, keeping the young accused behind bars would not be just.

Paul has accordingly been granted bail on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh, with one or two sureties of the same amount. He was also directed to furnish provisional cash security of ₹1 lakh for two weeks and report to the DCB CID Unit-06 every Wednesday between 10 a.m. and noon until the filing of the chargesheet. The order also imposes conditions against influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, committing a similar offence and leaving India without the Court’s permission.

The order is, of course, confined to the question of bail and does not amount to a final determination on the merits of the prosecution case. The Magistrate expressly clarified that the prima facie observations made while deciding the bail application should not influence the final adjudication of the case.

Yet the reasoning is consequential. At least at the stage of bail, the Court has refused to treat political or ideological suspicion as a substitute for evidence. The presence of Maoist literature on a student’s device, participation in a campus commemoration, membership of a student forum and the raising of slogans may invite investigation, but they cannot, without supporting material, automatically establish association with a banned organisation or an offence against the nation.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

They Asked Questions. Then Came the Assault: Shaheen & Nafeesa Khan | Teesta Setalvad

Satya Niketan Collapse: When students and neighbours had to rescue students from a system that had failed them

Days of Demands, Hours of Protest: Swatantra Bhardwaj finally detained in assault case

The post Ex-TISS student gets bail as Mumbai Court rejects Maoist link based on ‘suspicion’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In this context, the NAPM, the NACEJ and the AIRF have stated that they see the recent case registered by CBI against Ms. Bhanu Tatak, as part of a series of repressive measures by the Government over years, to quell democratic resistance by the indigenous communities and farmers. The FIR by CBI against Bhanu, which alleges violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), state the NAPM and NACEJ, “is a means of intimidating, discrediting and weakening a peaceful people’s movement.” The nationwide forums have saluted the Siang Indigenous Farmers Forum Youth Wing (SIFFYW) that has resolutely stood with Bhanu, in the face of intimidation and divisive tactics of the Government, calling her true daughter of the Abor land. 

Instead of dialoguing with the local communities and wider Siang people’s movement, it is unjustifiable that an FCRA investigation has been instituted as an instrument of intimidation against Ms. Bhanu Tatak, a young woman indigenous leader, reads the detailed statement. “The timing and circumstances of this FIR are particularly troubling because they come amidst intensified efforts to advance surveys and pre-feasibility activities for the Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP), in the backdrop of sustained opposition from affected communities.”

Most crucially, the networks of people’s organisations have emphasised that a democratic people’s movement cannot be treated as a ‘security problem’ by the government.  In this context, the much criticised “FCRA is being increasingly weaponised to intimidate people’s organizations and harass their leaders. It is in fact the free flow of foreign funding for toxic infrastructure projects enabled by the Government (for ex. the disastrous SHANTI Act to privatize nuclear power generation) that poses a major risk to the people and environment in India. It is such decisions of the Government that need to be strongly questioned.”

Background: A retrospective amendment to the FCRA Act, 2010 through the Finance Bill, 2016, validated the foreign funds received by political parties after September 26, 2010. To avoid scrutiny before this date, the Government introduced another amendment in the Finance Act, 2018 to cover the period beginning August 5, 1976 – the date the original FCRA law came into existence. These amendments were done to counter a landmark judgement of the Delhi High Court in 2014, in a case filed by EAS Sarma and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The judgement found that the BJP and INC had taken donations from Vedanta & its subsidiaries, registered in England and Wales. 

The central question that people’s movements are asking today is: When a political party illegally takes foreign funds from corporates, is found guilty, amends the law to legalize its actions, and then weaponizes the FCRA to intimidate people’s movements, which are legitimately and democratically protesting the terrible environmental and social cost of ill-conceived projects, which only benefit corporates in the name of ‘development’, who is actually guilty of taking foreign funds to harm the interests of the country?

For years, communities of the Siang valley have raised fundamental objections to mega-dam construction. The proposed SUMP – described as a 12,500 MW project in recent reporting, would have profound implications for ancestral settlements, forests, agricultural land, riverine ecosystems and the cultural landscape of the indigenous Adi people. The opposition to these projects is neither ‘sudden’ nor an ‘externally manufactured phenomenon’. Resistance to large dams in the Siang basin has a history stretching back decades. Academic research published in 2025-26 documents the long-standing conflict between state-led hydropower development and indigenous communities in the valley.

The communities have repeatedly been at the forefront of the opposition. In 2025, villagers and the SIFF protested the deployment of Central Armed Police Forces in and around areas where SUMP-related pre-feasibility activities were being undertaken. Reports documented the presence of armed forces in multiple villages like Beging, Geku, Yingkiong and Boleng, while project-affected communities demanded their withdrawal. In September 2026, SIFF again publicly objected to the deployment of security forces for SUMP-related PFR activities and reported that project-affected families were demanding both the withdrawal of security forces from the villages and reversal of actions against community-level representatives.

Outlining in detail this background to how state power and the deliberate weaponisation of the FCRA law is being used to criminalise legitimate citizen’s protests, interventions and activity, the NAPM, the NACEJ and the AIRF have given detailed reasons for the reasoning behind this statement.

“Villages inhabited by citizens of India should not become militarized spaces simply because their inhabitants oppose a harmful “development” project. The presence of armed personnel around communities resisting a dam creates an unmistakable atmosphere of coercion. It risks transforming a question of democratic consent, indigenous rights, ecological protection and displacement into a question of law-and-order and national security. That is a completely wrong and unconstitutional approach.

“The Siang is not an ‘empty valley’.  For the Adi people, the Siang is not merely a water resource waiting to be converted into electricity. The river, forests, mountains and agricultural landscapes constitute an interconnected living cultural and ecological system. The Adi community has described the Siang as ‘Ane Siang‘ – the sacred river. The Adi Bane Kebang has also demanded the scrapping of SUMP and withdrawal of the Central Armed Police Forces deployed for project-related activities.

“Project-affected communities have repeatedly raised concerns over displacement, loss of ancestral land, destruction of forests, disruption of livelihoods and damage to cultural identity. Independent research also records the profound importance of these territories to indigenous agro-ecological systems and cultural continuity.

“Reports have also documented opposition to other mega-dam projects across Arunachal Pradesh, including projects in the Dibang and Siang/Siyom river systems. The experience of the Dibang Multipurpose Project, where indigenous communities have long resisted the project because of its implications for forests, land and livelihoods, should be a warning against repeating the same model of ‘development’ elsewhere.

“Consent cannot be replaced by force. We strongly reject the proposition that ‘development’ can be secured by deploying military personnel first and seeking people’s ‘consent’ later. If the government claims that local communities genuinely ‘support’ SUMP or similar mega-dam projects (as the govt propaganda states), the answer is simple:  Let the affected communities speak freely. And let their views and rights be respected and given precedence, instead of the vested interests of the dam-builders and corporations.”

Hence the forums have demanded:

• An immediate end to all oppressive measures against the local communities, SIFF, Bhanu Tatak, Ebo Mili and other community leaders and activists, including by misuse of the FCRA law against Bhanu Tatak.

• Immediate withdrawal of all armed forces / military personnel from the indigenous villages, de-militarization and restoration of space for democratic participation by communities in Government decisions that affect their livelihoods, ecology and futures.

• Free, fair and transparent public consultations at the village level must be held in the presence of neutral observers.
• Revocation of all clearances and permissions granted to the hydro-electric and power projects in the region, in violation of law and democratic processes.

Related:

Voices of resistance: Indigenous peoples’ struggle against the Siang Mega-Dam in Arunachal Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh University students join protests against CAB; Show Support to NESO

The post Climate, riverine & indigenous movements from across India express full solidarity with the democratic anti-dam struggle in Arunachal Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hence the alliance of women rights organisations from across the country has rejected the conflation of equality with uniformity and homogeneity. Likewise, ALIFA has ‘refused the criminalisation and surveillance being imposed in the garb of ‘gender justice’. We demand an immediate rollback of these Codes and insist that there must be no rush to enact or impose them without ensuring that all constitutional rights of the affected communities are fully safeguarded and that widespread consultations are held with them.’

‘A week ago, on September 13, 2026, Mr Amit Shah, the Union Home Minister, publicly said that a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) would be implemented in all 21 BJP- and NDA-ruled states before 2029. This renewed push by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to impose a UCC across the country before the 2029 elections demands a firm and clear response from women representing diverse social locations across India, in whose name this monolith project of the BJP-RSS is being orchestrated.

The Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand has been in force since January 27, 2025. The UCC Bills passed by Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh in their Legislative Assemblies are awaiting Presidential assent as of September 2026, and therefore, not yet in force. Neither Uttarakhand’s UCC nor the frameworks contained in the Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh UCC Bills provide a model that incorporates substantive gender equality, let alone gender justice. A critical scrutiny of the UCC Codes across states by ALIFA has revealed the many ways in which these are likely to have adverse impacts on women and vulnerable social groups, while claiming to ‘safeguard women’s rights’.

The All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) elaborates on our key concerns regarding the UCC Law and Bills here:

• The new codes retain and reproduce unjust provisions that push back against hard-won rights, over decades. They retain restitution of conjugal rights equally for men and women, a remedy long denounced by women’s rights advocates for compelling marital cohabitation and for its potential use against women attempting to leave abusive marriages. They restrict access to divorce during the first year of marriage, subject only to narrow exceptions, rather than expanding women’s ability to leave a marriage safely and autonomously and include religious conversion as a ground for divorce. All these provisions are regressive and inimical to constitutional freedoms and rights.
• The new Codes fail to address the gaps already known in the existing Personal and secular laws across the country. Rather than providing a comprehensive family-law framework, many remain largely focused on marriage, divorce, succession and live-in relationships. They do not address issues such as marriage inequality, the absence of a concept of marital property for women, no-fault divorce with safeguards for women, and marital rape, which have been consistently brought before the Supreme Court for redressal or raised by women’s and queer movements, and legal reform campaigns. Nor do they suggest reform of adoption and guardianship to guarantee equal parental rights irrespective of gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or marital status.
• Instead, some of these Codes introduce new criminal penalties into intimate and family relationships without adequate provision for ensuring the matrimonial rights of women. The emerging approach of selectively criminalising certain marriage and divorce practices historically associated with Muslim Personal Law and practices such as Triple Talaq is a glaring example of this. Gender justice does not mean arbitrarily singling out particular communities and practices for penal treatment, while leaving the structural inequalities experienced by women across communities substantially untouched. As feminists, we oppose the substantive inequality and discrimination related to divorce, separation and annulment, inheritance, custody, and guardianship in all communities.
• Most glaringly, the Codes do not address women’s economic inequality within marriage. They do not establish a marital-property regime that recognises women’s unpaid care and domestic labour or guarantees an equitable share in assets accumulated, sustained, or value-added during marriage. Formal equality in marriage and inheritance means little, if women must leave decades-long marriages without an enforceable share in the wealth their unpaid and paid labour helped create.
• The succession provisions in the Codes also require much closer scrutiny than the language of “equal inheritance” suggests. Under the Hindu Succession Act, daughters and sons currently have a birthright in Mitakshara coparcenary property. Uttarakhand’s UCC removes the distinction between coparcenary and other property and permits property to be disposed of by will, potentially removing the limited protection against disinheritance that daughters had in ancestral joint-family property. The Muslim Personal Law provides mandatory shares for legal heirs, including daughters and sons, and restricts testamentary disposition to one-third of the estate. The Goa Succession Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act stipulates one-half of the estate to the “forced heirs” in case of children. The UCC displaces these protections too. A genuinely gender-just succession regime should not merely ask whether formal shares are described as equal, but whether women and other vulnerable heirs remain protected against disinheritance and economic dispossession.
• The UCC Law and Bills empower the State to surveil and arbitrarily intrude into the intimate lives of citizens, including coercive intervention through registration, inquiry, reporting and penal provisions in the name of ensuring equality in marriage, inheritance and other aspects of family law. These provisions are especially dangerous for inter-faith, inter-caste, queer and transgender couples whose relationships are already under extreme scrutiny and stigma. The Gujarat Bill, which makes registers of marriages, divorces and other prescribed records open to inspection, allows certified extracts to be obtained on application, and requires employers, government bodies, companies and other authorities to rely on UCC registration certificates before changing a person’s recorded marital status, typifies this approach. While this may protect women who could be deceived if information regarding their intended marriage is not in the public domain, there are no safeguards for the adverse consequences this can have for inter-faith or inter-caste marriages that face opposition from family or civil society groups.
• The UCC Law and Bills criminalise aspects of consensual adult relationships, creating victims and culprits without a crime. The provisions transform consensual adult intimacy into a matter for administrative verification, third-party complaint, police record and criminal punishment, including imprisonment merely for failure to register a consensual adult relationship. Under Uttarakhand’s UCC Law, adults in a live-in relationship MUST register it within a month or face imprisonment; similar mandatory-registration and penal provisions have now been reproduced in the Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh Bills. In Gujarat, for example, the Registrar may summon the partners or “any other person” as part of an inquiry; records of live-in relationships are required to be forwarded to the local police; parents or guardians are required to be informed where either partner is below 21and non-registration can attract imprisonment. A complaint or information from a third party can trigger proceedings requiring the couple to register as well. The arbitrariness and discrimination are stark, as those in consensual adult live-in relationships are subjected to registration and policing under the garb of protection, while corresponding protections are not included in the Codes for adults in forced marriage, in inter-caste, in inter-faith marriage or queer and transgender couples facing familial coercion or violence.
• The UCC Law and Bills do not apply to all women. One, they explicitly exclude Scheduled Tribe communities, almost 15% of the Indian population. Two, some emerging UCCs continue to organise marriage and family around binary categories of “man” and “woman”, do not recognise same-sex marriage, and fail to create a clear framework recognising queer and trans people’s relationships and families and other forms of CIS families. The Gujarat Bill, for example, contains no reference to transgender persons at all, thereby completely excluding the relationships and marriages of transgender people and other queer people.  Transgender and queer people, as well as Adivasi women, have been demanding gender justice, rights and equality (not UCC) in live-in and marital relationships for a long time. A UCC Law or Bill cannot credibly describe itself as “uniform” while shutting out the lived experiences of entire communities and family forms and/or rendering them legally invisible.
• The new Codes totally ignore Goa’s experience and the complexities and contradictions with its UCC. The Goa ‘UCC’ is hardly uniform when looked at closely. It continues to recognise both canonical and civil registration of marriages, which may not per se be discriminatory, while many discriminatory provisions of the Code of Customs and Usages of Gentile Hindus continue to be applicable. Uniform provisions that are discriminatory for women include empowering the male spouse to manage the marital property. The issues of inadequate access to family law and several other concerns identified in the Goa UCC remain unaddressed in the new UCC Law and Bills.
• The Uniform Civil Code was placed in the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution, under Article 44, a goal that the State should be working towards. But Article 44 does not prescribe what form such a Code must take, nor does it require uniformity to be pursued through the erasure of legal pluralism and social diversity.  Thus, Article 44 clearly enables amendments to existing laws to move towards uniformity of rights. Even the 21^st Law Commission (2018) set up by the BJP government found that a UCC is neither necessary nor desirable. Instead, it recommended amending every Personal Law to remove discrimination within family laws while preserving diversity where difference itself was not discriminatory. Similar demands have been placed by several women’s groups for decades.
• The UCC Law and Bills, by conflating equality with uniformity, miss the point that uniformity does not guarantee equality, nor is non-uniformity necessarily discriminatory. The prescriptive law of monogamy has not ensured justice and equality. This for instance, is the case for women whose husbands enter subsequent relationships or marriages without their consent or knowledge, as also for women who marry not knowing of the prior marriage of their husband, and those who marry in coercive circumstances. Nor does formally identical treatment necessarily address unequal bargaining power, unpaid care work, economic dependence, domestic violence or women’s lack of access to marital assets.
• Notably, despite BJP’s push, UCC is not fully agreeable even to all NDA constituents. Bihar’s ruling JD (U) has ruled out implementing a UCC in the state. Other NDA allies have called for discussion or consultation rather than automatic implementation. Those objections cannot simply be overridden.  BJP cannot and should not manufacture consent by projecting the UCC as an instrument for achieving women’s rights in live-in relationships or marriage.
• BJP deliberately denies the plural Indian reality that all people need not live by ONE prescribed model of family, culture or community and that gender justice does not require erasure of non-discriminatory difference. India has multiple kinds of kin relationships/families that are determined by locality, community, history, geography, religion, caste, sexuality and gender. Customs differ across the country within the same religious community too. Likewise, the communities categorised as scheduled tribes also have diverse customs within. What we require is that women, queer and transgender persons across communities and social locations, enjoy equitable rights, dignity, autonomy and freedom, and the capacity to determine the terms on which they live their own lives.
• In an electoral democracy, lawmaking for citizens in the absence of their significant representation in national parliament and state assemblies is undemocratic. Laws restructuring the intimate and family lives of hundreds of millions of people require meaningful participation by those most affected, including Muslim women, Adivasi women, Dalit and Bahujan women, queer and transgender people, women from indigenous communities, persons with disabilities, single women and women from diverse regional and religious communities. Representation cannot be substituted by governments claiming to speak on their behalf. In fact, without immediate and unconditional implementation of Women’s Reservation (including for women from all disadvantaged and vulnerable groups), such laws having far-reaching implications cannot be legislated on behalf of women. If specific provisions of Personal Laws that are discriminatory in nature require reform, the Government should bring in the reforms only through widespread consultation with women, queer and transgender people from all social and geographical locations.

For all these elaborated and articulated arguments, ALIFA states that it “believes that BJP’s obsession with regulating intimacy – who to marry, form relationships and constitute families belongs to an age-old repertoire of social control, now refurbished in the garb of ‘modernity’, ‘reform’ and ‘women’s empowerment’. The BJP cynically co-opts and turns upside down this language of women’s empowerment and gender justice to advance a much wider project of cultural homogenisation, control, and Hindu Rashtra. We see this pattern across a range of current initiatives, from the politics around NRC and SIR to the High-Powered Demography Mission that proposes demographic surveillance and other measures that seek to define who belongs, who does not, and what constitutes an acceptable citizen and family. We firmly place the UCC within this larger political context, rather than treating it as an isolated question of legal reform.”

Among the demands placed before the government are:

1. The Government of Uttarakhand to immediately repeal rights-repulsive provisions including those that criminalise non-registration of consensual live-in relationships, mandatorily require police and parental notification, and subject adult relationships to State inquiry, and to incorporate provisions that factor in both legal pluralism and enabling rights after due consultative processes.
2. That the Governments of Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh immediately withdraw the Bills passed in the respective state Assemblies.
3. That the governments of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Chhattisgarh, which have set up committees to recommend a draft UCC, do not take any further steps and instead institute widespread democratic consultations with women’s rights and civil rights organisations, queer and transgender persons groups, Adivasi organisations, disability-rights groups, minority organisations and other affected communities.
4. That all the state government’s stop family law legislation in the name of UCC, which is being imposed and accompanied by an Islamophobic diatribe.
5. That any amendments to family laws that are discriminatory should be done only after consultation with women, queer and transgender people across communities and social locations, and should be assessed against the substantive outcomes of equality, autonomy, dignity, economic security and freedom from discrimination and violence rather than against uniformity for its own sake.
6. Any reform of succession law must preserve or strengthen protections against the economic disinheritance of women, rather than replacing existing birthright or mandatory-share protections with unrestricted testamentary power.
7. Any reform of family law must recognise the different consensual relationships, families and parental rights of adult cisgender, queer and transgender people rather than maintaining a formally uniform but substantively heteronormative and gender-binary framework that is effectively discriminatory.
8. The State must address the substantive areas on which women’s, transgender and queer movements have repeatedly demanded reform, including marital property, no-fault divorce with safeguards for women, equal guardianship and adoption rights, marital rape, maintenance, economic security on dissolution of marriage, and meaningful access to family-law justice.
9. Family-law reform must recognise unpaid care work and women’s contribution to assets accumulated during marriage and create enforceable equitable economic rights at separation, divorce and death.
10. Any legal recognition of live-in relationships must be rights-conferring and dignity-affirming rather than surveillance-based, intruding on privacy: access to maintenance, protection from violence, inheritance and other remedies must not depend upon compulsory registration of an intimate relationship.
11. Personal and relationship data collected under family law must be subject to strict necessity, confidentiality and data-protection safeguards, as also upheld by the Supreme Court in the right to privacy judgements and must not be routinely shared with police, families or third parties.
12.  No person’s free choice of partner or intimate relationship should trigger parental notification, police scrutiny or administrative investigation because of their religion, caste, gender identity, sexuality or decision not to marry.
13. Any comprehensive reform must be tested not only for formal equality but for its actual impact on women and people facing social and structural disadvantage, particularly economically poor women, Adivasi and Dalit-Bahujan women, Muslim women, queer and transgender people, persons with disabilities, migrants, single women and survivors of violence.

In conclusion, All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) has stated in this detailed public statement that it “unequivocally rejects the deeply paternalistic, invasive and unwelcome ‘reforms’ being imposed in the name of women and the attempt to homogenise equality for all women, erasing the agency of women across social locations. We refuse to be fooled by the smokescreen of ‘women’s rights’ and seek to expose both the rhetoric and the substantive content of the Uniform Civil Code, including enacted and emerging Codes across India. Through a continuing critical examination of their provisions and underlying political project, we shall strive to engage with and enable women, queer and transgender people across India to see through these UCCs for the falsehoods that they are and collectively resist the exclusionary politics, the conflation of uniformity with equality, and cultural control with women’s empowerment.”

The statement has been issued by both the All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM).

Related:

Assam: Bill on Uniform Civil Code (UCC), a partisan act?

Uttarakhand implements Uniform Civil Code (UCC) attracting criticism and concerns

Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code: A Majoritarian Code – Neither Uniform nor Civil

The post Strengthen gender justice & secular legal frameworks, No To ‘Uniform Control Code’ in garb of UCC: ALIFA appeared first on SabrangIndia.