“Sabak sikhaana chahiye. Jaise Israel sikhaaya Gaza mein. Uss tareeke se. Hamaare Bharat ke 100 crore Hindu; desh ka Hindu hitt mein chal raha hai sarkar. Sabak sikhaana chahiye. Jaise Operation Sindoor mein Pakistan ko hum logon ne sabak sikhaaya (A lesson should be taught. Like Israel taught in Gaza. Our country’s 100 crore Hindus; the government is being run in the interest of Hindus. A lesson should be taught. Like we taught Pakistan during Operation Sindoor),” he said.

The comment has drawn widespread criticism from the opposition. The Trinamool Congress wrote on X, “BJP has perfected hate and intolerance into an art form. Their venomous loudmouth, Suvendu Adhikari, just bared his fascist fangs again, spewing genocidal bile by proclaiming that India must teach Muslims a lesson like Israel taught Gaza.” “This naked hate speech, a bloodthirsty call for mass murder and ethnic cleansing”. “No FIR. No arrest. No prosecution. No UAPA slapped on this Hitler-in-the-making. Remember THIS statement when he dangles Humayun Kabir as a carrot for Muslim votes. Remember THIS statement! Remember THIS face! “

.@BJP4India has perfected HATE and INTOLERANCE into an artform.

Their venomous loudmouth, @SuvenduWB, just bared his fascist fangs again, spewing genocidal bile by proclaiming that India must teach Muslims a lesson like Israel taught Gaza.

This is naked hate speech, a… pic.twitter.com/kNnG2IqOjl

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) December 27, 2025

Senior counsel in the Supreme Court of India and former Congress leader Kapil Sibal also highlighted that Adhikari’s comments had led to “no FIR, no arrest, no prosecution, no UAPA”.

Suvendra Adhikari (26/12/2025)

NDTV 9pm said :

India must teach Muslims a lesson similar to the lesson Israel taught the people of Gaza

No FIR
No arrest
No prosecution

No UAPA !

— Kapil Sibal (@KapilSibal) December 27, 2025

Trinamool Congress MP and the party’s deputy leader in Rajya Sabha, Sagarika Ghose, posted on X, “BJP’s Bengal ‘face’ wants a Gaza-like operation against Bangladesh. Dog whistles that the Narendra Modi government is for ‘Hindus’ only. Dirty politics of divide and rule won’t work in Bengal.”

The @BJP4India’s Bengal ‘face’ wants a Gaza like operation against Bangladesh. Dog whistles that the @narendramodi government is for ‘Hindus’ only. Do you concur with this @narendramodi @DrSJaishankar ? Dirty politics of Divide and Rule won’t work in Bengal, @SuvenduWB pic.twitter.com/vLWm9b3AXb

— Sagarika Ghose (@sagarikaghose) December 27, 2025

Related:

WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence

Battleground Bengal: ECI finally takes action against Suvendu Ahikari for communal speech

How the Hindutva propaganda machine turns citizens into ‘infiltrators’

The post Hate & Intimidation: Teach Bangladesh a lesson akin to what Israel taught Gaza, says BJP Bengal leader Suvendu Adhikari appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The rule of law, public trust in institutions and leaders, and the capacity to enforce accountability are all fruits of the trees planted during the freedom struggle. It is politically obvious that all political parties need some moral claim to have contributed to cultivation of these values in the Indian polity. Even many regional parties adopt icons from the Freedom Struggle to claim their legitimacy unless they themselves are resultants of some churn in the 80s or 90s. Examples include DMK adopting Periyar, or the Lohiaite socialist parties of North India. After all, fundamentalist and exclusivist religious nationalism cannot be the source of legitimacy forever.

And, it is also natural that the Congress, and even the Communists, do not have a need to constantly reiterate their contributions; these are etched into collective memory, passed down through generations from Telangana to Jammu and Kashmir, and from Assam to Maharashtra. This, however, is not the case with the Sangh Parivar. For this reason, the political power amassed by the BJP has been repeatedly deployed to weave itself into history. This article examines, with meticulous sincerity, not judgment, the nature and extent of the RSS’s contribution to the freedom struggle.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—founded in 1925—presents a particularly complex and paradoxical case. Its existence spanned the zenith of Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraha campaigns, the agonising political negotiations for self-rule, and the brutal culmination of Partition. Tracking the role of the RSS in the first quarter-century of its formation (1925 to 1950) reveals an organisation that was preoccupied not with overthrowing the colonial power, but with unifying the Hindu populace through quasi-military training and ideological purification, often drawing direct inspiration from Europe’s most destructive authoritarian movements.[1] This examination, drawing on existing extensive scholarship often overlooked by those who seek to whitewash the history of Hindu nationalism, finds the RSS’s contribution to the core anti-colonial struggle to be negligible, if not actively counterproductive, substituting nationalist action for communal consolidation and ideological emulation of colonial systems, albeit unknowingly.[2]

As one of the most important constituents of the current Indian ruling establishment, if not the most important, celebrates 100 years of its existence and now looks to have international influence via lobbying, it is important to examine whether it indeed was what it claims to have been.

I. The Foundation: 1925–1940

The RSS was established on the day of Vijayadashami (Dussehra) in 1925 by Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, a Telugu Brahmin doctor from Nagpur.[3] Hedgewar’s belief was that the fragmentation and deep social divisions among Hindus were the primary reasons for what he deemed a thousand years of foreign subjugation of the subcontinent.[4] The antidote he envisioned was a rigorous system of training focused on ‘character-building’ (chaaritya nirman), aimed at forging a disciplined cadre of men who would unify the highly pluralistic country and serve as a model for other Indians.[5]

The RSS’s foundational ideology was inextricably linked to the Hindu Mahasabha, sharing the core philosophy of Hindutva as propounded by V.D. Savarkar.[6] Savarkar, whose literary flourish and often ‘merciless and blunt’ prose provided ideological groundwork, defined the nation not by pluralistic geography but by religious and cultural unity, articulating a vision of Hindu Rashtra.[7] Indeed, the close symbiotic relationship between the Mahasabha and the RSS led the colonial government itself to view the Sangh as almost the youth wing of the Mahasabha in its early decades.[8] The Hindu Mahasabha formally commended the activities of the RSS in 1932.[9]

Hedgewar, despite having been involved in the revolutionary movement during his student days in Calcutta and having participated in the Congress movement in 1921, came to reject mainstream politics. As his views progressed, Hegdewar’s hypothesis about the reasons for subjugation of Indian subcontinent region (this in his mind was Hindu society) by Islamic invasions and British colonialism also took shape.[10]

He felt that in the disintegrated state of the country, only a Hindu organisation based on brotherhood and patriotism could secure independence.[11] The RSS focused heavily on establishing daily mandatory assemblies called shakhas, which involved physical exercise, military drills, and weapons training using the lathi (wooden staff).[12]

Critically, writer Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay notes that Hedgewar’s strategy explicitly demanded organisational distance from the core political struggle led by the Indian National Congress. When the Civil Disobedience Movement was launched in 1930, Hedgewar reluctantly participated in a satyagraha in his individual capacity for nine months. However, he intentionally kept the organisation and its members away from the movement. He worried that the RSS’s organisational work would suffer. The prohibition on direct political involvement was a strong message to members desiring action, as the RSS sought to attain the ideal of Hindu Rashtra through man-making and training, believing this goal required no ‘external stimuli’ such as agitations, which were categorized as morally corrupting or rajasik (valorous agitation).[13]

The Shadow of European Fascism: An Analogy

Compounding the RSS’s distance from the anti-colonial movement was its startling admiration for European fascism and Nazism. B.S. Moonje, Hedgewar’s political mentor, was particularly enamoured by these movements. After meeting Benito Mussolini in Italy in 1931, Moonje lauded the fascist youth group, the Opera Nazionale Balilla, for its contribution to Italy’s “military regeneration”.[14] He declared India needed such an institution for the “military regeneration of the Hindus” and believed the realisation of organising Hindus could only occur if India had “a Hindu as a Dictator like…Shivaji of Old or Mussolini or Hitler”.[15] British intelligence reports, assessing the RSS as early as 1933, warned that the Sangh hoped to be to future India what the “Fascist” were to Italy and the “Nazi” to Germany.[16]

The RSS mirrored this emphasis on racial exclusivity in its internal doctrine. M.S. Golwalkar, writing later, expressed admiration for Nazi Germany’s racial policies, specifically the purging of Jews to maintain “racial and cultural purity”.  Academic Shamshul Islam notes that Savarkar even suggested that Indian Muslims might have to “play the part of German Jews”.[17]  The RSS doctrine asserted that Hindus were the rightful inhabitants and that non-Hindus, categorized as invaders or guests, must fully assimilate or be forced to “live at its mercy”.[18] This emphasis on creating a unified ‘national race’ and preparing cadres through rigorous training, divorced from the anti-colonial movement, positioned the RSS against internal pluralism.

Ironically, this ideological leaning toward a militaristic, exclusionary nationalism aligns functionally with the founding principles of the Zionist project in Palestine. The Zionist project prioritised establishing “Strict communal and Jewish-centred colonies”, perceiving the indigenous Palestinians as an obstacle to national goals. The core Zionist strategy was converting settlement into the main thrust of nationalism, involving demographic control and the extraction of land and jobs.[19]

II. The Era of Acquiescence: 1940–1947

The second phase began with the ascension of Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar as Sarsanghchalak in 1940. Golwalkar, who had demonstrated an inclination towards spiritual pursuits, placed the highest priority on the continuity of the shakha system and its character-building mission.[20] He was reluctant to engage in direct political action, fearing it would derail the primary task of building the Hindu Rashtra through man-making.[21]

This political aloofness defined the RSS during the Quit India Movement of 1942, the most powerful mass uprising against the British Raj. While many youth were mobilized into the RSS during World War II, the organisation maintained strict neutrality from the movement itself.[22]

The strategic non-participation was openly acknowledged by the British government. A Bombay Home Department report stated that the Sangh had “scrupulously kept itself within the law, and in particular, has refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August, 1942”.[23] Consequently, the Home Department concluded that the RSS did not represent an “immediate menace to law and order”.[24] This passive collaboration, or active non-opposition, enabled the RSS to focus entirely on its communal project while the Congress bore the full weight of British repression.[25]

During this period, Golwalkar codified the RSS’s exclusionary vision in Bunch of Thoughts. The extensive focus on ‘character-building’ within this work reaffirmed the ideological commitment to identity politics, analysing the forces that united Hindus and separated them from other communities. Golwalkar’s teachings defined nationalism narrowly, rejecting the individualistic principles of democracy and tracing the foundations of modern democracy solely to self-interest and materialism, which he labelled a rakshasi paddhati (demonic system).[26]

The militaristic aspect of the RSS’s character-building served its divisive mission in the run-up to Independence. Between 1942 and 1948, some RSS members in Sindh, for example, received training in handling bombs and hand grenades.[27] This training was primarily organized to address the perceived internal enemy, the Muslim community.[28]

The ideological framework of the RSS during this time strongly embraced the concept of a pure racial nation, justifying the organization’s militant focus.[29] The organisational template used centralized, hierarchical authority, mirroring the disciplinary and militaristic approach necessary for the physical control and consolidation.[30]

III. Partition, Assassination, and Suppression: 1947–1950

The Partition of British India in 1947 fundamentally undermined the RSS’s central goal of a unified territory (Akhand Bharat).[31] Despite this failure, energies were actively channelled  into the resultant communal violence, with some members even participating in the partition violence.[32] Renowned Constitutional Law Scholar and Lawyer AG Noorani notes that even Jawaharlal Nehru wrote letters to both Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Govind Ballabh Pant about the violent activities of RSS and the need to curb such actions, even as Partition violence was being perpetuated.[33]

The RSS’s rhetoric and actions stood in direct opposition to the path of pluralism championed by Gandhi, who described the RSS as a “communal body with a totalitarian outlook”.[34]

The inevitable crisis arrived on January 30, 1948, with the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The killer, Nathuram Godse, had been an RSS member, though he claimed to have left the organisation in 1938.[35] Godse and his co-conspirator, Narayan Apte, ran the virulent communal magazine Agrani (later Hindu Rashtra), which fiercely criticised Gandhi and Nehru for allegedly neglecting Hindu interests.[36] Godse was intrinsically a part of the RSS’s “extended family” at the time of the murder.[37]

A police report cited a meeting attended by Golwalkar in December 1947 where the discussion included proposals to ‘assassinate the leading persons of the Congress in order to terrorise the public.[38]

On February 4, 1948, the Government of India declared the RSS an “unlawful association”.[39] The ban was prompted by the widespread “suspicion of RSS involvement in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi” and the alleged creation of an environment conducive to “anti-Muslim violence.” Golwalkar was detained on February 3, 1948.[40] Jawaharlal Nehru explicitly criticised the RSS’s “real objectives” as being contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and characterized its activities as “anti-national and often subversive and violent.”[41]

Paradoxically, the RSS responded to the ban by resorting to its first mass agitation, using the Gandhian principle of non-violent resistance (satyagraha) that it had previously shunned as mere politics.[42] The organisation fought for legitimacy, eventually entering into rigorous negotiations with the government.

The ban was lifted on July 11, 1949, contingent upon the RSS adopting a constitution.[43] The RSS pledged in its draft constitution that the organisation would remain “aloof from politics and is devoted to social and cultural fields only”.[44] The government also demanded that the organisation declare allegiance to the national flag and commit to scrutiny of its accounts.[45] Despite these formal concessions for institutional survival, Golwalkar later assured his followers that the organization had “given up nothing” of its core principles, characterizing the required clarification as a mere governmental imposition.[46] The conclusion of this period saw the RSS severely tarnished but ideologically intact, prepared to continue its project of Hindu Rashtra from within the framework of the new Indian state.

The RSS spearheaded exclusivity through its doctrine of Hindutva. Golwalkar’s insistence that non-Hindus, including Muslims and Christians, were “foreigners” who must assimilate or reside at the mercy of the “national race”,[47] finds a direct counterpart in extremist imperative to manage and control the presence of the local ‘other’. Golwalkar’s explicit praise for Nazi Germany’s efforts to maintain racial purity provided a chilling template for dealing with internal minorities.[48]

Moonje’s vision of a Hindu dictator and his emulation of fascist military youth camps defined the RSS’s organizational goal as military regeneration and defence against the “aggressiveness” of non-Hindus. This training was vital for executing communal violence during Partition.[49]

Ironically again, post-1967, the RSS openly celebrated Israel’s “aggressive Zionist militarism” as a symbol of Hindu resurgence, confirming the organisation’s ideological alignment with exclusionary, militant ethnic nationalism as a valid path to realizing “historical destiny”.[50]

The RSS utilised the concept of historical reclamation, asserting that Hindus were the original inhabitants of a territory and that others were invaders, providing the rationale for their subjugation.[51] This ideological framework, rooted in exclusionary and racialist models of nation-building, clearly positions the RSS’s function in its first 25 years as parallel not to a unified anti-colonial front, but to a determined project preparing for ethnic hegemony in the post-imperial era.

Conclusion

RSS’ contribution to the freedom movement, therefore, was negligible. That is said multiple times. What also becomes clear from the above discussion is that the current brute force religious nationalism it espouses or effectuates has seeds in how it saw itself as the harbinger of Hindu nationalism that also spoke with a positive attitude about the then fascist ideologies. However, the most important takeaway from the above discussion is that the if the origins of RSS have any effect on the RSS today (which they obviously do but since we are doing this analysis in a sincere and non-judgmental paradigm), and therefore on the country today—such effects are not positive or inclusive but are exclusionary, virulently communal and dangerous to the idea of India—a secular, diverse and vibrant people’s democracy. If the origins do not have any effect on the RSS, then it does not make sense for the high constitutional and political functionaries of India to “yap” about RSS as if it is an organisation worth its salt.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] Pieter Friedrich, Saffron Fascists: India’s Hindu Nationalist Rulers (2020) 49

[2] Jyotirmaya Sharma, Terrifying Vision 49

[3] Walter Andersen and Shridhar D Damle, Messengers of Hindu Nationalism: How the RSS Reshaped India (C Hurst & Co (Publishers) Ltd, 2019) 14; Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, The RSS Icons of the Indian Right (Westland Publications Private Limited, 2019) 11.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts (Vikram Prakashan 1966) 85.

[7] Vikram Sampath, Savarkar Echoes from a Forgotten Past, 1883–1924 (Penguin 2019) 482;

[8] Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy, 1924-1966 (Penguin 2020) 390

[9] Pralay Kanungo, RSSs Tryst with Politics 47

[10] Pralay Kanungo, RSSs Tryst with Politics 43.

[11] Jyotirmaya Sharma, Terrifying Vision 216

[12] Walter K Andersen and Shridhar D Damle, Messengers of Hindu Nationalism: How the RSS Reshaped India (Routledge 2019) 91; Pralay Kanungo, RSSs Tryst with Politics 89

[13] Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, The RSS Icons of the Indian Right 295; Pralay Kanungo, RSSs Tryst with Politics 41

[14] Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, The RSS Icons of the Indian Right 44

[15] Ibid

[16] Ibid

[17] Shamsul Islam, RSS, School Texts and the Murder of Mahatma Gandhi: The Hindu Communal Project (Sage Publications 2008) 87

[18] Devanura Mahadeva, RSS: The Long and Short of It (2022) 24

[19] lan Pappe, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2006) 54, 41.

[20] Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, The RSS Icons of the Indian Right 110

[21] Ibid

[22] Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, The RSS Icons of the Indian Right 109

[23] Walter Andersen and Shridhar D Damle, Messengers of Hindu Nationalism 51

[24] Pralay Kanungo, RSSs Tryst with Politics 84

[25] Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, The RSS Icons of the Indian Right 110

[26] Jyotirmaya Sharma, Terrifying Vision 24

[27] Jyotirmaya Sharma, Terrifying Vision 163

[28] Jyotirmaya Sharma, Terrifying Vision 58, 130

[29] Jyotirmaya Sharma, Terrifying Vision 26

[30] AG Noorani, The RSS: A Menace to India (LeftWord Books 2019) 101

[31] Walter Andersen and Shridhar D Damle, Messengers of Hindu Nationalism 8.

[32] AG Noorani, The RSS: A Menace to India (LeftWord Books 2019) 146

[33] AG Noorani, RSS:Menace to India 128

[34] Partha Banerjee, In the Belly of the Beast: The Hindu Supremacist RSS and BJP of India (Ajanta 1998) 162

[35] Dhirendra K Jha, ‘Historical Records Expose the Lie That Nathuram Godse Left the RSS’ (Caravanmagazine.in2020) <https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/historical-record-expose-lie-godse-left-rss> accessed 8 December 2025.

[36] Vikram Sampath, Savarkar: A Contested Legacy 468

[37] Devanura Mahadeva, RSS: The Long and Short of It (2022) 46

[38] Jyotirmaya Sharma, Terrifying Vision 121

[39] Walter K Andersen and Shridhar D Damle, The RSS: A View to the Inside (Penguin Viking 2018) 6

[40] Hartosh Singh Bal, ‘How MS Golwalkar and Vallabhbhai Patel Ensured the RSS’s Survival after Gandhi’s Assassination’ (Caravanmagazine.in30 January 2019) <https://caravanmagazine.in/extract/gandhi-assassination-rss-vallabhbhai-golwalkar> accessed 8 December 2025.

[41] Noorani, RSS:A Menace to India, 9.

[42] Ibid 215

[43] Noorani (n 31) 146

[44] Jyotirmaya Sharma, Terrifying Vision 196; Walter K Andersen and Shridhar D Damle, RSS A View to the Inside 196

[45] A G Noorani, The RSS A Menace to India 560.

[46] Ibid 582

[47] Devanura Mahadeva. RSS: The Long and Short of It, 26

[48] M S Golwalkar, We or Our Nationhood Defined (Bharat Publications 1939) 87

[49] Noorani, RSS: A Menace to India, 108

[50]Sumantra Bose, ‘Why India’s Hindu Nationalists Worship Israel’s Nation-State Model’ <https://theconversation.com/why-indias-hindu-nationalists-worship-israels-nation-state-model-111450> accessed 14 December 2025; The Wire ‘Israeli Diplomats Forged Deep Ties with Hindu Right Wing from Early ’60s, Documents Reveal – the Wire’ (The Wire10 March 2024) <https://thewire.in/diplomacy/israeli-diplomats-forged-deep-ties-with-hindu-right-wing-from-early-60s-documents-reveal> accessed 15 December 2025.

[51] Vikram Sampath, Savarkar Echoes from a Forgotten Past 472

Related:

Kerala: Protests erupt after RSS-BJP man’s alleged attack on children’s Christmas carol group in Palakkad

RSS: The Flag, the Funds and The Missing Transparency

November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly

The post Religious Nationalism Minus Anti-Colonialism: The RSS Between 1925 and 1950 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On October 28, the Modi-led BJP government attempted, much like Lord Curzon during colonial rule, to muzzle the democratic and federal character of Panjab University by dissolving its Senate. Under the Panjab University Act of 1947, the Senate is the highest democratic body of the university, responsible for its management, property, and governance. It consists of 91 members—47 elected, 36 nominated by the Chancellor, 2 from the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, and 6 ex-officio members. Punjab has direct representation through 15 graduate seats, with graduates eligible both to vote and contest elections. The Senate functions as the “parliament” of the university, while the Syndicate, its executive body, is elected from among Senate members.

Ironically, in 1904, Lord Curzon had introduced amendments to the Punjab University Act precisely to curb anti-colonial sentiment by weakening the Senate and increasing imperial control. Today, the Modi government appears to be following a similar path—seeking to abolish the Senate to undermine Punjab’s historical claim over Panjab University, erode its autonomy, centralise control, and pave the way for privatisation. However, the historic and organic movement led by students and supported by broader democratic forces shattered the BJP–RSS dream of turning Chandigarh into a “small Nagpur”.

The dissolution of the Senate sent a clear message: Panjab University was being taken away from Punjab, its democracy murdered, and its autonomy destroyed. This sparked widespread outrage across Punjab. Even opportunist electoral parties—many of which had previously betrayed people’s struggles—were compelled to join the protest. Conscious sections of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and other regions also recognised this as an attack on autonomy and democratic institutions and extended their support.

The Panjab University struggle has once again highlighted the urgency of addressing unresolved questions of federalism—particularly Punjab’s claim over Panjab University and Chandigarh, issues of river water sharing, other federal rights, and the systematic daylight assassination of democracy.

At its core, neoliberal policy directly undermines federalism by centralising power to facilitate large-scale privatisation. International institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and WTO actively promote this centralisation to enable the exploitation of resources and labour. Thus, the erosion of federalism and democracy is not accidental but structural to the neoliberal project.

Indian rulers have historically preferred a highly centralised state rather than a genuinely federal one. During the anti-colonial struggle, the Indian National Congress promised linguistic federalism. However, after Independence, the Nehru–Patel–Sitaramayya (JVP) Committee rejected the Dhar Commission’s recommendations, arguing that state formation on linguistic lines would threaten “national unity”. In reality, greater state autonomy was seen as an obstacle to imperialist exploitation. Hence, a “strong Centre” was prioritised over true federalism.

Although popular struggles eventually forced the government to create linguistic states, this process lacked a sincere federal spirit. Punjab faced particularly harsh discrimination. After a prolonged struggle, the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966 created a truncated Punjab, carving away Punjabi-speaking areas, undermining Punjab’s river-water rights, and snatching Chandigarh—constructed by demolishing more than 28 Punjabi Puadhi villages. The three-language formula was imposed, and the religious and cultural demands of Sikh minorities were ignored.

Sections 72, 78, 79, 81, 84, and 87 of the same Act placed Panjab University, Punjab Agricultural University, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, the Bhakra Beas Management Board, and Chandigarh under central control. Despite widespread protests, betrayal continued. Although the Rajiv–Longowal Accord promised Chandigarh to Punjab in 1986, the Centre reneged. Central control over the BBMB, the increased presence of the BSF, and the appointment of a centrally controlled administrator in Chandigarh continue to erode Punjab’s federal rights.

The assault on federalism intensified with the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, which transferred key subjects like education, forests, and minerals from the State List to the Concurrent List. The neoliberal reforms of the 1990s further weakened states’ political and financial autonomy. With GST, states have been reduced to little more than municipalities, facing centralised revenue collection, decentralised expenditure responsibilities, and constant administrative interference.

Under the BJP–Sangh’s Hindi–Hindu–Hindutva project—embodied in slogans like “one nation, one language,” “one nation, one tax,” “one nation, one election,” and “one nation, one education policy”—the fascist bulldozer has moved from vote theft to Senate theft. When the Centre attempted to snatch Panjab University, the people rose up and forced Modi to retreat once again.

The struggle also firmly rejected attempts to pit Punjab against Haryana. Protesters consistently emphasised that the Centre deliberately foments inter-state conflicts to push privatisation and allow corporate plunder of natural resources across Ladakh, Himachal, Kashmir, Manipur, and central India. This is not the time for people to fight among themselves; the real struggle is against a centralised state serving imperialist interests.

The dissolution of the Senate was carried out under the NEP 2020, which explicitly eliminates elected Senates, student unions, and teacher unions, replacing them with nominated bodies. Universities are being forced to raise fees, rely on loans instead of grants, generate profits, and submit to centrally imposed curricula and regulations. This is the BJP’s idea of “federalism”.

While the Centre strangles federalism, state governments and political parties have largely failed to resist. The Bhagwant Mann-led Punjab government neither provides adequate funding to Panjab University nor actively participates in Senate meetings. Universities across Punjab face acute financial crises, student and Senate elections are avoided, and the NEP 2020 is implemented without resistance.

Ultimately, no mainstream political party appears genuinely committed to federalism. History shows that the struggle for true federalism cannot be led to its logical conclusion by opportunist electoral forces. It must be led by the people themselves—by workers and peasants—through the uprooting of parasitic neoliberal imperialist policies.

Today, as centralisation and privatisation obstruct the development of emerging nationalities from Kashmir to the North-East and push Centre–State relations to a dead end, there is an urgent need for a united national struggle of working people for true federalism. Such federalism is impossible without complete democratisation of society, including the uprooting of feudalism and imperialism. The historic struggle at Panjab University can become a powerful starting point.

Sandeep Kumar PhD, Panjab University, Chandigarh, Member, Panjab University Bachao Morcha

Courtesy: Counter Currents

The post Historic Victory at Panjab University, but Federalism Remains at Stake appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The judgment did not come out of thin air. It followed months if not years of ‘instant justice’ enabled by bulldozers, in well-publicized incidents as far back as 2021 in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Delhi, and Haryana, almost always following communal incidents or protests. Many, most obviously in the named jurisdictions, were occurring at night, without rehabilitation, and impacted Muslim, Dalit, and migrant communities disproportionately.

A year has passed. The question to ask is whether these guidelines changed state practice, or whether bulldozers continued to operate in ways that undermined the rule of law – often ways that reinforced reports that we, at CJP and Sabrang India have already documented.

The Judgment that Promised a Reversal

When it rendered its decision in November 2024, the Supreme Court intended to firmly ground demolition practices within constitutional limits. The Bench reiterated that demolitions cannot occur without a statutory basis and must abide by the basic tenets of due process: individuals should be given a notice tailored specifically to them, an opportunity to respond promptly to the notice, a hearing at which to be heard in a meaningful way, and a speaking order evidencing the administrative rationale.

It also spoke to the absurdity of dealing with rehabilitation as an afterthought, especially when it involves vulnerable communities. While some of these principles had stalked Indian law before the decision, the judgment unified them all in one framework during a time when bulldozer-led punitive state action was becoming more commonplace. It indicated we would be seeing efforts to recalibrate the conduct of state institutions in the following year, while signalling to us that we should expect greater adherence to procedural safeguards.

A Year on the Ground: Patterns of Demolition Post the Gavai-Viswanathan verdict

Although in November 2024, the Supreme Court reiterated that demolition cannot take place without notice, a hearing, or rehabilitation, the next twelve months were characterised by a number of drives across states which showed a decidedly different reality on the ground: Demolitions were limited by varying degrees in reliance of this judgement and occurred in urban renewal, and post-arson and riot punitive acts, as reflected in CJP’s and Sabrang India’s reporting, the list below illustrates how state practice was inconsistent, replicating the very failure of procedures the Court had attempted to rectify.

• March 2025

Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh

A key legal development in the aftermath of the judgment occurred in Prayagraj when the Supreme Court awarded ₹10 lakh in compensation each to six residents whose homes were demolished without due process. As reported by Sabrang India in “Supreme Court slams Prayagraj demolitions…”, the Supreme Court found that the Prayagraj Development Authority did not adhere to the statutory due process when demolishing the homes, thus confirming the long-held position of the demolished families. While the Supreme Court’s intervention was valuable, it occurred years after the demolitions happened, indicating a trend where judicial relief is only provided after the damage has already been done.

• May 2025

Madrasi Camp, Delhi

In Delhi, the demolition of Madrasi Camp in Jangpura has once again raised questions about whether the municipality is conforming to the Supreme Court’s guidelines. As Sabrang India’s article, “Madrasi Camp demolition: CPIM Delhi demands halt…” states, residents asserted that they did not receive a substantial notice and were neither promised nor consulted about rehabilitation. The demolition was carried out with a significant police force present, raising apprehensions that evictions continued in the capital even after the verdict, without full compliance with procedural requirements.

• April – May 2025 

Chandola Lake, Ahmedabad

Ahmedabad’s anti-encroachment drive around Chandola Lake was one of the biggest demolitions in the post-judgment year. In Sabrang India’s coverage of the same event (“Gujarat HC refuses stay…”), it noted that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was clearing structures that were predominantly occupied by Muslim residents, under the Gujarat High Court judgment, as it pertained to reclaiming the lake. Though the recourse to the Gujarat High Court challenged the practice, it did not specifically cease the demolition of the houses, nor addressed the rehabilitation of families or just a simple notice.

• March – April 2025 

Nagpur, Maharashtra

The destruction of Fahim Khan’s home in Nagpur highlighted anxieties over punitive administrative action; residents of Nagpur argued that the short notice period of 24 hours did not provide adequate due process. Sabrang India’s report, “Demolition of Fahim Khan’s home…” noted the demolition was significant in the local political climate and raised even more questions over the motive and process in a post-judgement political landscape.

• January 2025 

Dwarka District Islands, Gujarat

In the Dwarka district, clearance operations ordered by the administration after floods impacted fishing communities and places of religious worship. As Sabrang India reported, houses, community shelters, and several mazars and a dargah were demolished. Residents reported that all notices received came too late to counter the action adequately, which instead made it one of the most significant coastal demolitions this year.

• November 2025 

Gurugram, Haryana

In Haryana, the demolition of a longstanding Dalit settlement located on Old Delhi Road exemplified how marginalized communities are still subjected to abrupt unilateral administrative action after the Supreme Court’s ruling. Residents argued that they had not been given the promises regarding rehabilitation, and that they were not given sufficient opportunity to contest the eviction.

• May 2025 

Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

In Ujjain, the Ujjain Development Authority initiated a demolition campaign along Mahakal Road. Despite official claims that a notice had been issued months ahead of time, residents affected by the demolition vehemently disputed the timing and sufficiency of the notice. Although the High Court had engaged in surveillance of certain aspects of the proceedings, details of the operation also highlighted the disparity of attention to due process in these matters throughout the state.

• Other States Across 2025 

In addition to these key events, there were many additional demolitions, albeit smaller in scale, that further complicated the patterns of uneven compliance with the judgement safeguards. In Delhi, several slum clusters in Mangolpuri, Seemapuri, and near the Yamuna floodplains were partially demolished from June to September 2025. Residents in these areas contended that municipalities referenced notes in affidavits that had never been served individually to residents. Additionally, in UP, families were told that demolitions after flooding in Prayagraj and Varanasi were justified as “emergency measures.” Families maintained that, especially in Prayagraj, there appeared to be selective enforcement and confusion about categorizing the land as within the floodplain or “vacant.” In Kashmir, demolitions after counter-insurgency operations in the Pulwama region. Although families claimed there were no formal charges against them, the demolitions left families without a home, which drew civil liberties objections. Finally, in Punjab, demolitions associated with NDPS-related investigations were conducted, which resulted in a troubling blurring of the lines between crime-control and punitive administrative action. This suggests that bulldozer governance had begun to arrive in new legal categories, disjointed from purely communal-based incidents.

Cumulatively, these expanded incidents along this timeline show that although some agencies claimed procedural compliance, the reality in most cases still demonstrated the same post-incident demolitions, disputed notices, crude procedure, and inadequate rehabilitation, all features that were squarely inconsistent with the principles reaffirmed in the judgment.

Due Process and Rule of Law: What the Year Revealed

The demolitions conducted across states during the year following the judgment demonstrate how the gap between constitutional protections and public administration remains intact. The Supreme Court upheld the paramount importance of notice, hearing, and rehabilitation, yet in most reported drives the involuntary responses relied on notices that were either insufficiently raised, or disputed, sometimes delivered to affected households on the night before demolition or after machinery had arrived.

Hearings were virtually absent, and affected families were united in reporting that they were not afforded any opportunity to present a defence to an allegation of encroachment or illegality. Rehabilitation – outlined specifically by the Court for vulnerable groups – was rarely planned, and never actualized. The judicial responses, when they occurred, were often post-facto rather than pro-facto: the most direct orders, such as the imposition of the Supreme Court’s admonition of the Prayagraj demolitions, and the Orissa High Court ruling on the Cuttack community centre, came months, if not years, after the demolition. The High Court made efforts to call for affidavits or provide interim stays on demolitions, but without a method of enforcement, these steps amounted to little more than symbolic acknowledgment of demolition abuses. The judiciary did not have a mechanism for monitoring the demolitions or following up on the assurances to protect vulnerable families. In the absence of enforcement and in the absence of a court interceding pro-facto, routine use of bulldozing remains an option for administrative attention.

All of the incidents throughout the year show that while the courts have provided clarity of law, process continues to be treated by executive branch actors as a process of ritual and not of constitutional obligation that depends on and can range from excesses of the political or administrative context of where a demolition occurs to focusing on the time and nature of the demolition process, such as while in progress, an act undertaken to restore public order through law enforcement, through ordinary adjustments, including diminished due process for the loved ones of the deceased.

Judicial vs Executive Approaches: A Deepening Divide

In the year following Gavai, we saw an increasingly divergent distance between judicial statements of due-process standards and the executive branches’ practices of adhering to those standards. Courts certainly exhibited, especially in a few notable cases, a willingness to hold state actors accountable: Justice Abhay Oka’s Supreme Court Bench, for example, not only condemned Prayagraj’s unlawful demolitions, but also awarded damages and called for an inquiry to hold the officials accountable. Further still, the Orissa High Court ordered to recovery from the former officer in the Cuttack community-centre case. What emerged among a few courts was the express judicial acknowledgment that demolitions without notice and hearing were not simply “administrative” violations, but constitutional violations. Courts, however, did go so far as to issue contempt notices, such as was seen in the proceedings following the demolitions of the Goalpara community centre, in Maharashtra, and in Delhi, indicating that litigants and judges were considering the guidelines proposed in the judgement, as enforceable obligations. Exceptionally, of course, given how rarely an executive agency is sanctioned for non-adherence to due-process protections.

For most of the demolitions and drives in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, and parts of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, no disciplinary investigations, prosecutions, or public censures were found. In a few cases, officers were transferred soon after a disputed demolition, but these were simply transferred and not punitive. Even when courts demanded accounts from officials or demanded affidavits, the lapses began to fade into the mass of administrative inertia without consistency or follow-up. The unpredictable but frequent comparisons between the court’s occasional harsh language and the executive branch’s nearly total impunity show the central tension of the post-Gavai year: the words could be said and stated clearly from the Bench, but they could easily be replaced by immediate political, policing, or developmental goals on the ground without a structural mechanism to enforce them.

Constitutional Lens: Articles 14, 21, and 300A

The demolitions conducted across states in the post-judgement timeframe repeatedly placed strain on the constitutional protections outlined in Articles 14, 21, and 300A. Article 14 had more visible effects, where enforcement patterns appeared uneven with bulldozers appearing fastest in Muslim-majority bastis, Dalit settlements, migrant clusters, and other communities with precarious housing. The patterns of the law, particularly the selective invocation of laws regarding encroachment, often within hours of community violence, politicians, and other events, suggested that the police powers were used in a discriminatory manner, informed less by planning considerations and more by the social makeup of neighbourhoods.

Article 21, which underpins the right to life and dignity, is equally undermined. Eviction of temporary structures without any notice does more than involve the destruction of premises; it obliterates the social architecture of family life—livelihoods, safety, and considerations of community. Reporting in The Indian Express of demolitions in Nagpur, Ujjain, Prayagraj, and Delhi were made in consideration of families rendered homeless overnight, with a complete lack of accommodation, with implications for precarious living conditions and a vulnerability to other harms, and dispossession, especially without provision for hearing or rehabilitation in cases of demolition, implicitly indicates a constitutional injury.

Article 300A of the Gavai judgment was arguably the most consistently breached. While state authorities cited legislative authority for demolition, the lack of a fair process, advance notice, and transparent decision-making weakened the “authority of law” mandated by the Constitution. The year’s data suggest that, notwithstanding a robust judicial restatement, the constitutional principles that seek to constrain state authority remain tenuous in the face of administrative urgency or political pressure.

When Landmark Judgments Remain Symbolic

The post-judgement reality reflects a larger trend in a defraying Indian constitutionalism, where even the most impactful judgments risk being reduced to mere symbols. The doctrine implemented in D.K. Basu did not stop custodial torture; Tehseen Poonawalla did not stop lynching; Shreya Singhal did not stop the ongoing usage of Section 66A years after its invalidation. Likewise, the decision, which celebrated the re-centering of due process in demolition practice, has not transformed the habitual behaviour of entrenched administratively.

One reason for this is structural: Indian courts, as a general rule, only intervene when something is brought before them, typically well after demolitions have occurred. As a number of petitions noted by LiveLaw in 2025 highlight, families only arrive in court because their homes are gone – effectively turning the judiciary into an after-the-fact remedial body instead of a preventative one. High Courts occasionally interject with some stern words, but even orders with some public interest stay orders only deal with the facts and circumstances of the individual case.

The political context is also important. In electoral and police discourse, bulldozers have gained a symbolic meaning, viewed as a form of “decisive/aggressive governance” against a select section, India’s marginalized, especially Dalits, Adivasis and the Muslim minority. This symbolism lessens the normative weight of judicial reasoning, giving officers the belief that constitutions are secondary to political mobility. In this context, even a decisive and pathbreaking judgment is susceptible to becoming a citation rather than a restraint.

What Will It Take to Replace the Rule of Bulldozer with the Rule of Law?

A significant transition from bulldozer-led governance to rule-of-law-based governance necessitates more than occasional judicial reprimands. It requires institutional mechanisms that facilitate the provision of procedural safeguards before building demolitions occurring, not after the fact. Mandatory reporting protocols, both before demolitions and immediately following demolitions, that include documentation of public notices, hearings, and rehabilitation plans would create a minimal record of accountability. The reports could be subject to audits by judicially appointed committees or independent agencies.

Courts may also be able to use some form of structured monitoring (as exists in certain environmental and prison-reform litigation) of the state parties in future cases. The state government could make periodic affidavits of compliance, with the threat of civil contempt for systemic non-compliance, and the high courts do registry tracking of demolition cases and violations of the judgement framework by the agency.

Furthermore, executive accountability should reach beyond symbolic shifts of power to committees that was entirely outside of the executive altogether; the state approximate automatic inquiries into demolitions that lack documented due process, the recorded public findings, along with other penalties, serve as deterrents. States may also want to consider codifying the norms in Statutes or regulations, or using agency policies, making these administrative actions defined offences for non-compliance. It is also necessary that rehabilitation be planned and adequately funded. Due process will only be administratively seen as part of the professional duty when officers are routinely and predictably held accountable for the compliant or non-compliant forms of their practice.

A Strong Judgment met With Structural Impunity

The judgment in November 2024 reiterated the core constitutional guarantees: no demolition without prior notice, an opportunity for a hearing and a fair process. It was a principled and timely expression of limits on the powers of the state, especially in the moment when bulldozers had been commonly adopted as some form of immediate administrative response. Yet the following year will demonstrate how even strong jurisprudence may wither away in a context of systemic impunity.

Policies of demolition continued across the states, with at times uneven practices or minimal respect for due process. In a great number of cases, the courts provided relief only after homes had been demolished or schools were turned into rubble. What usually accompanied these rulings were strong observations from the Supreme Court and some High Courts, and an order of compensation, but those decisions were usually either limited in nature or retrospective. State agencies suffered virtually no immediate consequences for their actions, and without institutions capable of monitoring enforcement, the guidelines remained aspirational.

The judgement also highlights the growing disconnect between constitutional principles and everyday executive decision-making. Without continued monitoring, transparent accountability, and meaningful legislative frameworks, a robust ruling cannot control entrenched bureaucratic practices. The promise we have enshrined in the Constitution is hanging in doubt so long as the bulldozer can demolish traditional patterns of adherence to due process.

The judgment may be read below –

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Preksha Bothara)

Related: 

Encroachment or erasure? India’s demolition wave and the law

‘An eye for an eye’- new law of the land for the Muslim minorities in India?

Muslims in the new India: How one week showcases their escalating persecution

Bulldozer Justice: How Unlawful Demolitions are Targeting India’s Marginalised Communities

The post When the Rule of the Bulldozer Outpaces the Rule of Law: One year after this landmark judgment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Sangh Scares Off Santa: A Christmas of Fear appeared first on SabrangIndia.

From shopping malls and public markets to schools and churches, the days leading up to Christmas and Christmas Day itself witnessed a strikingly similar pattern of attacks: right-wing groups invoking cultural nationalism, forcibly disrupting celebrations, chanting religious slogans outside Christian institutions, vandalising decorations, and accusing ordinary citizens—women, children, teachers, and worshippers—of proselytisation merely for participating in a festival.

What makes these incidents especially alarming is not just their frequency, but their geographic spread, thematic uniformity, and political context—pointing to something far more systemic than sporadic unrest.

A national pattern, not isolated events

1. Raipur, Chhattisgarh: Criminality Masquerading as Protest

On December 24, a mob affiliated with VHP–Bajrang Dal stormed Magneto Mall in Raipur, smashing Christmas decorations and assaulting staff during a bandh called against alleged religious conversions. Videos show security personnel overwhelmed as festive installations were destroyed in broad daylight. As reported by Times of India, the bandh itself followed communal tensions in Kanker district over the burial of a Christian man—an issue already fraught with majoritarian hostility.

This was not a spontaneous outburst. It was symbolic violence—targeting Christmas imagery in a public commercial space to send a message: Christian visibility itself is unacceptable.

Militant Hindu outfit Bajrang Dal vandalizes Christmas decorations worth 100 thousands at Raipur Magneto Mall. People like @narindertweets are indirectly responsible for inciting these fanatics. Even her previous tweets were amplified by far-right Hindu nationalist groups. https://t.co/CaXQe0lyHf pic.twitter.com/iOaDrl1bTJ

— South Asian Christians (@S_AsianXtians) December 24, 2025

2. Assam: Policing Festivity as a Crime

In Nalbari district, VHP–Bajrang Dal members raided shops selling Christmas items, confiscated decorations, vandalised temporary stalls, and destroyed Christmas displays at St. Mary’s School, chanting slogans glorifying a “Hindu Rashtra” (Economic Times; Hindutva Watch).

The message was unmistakable: Christmas is not merely unwelcome—it is to be erased from public space.

3. Uttar Pradesh: Ritualised intimidation outside Churches

In Bareilly and other parts of UP, groups gathered outside churches chanting the Hanuman Chalisa and slogans like “Christian missionaries murdabad.” These were not counter-celebrations but deliberate acts of religious intimidation, timed precisely to coincide with Christmas Eve services (Independent UK; videos widely circulated on X).

The presence of police—who largely stood by—did not deter the demonstrators. Instead, it underscored a dangerous normalisation: majoritarian disruption of minority worship as an accepted public spectacle.

Members of right wing groups chant Hanuman chalisa outside a church in cantonment area in Bareilly district Uttar Pradesh. pic.twitter.com/ybUUHKZiG0

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) December 24, 2025

4. Delhi: Gendered harassment in public markets

In Lajpat Nagar, Christian women wearing Santa caps were harassed, shouted at, and accused of conversion simply for walking through a public market. Wearing festive headgear was recast as criminal intent. The women were not evangelising; they were existing visibly as Christians in public space—and were punished for it (The Quint; X videos).

This incident exposes the gendered dimension of communal vigilantism, where women’s bodies and presence become sites of moral policing.

During pre-Christmas celebrations, Christian women were simply wearing Santa caps and walking in a public market in Lajpat Nagar. For that , Hindutva goons harassed them shouting, intimidating, and creating chaos .

This is a public market. Wearing a cap is not a crime.… pic.twitter.com/abDhicCduL

— aree_shuklajii (@th_anonymouse) December 23, 2025

5. Madhya Pradesh: Violence against the most vulnerable

Perhaps the most disturbing incident occurred in Jabalpur, where a visually impaired woman attending a Christmas lunch at Prince of Peace Church was allegedly manhandled and abused by a BJP district office-bearer, who accused the church of converting children. The woman later said, “Celebrating Christmas does not mean I’ve changed my religion” (Indian Express).

That a disabled woman—attending a community meal—could be publicly humiliated under the banner of “conversion vigilance” reveals the moral collapse of this discourse.

6. Kerala: Children attacked for singing carols

In Palakkad, a group of children aged 10–15 singing Christmas carols were attacked; their instruments destroyed. As per Times of India, an RSS worker was arrested, yet the incident sparked attempts to justify the assault through political statements that questioned the legitimacy of the carol group itself.

When even children become targets, the pretence of “protecting culture” collapses entirely. Detailed report may be read here and here.

The Conversion Narrative: A convenient alibi

Across states, one justification recurred relentlessly: allegations of “forced” or “illegal” religious conversion. These claims were often made without evidence, FIRs, or prior complaints—and yet they were sufficient to mobilise mobs, justify vandalism, and silence celebrations.

This narrative performs three functions:

1. Criminalisation of Christian presence—turning festivals, schools, lunches, and carols into suspect activities.
2. Delegitimisation of constitutional rights—suggesting that freedom of religion is conditional and revocable.
3. Moral cover for vigilantism—allowing mobs to act as self-appointed enforcers of cultural purity.

Anti-conversion laws in several states have further blurred the line between lawful regulation and extrajudicial policing, emboldening private actors to assume coercive power over minorities.

State Response: Uneven, reactive, and often silent

As reported by Indian Express and The Times of India, while FIRs were filed in some cases (Raipur, Nagaur), policing was largely reactive rather than preventive. In many incidents, police presence failed to stop intimidation; in others, celebrations were curtailed out of fear.

The silence—or ambiguity—of ruling party leadership at the national level has been particularly conspicuous. Condemnations came primarily from opposition leaders and Christian bodies, including the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, which warned of an “alarming rise” in attacks and demanded protection for worshippers (CBCI statement).

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) and other Christian leaders issued stern condemnations of the incidents. They described multiple attacks — including a viral video from Madhya Pradesh where a visually challenged woman was allegedly harassed — as deeply troubling, undermining India’s constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and the right to worship without fear. CBCI demanded strict action against offenders and called for visible protection for communities celebrating Christmas. Reported Asia News.

In Mumbai, reports The Times of India the Auxiliary Bishop publicly lamented the “hurt and pain” caused by such attacks, even as here appealed for resilience and unity.

Groups like the Bombay Catholic Sabha condemned what they termed brutal intimidation, urging decisive protection for minority rights during festive seasons.

Political leaders across party lines criticised the incidents:

• Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin called the violence a violation of India’s secular Constitution and urged government action to protect communities, reports The Times of India.
• Kerala Leader of Opposition V.D. Satheesan explicitly blamed Sangh Parivar affiliates for routine obstruction of Christmas events across states, reports ABP Live.
• Shashi Tharoor described various incidents as an “assault on secular tradition,” warning that Christmas 2025 was marked by unprecedented anxiety triggered by intolerance, reports India Today.

A constitutional crisis in slow motion

Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees not only the right to believe, but the right to practice and propagate religion freely—subject only to public order, morality, and health. What unfolded during Christmas 2025 turns this principle on its head: minorities are asked to retreat into invisibility to maintain “order.”

When:

• decorations are vandalised,
• worship is disrupted,
• women are harassed,
• children are attacked,
• schools are raided,

the issue is no longer communal tension—it is constitutional failure.

Religious freedom cannot exist where celebration itself invites violence.

Conclusion: What Christmas 2025 reveals about India today

Christmas 2025 in India has drawn global attention, with international reporting how attacks on Christians have overshadowed festival celebrations and raised concerns about rising intolerance toward religious minorities.

These events stood as a powerful reminder that religious freedom and social harmony require active protection, not merely constitutional guarantee. Attacks on celebrations, mobilisation of cultural majoritarian rhetoric, and repeated disruptions of religious life reveal deep social and political fault lines.

True religious freedom is not merely the absence of formal prohibition, but the presence of safety, mutual respect, and civic equality. Ensuring these values requires not just effective policing and legal reforms, but a broader national commitment to pluralism, empathy, and constitutional values that protect every community’s right to worship and celebrate without fear.

Related:

Free Speech in India 2025: What the Free Speech Collective report reveals about a year of silencing

The ‘Shastra Poojan’ Project: How the ritual of weapon worship is being recast as a tool of power and hate propaganda

Kerala: Protests erupt after RSS-BJP man’s alleged attack on children’s Christmas carol group in Palakkad

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

The post Not Merry, Not Free: What the attacks on Christmas say about India’s shrinking pluralism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The peaceful gathering of about 100 people was organised by the Samvidhan Jagar Yatra Samiti (SJYS)  in collaboration with The Bombay Catholic Sabha (BCS), one of the city’s oldest Catholic lay organisations. The protest took place outside Hotel Ratna on S.V. Road, drawing community members, civil society representatives, and concerned citizens who stood silently with placards denouncing hate and religious violence.

1 of 3

“An attack on the Constitution itself”

Organisers said the protest was not merely about individual incidents, but about a broader pattern of hostility against Christians during one of their most significant religious periods.

“Such attacks are not isolated law-and-order issues. They strike at the heart of our Constitution — at the freedom of conscience, the right to profess and practise religion, and the right to worship without fear,” wrote Dolphy D’Souza, spokesperson of the Bombay Catholic Sabha, while inviting people to join the protest. President BCS Norbert Mendonca said it was the beginning of a systematic campaign on the issue. Norbert Mendonca, president, BCS said that this was the start of a campaign on the issue.

Placards at the site referenced constitutional values, religious freedom, and the need for state accountability, while deliberately avoiding slogans or speeches, underscoring the silent and dignified nature of the protest.

Among the prominent faces present were Prof Arvind Nigle, Sridhar Shelar and Iqbal Shaikh, convenors of SJYS, former corporator, Shiv Sena (UBT), Samir Desai and Teesta Setalvad, human rights activist.

1 of 3

Passersby stop, read, respond

What made the protest particularly striking was the spontaneous engagement it drew from the public. Women on scooters slowed down, pedestrians stopped mid-walk, commuters paused to read the placards, and several expressed solidarity with the cause.

1 of 3

According to organisers, many passersby quietly acknowledged the protesters, some offering words of encouragement, others simply folding their hands or nodding in approval. The peaceful street protest of the demonstrators appeared to invite reflection rather than confrontation — a deliberate choice, organisers said, in a climate increasingly marked by polarising rhetoric.

Photographs from the protest capture these moments: about a 100 citizens standing still in a bustling Mumbai street withmessages against hate, as some passerby seemed visibly moved by the gravity of the issue.

Christmas season under shadow

Over the past week, multiple reports from different parts of the country have documented disruptions of Christmas prayers, vandalism of churches, intimidation of worshippers, and threats issued in the name of preventing “forced conversions.” Christian groups have warned that such actions are becoming increasingly normalised, often occurring with little immediate intervention.

Detailed reports of these attacks may be read here and here.

Friday’s protest sought to draw attention to this pattern, emphasising that religious freedom is not a concession granted by the state, but a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen. The organisers stressed that the protest was as much a call to citizens as it was to authorities.

Related:

Free Speech in India 2025: What the Free Speech Collective report reveals about a year of silencing

The ‘Shastra Poojan’ Project: How the ritual of weapon worship is being recast as a tool of power and hate propaganda

Kerala: Protests erupt after RSS-BJP man’s alleged attack on children’s Christmas carol group in Palakkad

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

The post Peaceful street protest in Mumbai condemns Christmas-time attacks on Christians across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

मैं दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट गेट नंबर 5 के बाहर उन्नाव रेप पीड़िता के न्याय के लिए खड़ी हूँ। चुप रहना अपराध है।#UnnaoRapeCase #JusticeForUnnaoVictim pic.twitter.com/xfePXbLpTu

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) December 26, 2025

These protests have taken place amid grave concerns expressed by the Unnao rape survivor and her family over the suspension of the BJP politician, Sengar’s jail term. Responding to the high court order, the survivor told Hindustan Times, “I am extremely upset by what has happened today in the court.” She also said she felt “extremely unsafe” after learning about the bail conditions granted to Sengar.

Additionally, speaking to ANI news agency on Friday, the victim’s mother expressed strong objection to the bail, saying, “His bail should be rejected… We will knock on the doors of the Supreme Court. We have lost faith in the high court… If we don’t get justice in the Supreme Court, we will go to another country… The person guilty of my husband’s murder should be hanged immediately.”

It is only after this determined expression of the need for justice, public outrage and protests from December 21-24 that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), announced its late evening decision on December 25, 2025 to appeal this suspension of sentence and bail to Sengar, BJP leader and former MLA.

Photographs shared by the news agency showed security personnel asking protesters to put an end the demonstration immediately, warning that legal action would be taken if they did not disperse within five minutes. Women’s rights activist Yogita Bhayana, who was present at the protest, said, “Women across India are deeply hurt that the sentence of a rapist has been overturned. This happened in this very court. So, we will seek justice from the same place where the injustice occurred,” ANI reported.

Yet another protester told ANI, “On what grounds was Kuldeep Sengar granted bail, when it was declared that he had committed rapes and murders? If a life sentence was given to him, then why is he out?… We demand that the rapist should go behind bars so women feel safe.”

Kuldeep Sengar was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2019 for the rape of a 17-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh’s Unnao in 2017. On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court suspended the expelled Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader’s life sentence, noting that he had already served more than the maximum punishment prescribed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

An earlier protest in the capital was also met with forcible eviction by the Delhi police.

एक गैंगरेप पीड़िता के साथ ऐसा व्यवहार उच्चित है???

उसकी यही गलती है कि न्याय की माँग कर रही है ?

ये कैसा न्याय है ???#JusticeForUnnaoVictim pic.twitter.com/F1mSmOhQEs

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) December 23, 2025

CRPF Intimidation?

The court’s judgement has triggered fresh fears within the survivor’s family, despite the order barring Sengar from coming within a five-kilometre radius of her. The survivor’s family has also been granted protection by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). However, controversy has also been generated over the politicisation of this para-military protection including political interference, when earlier this week, the survivor and her family were trying to travel by road to Delhi to meet with advocates. According to an interview played out on social media she told activist and supporter Yogita Bhayana that initially the CRPF tried actively to prevent her travelling to Delhi for legal advice and redressal and only when she raised her voice in objection “was she allowed.” This raises serious questions on the active monitoring and interference in witness protection ordered by the court especially since the para-military forces like the CRPF come under the union home ministry.

Listen to the video on this tweet

पीड़िता के साथ ऐसा व्यवहार gazab – आप खुद सुनिए उन्नाव गैंगरेप पीड़िता को

निःशब्द….#JusticeForUnnaoVictim pic.twitter.com/StjZiCxbMA

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) December 24, 2025

The survivor cited past incidents to explain her concerns, saying, “He is a powerful man. He would get his men to do his dirty work for him. When my car met with an accident in which two of my relatives and my lawyer died in 2019, Sengar didn’t do it himself. His henchmen did. Now that he is out, we are all unsafe.”

Now 24, the survivor is a resident of Delhi. Following the grant of conditional bail to Sengar, she has been provided court-ordered protection and is accompanied by five to 11 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel at all times. However, her mother has said that security cover provided to her and her three children until March this year (2025) was subsequently withdrawn.

Related:

Delhi HC grants bail pending appeal to Unnao rape convict Kuldeep Singh Sengar

Unnao rape case: Kuldeep Singh Sengar convicted

Ex-BJP MLA Kuldeep Sengar, brother convicted in Unnao rape survivor’s father’s death

The post Protest outside Delhi HC gate over bail in Unnao rape case, survivor’s mother asks for maximum punishment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This release expanded the number of states and Union Territories with published draft rolls to 12, and taken together, the SIR has already resulted in the provisional deletion of more than 3.5 crore names from voter lists nationwide.

The scale and pace of these deletions have to be read alongside a significant policy recalibration by the Election Commission of India. Following controversies that first surfaced during the Bihar revision, the Commission issued a nationwide instruction on October 27, 2025, retaining the administrative framework of the SIR but relaxing provisions that had triggered legal and political backlash, particularly those relating to document collection and automatic deletions. Acknowledging that the “qualifying date of last intensive revision” varies widely across states—dating back to 2002 in Gujarat and Kerala and to 2003 in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh—the ECI conceded that a uniform, document-heavy verification model was untenable.

This unfolding process continues even as Uttar Pradesh—the most populous state in the country and home to its largest electorate—prepares to publish its draft rolls on December 31, 2025. Far from being viewed as a routine administrative exercise, the SIR has raised profound questions around transparency, procedural fairness, shifting burdens of proof, and the heightened risk of mass disenfranchisement, concerns that have been repeatedly documented and critically examined by Sabrang India through sustained, state-wise reporting on the ground realities of the revision process.

What distinguishes the 2025 SIR from previous revisions is not merely the scale of deletions but the manner in which verification has been conducted. The process has relied heavily on door-to-door enumeration, retrospective linkage to older electoral rolls, and documentary proof requirements that many voters—particularly migrants, informal workers, women, the elderly, and marginalised communities—struggle to fulfil.

While deletions have been officially categorised as relating to deaths, migration, duplication, or non-traceability, civil society groups and independent observers have warned that these categories often mask deeper procedural failures, including non-visits by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), incorrect tagging, and the presumption of ineligibility in the absence of documentation. Against this backdrop, the cumulative picture emerging from state-wise draft rolls is deeply unsettling.

Bihar: Early completion, large-scale deletions

Bihar was among the first states where the SIR process was completed and final rolls published, making it a crucial reference point for understanding the scale and implications of the exercise.

According to figures reported by Sabrang India, nearly 47 lakh names were deleted from Bihar’s electoral rolls, bringing down the total electorate from approximately 7.89 crore to about 7.42 crore. The deletions were attributed to voters recorded as deceased, permanently migrated, untraceable, or duplicated across constituencies.

However, reports and petitioners before the Supreme Court pointed to widespread complaints that enumeration forms were either not delivered or collected, and that entire households of migrant workers were marked absent without follow-up verification.

Uttar Pradesh: The largest test yet, draft rolls on December 31

Uttar Pradesh represents the single largest and most politically significant phase of the SIR. With an electorate running into several crores, the state accounts for a substantial share of India’s voters, making any large-scale deletion potentially transformative. Enumeration in UP was extended on December 11, and the draft electoral roll is now scheduled for publication on December 31, 2025. While deletion figures are not yet officially available, reports suggest that UP may account for a significant portion of the remaining corrections once its draft roll is released.

Rajasthan: Over 41 lakh names provisionally removed in draft rolls

In Rajasthan, the SIR resulted in the provisional deletion of approximately 41.85 lakh names from the draft electoral rolls out of 5, 48, 84, 479 total electorate of the state. The state completed enumeration in early December, with the draft roll published in mid-month i.e., December 16. Official explanations cite deaths, permanent migration, and duplicate entries as the primary reasons for deletion.

मतदाता सूची विशेष गहन पुनरीक्षण–2026
राज्य में प्रारूप मतदाता सूचियों का आज 16 दिसम्बर 2025 को हुआ प्रकाशन – @CeoRajasthan
पढ़ें गणना चरण के प्रमुख निष्कर्ष #शुद्धमतदातासूचीमजबूतलोकतंत्र @ECISVEEP@spokespersonECI @PIB_INDIA @DIPRRajasthan@DDNational@airnews_jaipur… pic.twitter.com/wMbyvF3ypT

— CEO RAJASTHAN (@CeoRajasthan) December 16, 2025

Madhya Pradesh: Detailed categories, massive numbers with 42, 74, 160 deletions

Madhya Pradesh offers one of the most detailed official breakdowns of provisional deletions, with 42, 74, 160 names flagged for removal from the draft rolls on December 23. According to official data reported, these deletions include approximately 8.46 lakh deceased voters, over 31.5 lakh voters recorded as having shifted permanently, around 2.77 lakh duplicate entries, and a substantial number categorised as “unmapped” or unverified.

The enumeration period in MP was extended, and the draft roll was published on December 23, 2025 following a revised schedule. Despite the availability of granular data, activists have questioned whether the categorisation process itself relied too heavily on assumptions rather than verifiable evidence, especially in rural and forested areas.

27 अक्टूबर 2025 की स्थिति में प्रदेश में 5,74,06,143 मतदाता थे। वर्तमान में 5,31,31,983 मतदाता हैं। विशेष गहन पुनरीक्षण (SIR) के दौरान 42,74,160 मतदाताओं की कमी हुई हैं. श्री राम प्रताप सिंह जादौन, संयुक्त मुख्य निर्वाचन पदाधिकारी, मप्र @ECISVEEP @SpokespersonECI pic.twitter.com/dffrxvgNnE

— Chief Electoral Officer, Madhya Pradesh (@CEOMPElections) December 23, 2025

Tamil Nadu: Nearly 97 lakh deletions

Tamil Nadu witnessed one of the highest absolute numbers of deletions, with close to 97 lakh names provisionally removed from the draft electoral rolls out of 6, 41, 14 ,587 of the total electorate of the state. The impact was particularly pronounced in urban centres such as Chennai, where frequent relocation, rental housing, and informal settlements complicate voter registration.

Press release. pic.twitter.com/h02SIQkX4P

— TN Elections CEO (@TNelectionsCEO) December 19, 2025

Enumeration deadlines in the state were extended, and draft rolls were published in the third week of December i.e., December 19, 2025.

The Hindu, on December 22, carried analysis, on the unusual patterns (anomalies) behind the deletions in the state with detailed findings on eight different categories of anomalies: dead voters, voters who were under the shifted/moved categories etc.

This analysis, among other things, reveals that 14 stations show unusually high proportions of young deaths; 35 stations show high gender bias in deletions; 8,613 stations have abnormally high deletion rates; 727 stations report excessive deaths; 3,904 polling stations show high death proportions; 495 polling stations show 100% death-based deletions; 6,139 parts have high numbers of “absent” voters; and 172 parts show suspicious patterns of “permanently shifted” women. The entire analysis may be read here.

West Bengal: Around 58 lakh names flagged for removal

In West Bengal, the SIR process has assumed an acute social and political dimension, with close to 58 lakh names either deleted or provisionally flagged for deletion in the draft electoral rolls published on December 16. Of these, around 50 lakh names were identified during digitised enumeration as potentially removable, a figure that rose sharply within days as categorisation progressed. With a certified electorate of over 7.66 crore, this provisional flagging represented a significant share of voters and triggered widespread anxiety.

Press Note – West Bengal SIR: Publication of Draft Electoral Roll – Key Findings of Enumeration Phase.#SIR #PressNote@ECISVEEP @SpokespersonECI @PIBKolkata @AIRKolkata @DDBanglaNews pic.twitter.com/G6Ix4wyPIz

— CEO West Bengal (@CEOWestBengal) December 16, 2025

Official breakdowns indicated that the majority of cases were marked under standard administrative categories—deceased voters, those recorded as having shifted, untraceable names and duplicates—but the speed and scale of the exercise, rather than the categories themselves, became the source of public distress.

The situation escalated after the state government linked at least 39 deaths to what it described as “SIR-induced panic,” prompting Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to announce Rs. 2 lakh ex gratia compensation for bereaved families and to launch block-level “May I Help You” camps from December 12 to assist affected voters with claims, objections and documentation.

While the Election Commission has maintained that the figures are provisional and subject to hearings and due process, reports from across districts documented confusion among long-registered voters whose names were flagged or missing, reinforcing concerns raised by opposition parties that verification and outreach were uneven in a state marked by high migration, dense urban settlements and socio-economic vulnerability.

Puducherry: Small electorate, significant impact

Though Puducherry’s electorate is relatively small, the deletion of around 1 lakh names constitutes a substantial share of the Union Territory’s total electorate of 10,21,578 as on October 27, 2025.

Press Note 16.12.2025 – Publication of Draft Electoral Roll@ECISVEEP #ECI #SIR #ceolakshadweep pic.twitter.com/s2UPtgrTFF

— CEO LAKSHADWEEP (@LakshadweepCeo) December 16, 2025

Enumeration and draft publication followed the national SIR schedule, but local reports highlighted that many of those flagged or deleted were migrant workers and residents of industrial and peri-urban zones who were unavailable during verification visits, raising concerns about how absence was interpreted during the revision process.

Pess Note-Lakshadweep Special Intensive Revision – Key Findings Of Enumeration Phase@ECISVEEP #ECI #SIR pic.twitter.com/hpsyiETXzA

— CEO LAKSHADWEEP (@LakshadweepCeo) December 16, 2025

Chhattisgarh: Over 27 lakhs provisionally deleted amid security and migration challenges

Chhattisgarh saw the provisional deletion of approximately 27.34 lakh names from its draft rolls. The state’s unique challenges—ranging from internal displacement due to conflict to seasonal labour migration—complicated the enumeration process. Official data categorised deletions into deceased voters, permanently shifted individuals, and duplicate registrations.

23 दिसंबर 2025 को ड्राफ्ट रोल प्रकाशित हो गया है। जिसे आप https://t.co/D5DfuRyplH अथवा https://t.co/S06LG1wQuS पर लॉगिन करके अपना नाम ढूंढ सकते हैं। pic.twitter.com/nAiB3zrY38

— Chief Electoral Officer, Chhattisgarh (@CEOChhattisgarh) December 23, 2025

The enumeration deadline was extended, and draft rolls were published on December 23 following the revised ECI schedule.

SIR 2026 की ड्राफ्ट मतदाता सूची का प्रकाशन 23/12/25 को हो गया है।

ड्राफ्ट मतदाता सूची https://t.co/o4izjd1j8X aur https://t.co/MO0ZmklYlF पर उपलब्ध है।

मुख्य निर्वाचन पदाधिकारी श्री यशवंत कुमार द्वारा अपील की गई कि सभी मतदाता ड्राफ्ट मतदाता सूची में अपना नाम जांच ले, (1/2) pic.twitter.com/FNrvLBlJT9

— Chief Electoral Officer, Chhattisgarh (@CEOChhattisgarh) December 23, 2025

Andaman and Nicobar Islands: High proportionate deletions

In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, around 64,000 names were provisionally deleted from the draft rolls out of 3,10,404 total electors of the UTs. Given the small population base, this represented a substantial proportion of registered voters. Migration to the mainland and employment-related movement were cited as primary reasons, though verification in remote islands posed logistical challenges.

The Draft Electoral Roll has been formally handed over to representatives of recognized Political Parties.
The successful completion of Enumeration Phase reflects strong public participation and coordinated efforts by election officials and stakeholders, strengthening democracy. pic.twitter.com/Yd1D1frub3

— Chief Electoral Officer, Andaman & Nicobar Islands (@AndamanCEO) December 24, 2025

Kerala: Over 24.08 lakh names removed

Kerala recorded provisional deletions of approximately 24.08 lakh voters, with official breakdowns including deceased individuals, voters permanently shifted out of the state, untraceable persons, and duplicate registrations. Overseas migration played a significant role, with many voters absent during enumeration. The state’s enumeration period was extended, and draft rolls were published on December 23, 2025.

The SIR draft electoral roll has now been published. Voters can file claims and objections from 23 December 2025 to 22 January 2026.#ceokerala #ecisveep #eci #ChiefElectoralOfficer #SIRKerala pic.twitter.com/RghZWqvc5s

— Chief Electoral Officer Kerala (@Ceokerala) December 23, 2025

Gujarat: 73.7 lakh deletions

Gujarat’s draft rolls reflected the deletion of about 73.7 lakh names, largely concentrated in urban and industrial areas. Rapid urbanisation, labour migration, and multiple registrations were cited as key factors. Enumeration deadlines were extended, and draft rolls were released on December 19.

Goa: Over one lakh names flagged for deletion

In Goa, 1,00,042 names were deleted from the draft electoral rolls. Migration, ageing population profiles, and duplication were cited as reasons. The deletions, while smaller in absolute terms, raised concerns in a state with a relatively compact electorate.

The DEO North Goa Ankit Yadav,IAS handing over the the copy the Draft Electoral Roll of SIR 2026 to the representatives of political parties #goa #india #SIR #ECI @ECISVEEP pic.twitter.com/UgAE7fOYqV

— Chief Electoral Office, Goa (@CEO_Goa) December 16, 2025

Lakshadweep: Provisional deletion of 1,429 electors out of 57,813 total electors

Lakshadweep saw the provisional deletion of 1,429 electors out of 57,813 total electors of the UT.

Press Note 16.12.2025 – Publication of Draft Electoral Roll@ECISVEEP #ECI #SIR #ceolakshadweep pic.twitter.com/s2UPtgrTFF

— CEO LAKSHADWEEP (@LakshadweepCeo) December 16, 2025

Revised SIR timelines and the Uttar Pradesh factor

On December 11, the Election Commission revised enumeration and draft publication timelines across 6 states. In Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, enumeration was extended up to December 14, 2025, with draft electoral rolls subsequently published on December 19. Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands were granted a longer window, allowing enumeration to continue until December 18, followed by the release of draft rolls on December 23, 2025. Kerala’s revision followed the same trajectory, culminating in draft roll publication on December 23 after extended field verification.

This synchronised release on December 23 marked a critical juncture in the SIR, with draft electoral rolls simultaneously entering the public domain in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Kerala and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, expanding the total to 12 states and Union Territories where draft rolls have now been published.

Across these jurisdictions, cumulative proposed deletions have already crossed the 3.5 crore mark, showing the unprecedented scale of the exercise. Uttar Pradesh, however, occupies a distinct and consequential position within this revised timeline. As India’s most populous state, it received the most substantial extension, with enumeration permitted until December 26, 2025 and the draft electoral roll scheduled for publication on December 31, 2025.

A process under challenge

Across states, Sabrang India has documented how the SIR, while presented as a technical correction, has unfolded as a high-stakes exercise with far-reaching consequences. With more than 3.5 names already facing deletion across 12 States/UTs and Uttar Pradesh yet to publish its draft roll, the cumulative impact of the revision is unprecedented. The challenge ahead lies not only in correcting errors through claims and objections but in addressing deeper questions about burden of proof, administrative accountability, and the right to vote in a context of widespread mobility and precarity.

Related:

Nearly 50 lakh names flagged for deletion in West Bengal, state government announces Rs. 2 Lakh relief for SIR-linked deaths, CM Mamta Banerjee launches ‘May I Help You’ block camps

ECI’s announced nationwide SIR, will cover 12 States and UTs with a reduced documentary burden

SIR exercise leaves trail of suicide across states as BLOs buckle under pressure and citizens panic over citizenship

The post SIR: Over 3.5 Crore electors flagged for removal across 12 states in SIR, Uttar Pradesh will publish its draft rolls on December 31 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report identifies the reported disappearance and killing of journalist Mukesh Chandrakar in Bastar in early January as emblematic of the dangers faced by those who speak truth to power. Chandrakar had reported on poor-quality road construction in the region shortly before he went missing; his body was later found in a septic tank. The FSC notes that this incident set the tone for a year in which nine people were killed for exercising their right to free speech, including eight journalists and one social media influencer. It underscores that violence against journalists—particularly those working in rural and semi-urban districts—remains one of the most visible and brutal forms of silencing.

Journalists as primary targets

The FSC report records 40 attacks on free speech actors in 2025, of which 33 targeted journalists. It notes that reporters covering local corruption, illegal mining, liquor mafias, and administrative failures were especially vulnerable. In several cases, the police initially attempted to attribute killings or deaths to personal disputes, accidents, or intoxication, even when the journalists had recently published sensitive stories. The report highlights the case of Uttarakhand-based YouTuber Rajeev Pratap, whose body was recovered from the Bhagirathi, river days after he aired a video exposing liquor consumption inside a local hospital. Despite colleagues raising serious doubts, police claimed he had driven into the river while drunk.

The FSC further draws attention to the continued incarceration of journalists Irfan Mehraj and Rupesh Kumar under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, noting that their prolonged detention without trial exemplifies the use of counter-terror laws to suppress journalism. Threats and harassment accompanied physical violence: at least 14 of 19 harassment incidents and 12 of 17 recorded threats were directed at journalists engaged in professional work. The report cites, as illustrative, a threat by TDP MLA Gummanur Jayaram to force journalists “to sleep on railway tracks” if they published allegedly false information about him.

The return of sedition and criminal lawfare

One of the most troubling findings of the report is the resurgence of sedition prosecutions, despite repeated assurances that colonial-era speech offences had been rendered obsolete under the new criminal codes. The FSC documents multiple sedition cases filed in 2025 against satirists, journalists, and political commentators for online posts questioning state action.

The report details how satirists Neha Singh Rathore, Madri Kakoti (Dr Medusa), and Shamita Yadav (Ranting Gola) were charged with sedition for social media commentary following the Pahalgam attack. It flags the Allahabad High Court’s rejection of Rathore’s anticipatory bail as a significant departure from earlier judicial reluctance to allow sedition prosecutions for speech. The FSC also records the filing of sedition FIRs by Assam police against the leadership and columnists of The Wire, including founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan and consulting editor Karan Thapar, as well as against journalist Abhisar Sarma for a YouTube programme that relied on publicly available judicial observations.

According to the report, these cases exemplify “lawfare”—the strategic use of criminal law not necessarily to secure convictions, but to intimidate, exhaust, and silence critical voices through prolonged legal processes.

Mass censorship and platform control

The largest category of violations documented by the FSC in 2025 relates to censorship and internet control, with 11,385 instances recorded. The report highlights mass government takedown requests to social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter). In May and July 2025 alone, over 10,000 accounts were withheld in India. Citing X’s submissions before the Karnataka High Court, the report notes that the platform received 29,118 takedown requests from the Indian government between January and June 2025 and complied with the overwhelming majority of them.

The FSC identifies the Sahyog portal as a key institutional mechanism enabling decentralised censorship by allowing state agencies, district officials, and local police to issue takedown notices directly to platforms. Following the Pahalgam attack, numerous accounts belonging to journalists, news organisations, and international media outlets—including The Wire, Maktoob Media, Reuters, and many senior journalists—were withheld without public disclosure of reasons. The report notes that the Karnataka High Court’s decision upholding the Sahyog portal effectively legitimised large-scale, opaque censorship of online speech.

The ‘Hidden Hand’: Self-censorship and corporate influence

Beyond formal orders, the FSC report devotes significant attention to what it terms the “hidden hand” of censorship: informal pressures, verbal directives, and institutional intimidation that rarely leave a documentary trail. The report cites instances of journalists receiving “friendly calls,” media houses quietly dropping stories, and investigative platforms being financially crippled through regulatory action, such as the revocation of The Reporter’s Collective’s tax-exempt status.

Corporate power, the report notes, increasingly intersected with state censorship. It documents the September 2025 ex-parte injunction obtained by Adani Enterprises leading to the takedown of over 200 pieces of online content critical of the company, as well as sustained attempts to suppress reporting on the Vantara wildlife project linked to Reliance Industries. Even where courts later set aside gag orders, the report observes that the chilling effect on media coverage persisted.

Academia, cinema, and the right to think

The FSC records at least 16 serious instances of censorship in academia, including the cancellation of conferences, denial of permissions, deportation of visiting scholars, and the revocation of OCI status of academics critical of the government. In Kashmir, the report notes, authorities banned 25 books on the region’s history and politics and raided bookstores.

In cinema, the report documents excessive cuts, prolonged certification delays, and outright denial of certification to films addressing caste violence, state abuse, or social injustice. It notes that even internationally acclaimed films and centenary classics were barred from screening, underscoring how certification had become a tool of prior restraint rather than classification.

An uneven judicial response

While acknowledging some notable judicial interventions in favour of free speech, the FSC concludes that the judiciary’s overall response in 2025 was inconsistent. The report contrasts strong Supreme Court observations protecting poetry, satire, and art with orders that imposed gag conditions, endorsed expansive censorship mechanisms, or demanded apologies from artists. This inconsistency, the report argues, has failed to provide a stable constitutional shield for free expression.

A shrinking democratic space

In its concluding assessment, the Free Speech Collective warns that the cumulative impact of violence, lawfare, mass censorship, corporate pressure, and regulatory overreach has fundamentally altered the conditions under which speech is exercised in India. The report cautions that free expression has not been extinguished outright, but increasingly conditioned, surveilled, and constrained, creating a climate in which self-censorship becomes a rational act of survival.

As the report starkly concludes, the “hidden hand” shaping India’s speech landscape in 2025 is no longer subtle—it has become structural.

The complete report may be read here.

Related:                                                            

The ‘Shastra Poojan’ Project: How the ritual of weapon worship is being recast as a tool of power and hate propaganda

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

No right to live, or die: Christians in Chhattisgarh, and India under attack

Kerala: Protests erupt after RSS-BJP man’s alleged attack on children’s Christmas carol group in Palakkad

‘Brutal intimidation of Christians’ all India condemned: Bombay Catholic Sabha

The post Free Speech in India 2025: What the Free Speech Collective report reveals about a year of silencing appeared first on SabrangIndia.