Sadly, as a core cadre member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Modi’s avtar as a messiah of women is fraught with deceit.

Not delving into the glut of sex scandals involving RSS top cadres which were exposed by RSS leading ideologues like Balraj Madhok (Zindagi kaa Safar 3: Deendayal Upadhyay kee Hatya se Indira Gandhi kee Hatya Tak, 2003) and Hemendra Nath Pandit (The End of a Dream: An Inside View of the RSS Today, 1950) we today need to scrutinize the RSS archives to know the deep and core levels of this male chauvinistic anti-Hindu women ideology. This is also evident in their practice.

1. Inside the RSS: Males are Volunteers

RSS founded in 1925 was to be an exclusive male organisation, its cadres were to be known as swayamsevak or volunteers. The RSS top brass made its intentions clear of treating women as of lower status than males when it decided to start its women wing; Rashtra Sevika Samiti in 1936. Its nomenclature made it clear that women members were not called as swayamsevak or volunteers but Rashtr Sevika (servants for the nation) or female servants for the Hindu nation. This identity of women in the Rashtr Sevika Samiti as servants was not only a technical issue but outcome of RSS’ attitude towards Hindu women which glorifies the subservient role of women in the society.

These are Rashtr Sevika Samiti members [who according to its website number around three lakh] only who pledge to maintain ‘faithfulness/virginity’, remain ‘modest’, ‘steadfast’, and not fall prey to ‘immorality and evil habits’. The RSS male swayamsevaks make no such commitment.

RSS Demands Manusmriti as Constitution Of India

In fact, this anti-woman attitude of RSS was glaringly visible when on the eve of the ratification of the democratic secular constitution by the Indian Constituent Assembly [November 26, 1949] it rejected it and demanded promulgation of Manusmriti or Manu Code as the constitution of India. A perusal of chapters V and IX will show how Hindu women were to be treated as sub-human creatures.

Laws of Manu concerning women

1. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control. (Chapter IX/sloka 2)
2. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. (IX/3)
3. Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives. (IX/6)
4. Women, confined in the house under trustworthy and obedient servants, are not (well) guarded; but those who of their own accord keep guard over themselves, are well guarded. (IX/12)
5. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly. (IX/14)
6. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world). (IX/15)
7. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. (IX/17)
8. For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule. (IX/18)

3. GANDHI PEACE PRIZE to GITA PRESS Which Denigrates Hindu Women

Gita Press, Gorakhpur was awarded the 2022 Gandhi Peace Prize, the prestigious international award instituted by Government of India in 1995 while commemorating 125^th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. It was to be conferred on those individuals/organisations which contributed to carrying forward the ideals espoused by him. The jury which conferred it to Gita Press was headed by PM Modi.

PM Modi congratulated Gita Press, “on being conferred the Gandhi Peace Prize 2021. They have done commendable work over the last 100 years towards furthering social and cultural transformations among the people,” Incidentally, Gita Press was also celebrating its centenary in 2022.

Award to Gita Press was not only shocking for all those who cherished Gandhian values, humanism and civilized norms but all those who opposed gender-based persecution. It was a sad day for the Indian democratic-secular Republic as that Modi government idolized Gita Press which publishes  ‘Hindu’ literature  propagating Sati  and beating  of  women.  It publishes “popular” religious, ‘Hindu’  literature  which opposes remarriage of widowed/divorced/discarded women, seeking employment by them and even reporting rape as we will find by the perusal of some of its publications. According to this literature, this is the way for Hindu women to end in swarg or paradise.

Gita Press has published more than a dozen titles on the subject, the most prominent of which are: Nari Shiksha (Education of Women) by Hanuman Prasad Poddar, Grahsth Mein Kaise Rahen [How to Lead a Household Life] by Swami Ramsukhdas, Striyon ke Liye Kartawya Shiksha (Education of Duties for Women) and Nari Dharm (Religion of Woman) by Jai Dayal Goindka and a special issue of magazine Kalyan on women. These are available in English and other Indian languages. The English titles are popular with the non-resident Indians.

Some glimpses of anti-Hindu women content of Gita Press publications:

‘What should the wife do if her husband beats her and troubles her?” Swami Ramsukhdas offers the following sagely advice to the battered wife and her parents:

“The wife should think that she is paying her debt of her previous life and thus her sins are being destroyed and she is becoming pure. When her parents come to know this, they can take her to their own house because they have not given their daughter to face this sort of bad behaviour.”

And there is another piece of heavenly advice for a rape victim and her husband.

“As far as possible, it is better for woman (rape victim) to keep mum. If her husband also comes to know of it, he too should keep mum. It is profitable for both of them to keep quiet.”

Can a woman remarry? The answer is very straight forward,

“When once a girl is given away in marriage as charity by her parents, she does not remain virgin any more. So how can she be offered as charity to anyone else? It is beastliness to remarry her.”

But can a man remarry? No problem,

“A man can have a second wife for an issue in order to be free from the debt which he owes to manes (pitr-rin) according to the ordinances of the scriptures, if there is no issue from the first wife.”

But this is not the only reason for which a man is allowed re- marriage. A man, “whose desire for pleasure has not been wiped out, can get remarried because if he does not get remarried, he will indulge in adultery and    go to prostitutes and will incur a badly sin. Therefore, in order to escape the sin and maintain the decorum he should get remarried according to the ordinance of scriptures.”

Of course, no widow is allowed to remarry. However, she may be allowed to choose to be some male’s concubine.

“If she cannot maintain her character, instead of indulging in adultery here and there, she should accept her affinity for a person and live under his protection.”

Is it proper for woman to demand equal rights? The sagely answer is quite unambiguous:

“No, it is not proper. In fact, a woman has not the right of equality with man…in fact it is ignorance or folly which impels a woman to have desire for the right of equality with man. A wise person is he/she who is satisfied with less rights and more duties.”

This literature about Hindu women openly preaches and glorifies the ghastly practice of Sati. To the question:

“Is ‘Sati Pratha’ (viz., the tradition of the wife being cremated with the dead body of the husband on the funeral pyre) proper or improper?”

The sagely answer is:

“A wife’s cremation with the dead body of her husband on the funeral pyre is not a tradition. She, in whose mind truth and enthusiasm come, burns even without fire and she does not suffer any pain while she burns. This is not a tradition that she should do so, but this is her truth, righteousness and faith in scriptural decorum…It means that it is not a tradition. It is her own religious enthusiasm. On this topic Prabhudatta Brahmachariji has written a book whose title is Cremation of a Wife with her Husband’s Dead Body is the Backbone of Hindu Religion, it should be studied.”

Apart from glorifying Sati, the Gita Press publication like Nari Dharm produces dozens of shlokas from ‘Hindu’ scriptures to establish that women are not capable of enjoying independence. This book begins with the chapter swatantarta ke liye striyon ki ayogeta (incapability of women for independence). Another notable facet of this literature is that long a list of rituals is laid down to be practiced by pregnant women so that ‘bright, talented, brave and religious inclined son’ is born.

Unfortunately, parliamentary opposition which intends to confront PM Modi on his hoax of love for women did not confront him with the above stated facts due to ignorance of the dehumanized ideology and practices of RSS. The moral of the story is that RSS-BJP government juggernaut led by PM Modi is able to befool the women specially Hindu women of India not due to its respect for women but because opponents are totally ignorant of the criminality of RSS. For Modi ignorance of his opponents is blessing!

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

Related:

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

Indian tricolour & the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Rewriting NCERT school textbooks: ‘Muslim Raj’ is a mere excuse, the project is to conceal historical facts

The post Womens Reservation Bill 2026: Women’s Rights & the RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

More MPs, Less Debate

India’s Constitution distributes legislative sovereignty between Parliament and State Assemblies, defining powers through the 7th Schedule of the constitution – Union, State, and Concurrent Lists. Under this system, Parliament legislates on Union subjects. Bills are introduced, debated, and passed by the required majority.

But in practice:

Even in the current Lok Sabha of 543 members, the speaking time is allocated based on ‘party strength’. Individual MPs — especially those outside dominant parties — are given little to no space. Often, they are not allowed to speak for more than a minute, as repeatedly pointed out by Thol. Thirumavalavan MP. This goes against the grain of representative and inclusive democracy that should give every voice, regardless of party or political strength, the space and time to express views, even dissent.

So:

• Will increasing MPs improve deliberation?
• Will it strengthen representation?

It will only further compress individual voices.

The Real Problem: Centralisation

Why is there no time for debate? Because Parliament is overloaded.

Why is it overloaded? Because it interferes in too many subjects — especially in the name of Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS).

One Example is the Union Government’s Jal Jeevan Mission – A centrally sponsored scheme.

On April 16, 2026, DMK Member of Parliament (MP), senior advocate, P. Wilson raised a question in Rajya Sabha. He pointed, ‘Tamil Nadu has been one of the best performing states in the country providing functional household tap connection to 1.12 crore out of 1.25 crore households achieving nearly 90% but, only Rs 5914 crores have been released for funds under this scheme leaving Rs 3112 crores pending. For 2024 – 2025, while Rs 2434 crores was allotted but only Rs 732 crores have been released. Due to this unreasonable fiscal control by the regime at the centre, the Tamil Nadu government itself has to advance Rs 2550 crores. He went on to explain, how, for the Hogenakkal combined water supply scheme phase – III, the project was approved at the cost of Rs 8428 crores with the union government share of Rs 2283 crores under the Jal Jeevan mission framework but today (early 2026), the union government (unilaterally) says the project stands cancelled and suddenly informs that the assistance cannot be extended! Besides the MP exposed how, ten additional multi village drinking water schemes worth about Rs. 7590 crores proposed by Tamil Nadu for full rural coverage are also pending for approval.  MP Wilson demanded an answer to this state of affairs which he has not, to date, received.

Parliament is not a one way traffic. The Union Government is answerable to states. West Bengal has raised similar concerns. However this regime steamrolls through with its undemocratic methods.

Encroaching on Schedule VII of the Constitution, Items under the State List: Entry 17 under the List II (State List) of Seventh Schedule in Constitution of India clearly marks that the ‘Water’ is a State Subject. Also the Minister of State for Jal Shakti, V. Somanna, in a written reply presented in the Rajya Sabha stated, ‘Drinking Water is a state subject, and hence, the responsibility of planning, approval, implementation, operation, and maintenance of drinking water supply schemes, including those under the Jal Jeevan Mission, lies with State/UT Governments. The Government of India supports the States by providing technical and financial assistance.’

Do the facts suggest that the Centre is really providing assistance? NO. They are promising to support and cut the rope while the state attempts to climb a mountain!

Another encroachment on State Subjects: Similarly Entry 14 of the List II states that ‘Agriculture’ is a state subject. However, we all are well aware that three farm laws favouring corporates were brought in by the Union Government, inviting months’ long protests and finally their withdrawal! The Centre has also interfered in the procurement, with the tag of price control and food safety. Due to that the paddy procurement was affected in the past month. Tamil Nadu’s request is not a dilution of procurement norms but a legitimate invocation of flexibility already embedded in the Union’s framework.

Under the Fair Average Quality (FAQ) standards administered by the Food Corporation of India and the Department of Food and Public Distribution, paddy moisture is capped at 17%, but relaxations are permitted in exceptional conditions with prior approval. Citing unseasonal rains, the state has formally sought permission to procure paddy with slightly higher moisture (18–20%), even agreeing to value cuts as per official norms. The core issue is fiscal and federal: unless such procurement is accepted into the Central Pool, the burden falls on the state, effectively penalizing farmers for climatic factors—making this a case for cooperative federalism, not regulatory compromise.

The solution is clear:

• Do not interfere in the State List
• Share Union List powers with states and local bodies
• Retain only essential subjects like foreign affairs, defence, and currency at the Union level

With this, a limited number of MPs can still have meaningful discussions. However, the Union government is doing the opposite — it is centralising power further. This is not governance. This is authoritarian centralisation — fascism in practice.

What Can an MP actually do?

In reality, MPs are reduced to:

• Asking questions, mostly written — a power even citizens have through RTI
• Raising basic constituency issues like drinking water and bridges crossing railways. But should such issues even reach Parliament?

This is not governance efficiency. It is an enforced dependency.

Fiscal Centralisation

Why should states depend on Parliament for funds? If taxation powers are devolved properly, states can govern independently. Why should drinking water schemes or farmer incentives require Union approval? This is a systemic flaw — not something delimitation can fix.

Collapse of Institutional Mechanisms

MPs can also work through Parliamentary Standing Committees.

But from 2014 to 2026:

• How many committee reports have been discussed?
• How many have been implemented?

These committees have been reduced to symbolic bodies. Their reports are ignored. Without them, transparency collapses.

The solution lies in reform of the working of the constitution, Not in Delimitation:

• Redefine Union, State, and Concurrent Lists
• Except for foreign affairs, defence, and currency, powers should lie with states & local bodies.

Democracy being suffocated

What we see today:

• MPs are prevented from functioning meaningfully
• Constitutional structures are weakened
• Parliamentary democracy is being suffocated

This is not accidental. It is a deliberate project of a supremacist and fascist Union BJP government — bending institutions to concentrate power.

Unfair Delimitation and the Betrayal of Federal Justice

Delimitation, in theory, is about determining the number of representatives based on population. That is the legal argument.

The policy of population control in India was not accidental; it was a conscious national direction shaped through constitutional design and public policy. The Constitution of India (1950) distributed legislative powers through the Seventh Schedule, placing subjects across the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists. While public health and population-related matters were initially within the domain of states, a decisive shift occurred during the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, when “family planning and population control” were placed in the Concurrent List (Entry 20A), enabling both the Union and states to legislate and act.

This was followed by clear policy articulation at the national level. The National Population Policy of 1976, framed during the Emergency, and later the National Population Policy of 2000, set explicit demographic goals, including achieving replacement-level fertility. These were not symbolic declarations; they were calls for coordinated national action.

It was the South Indian states that responded with seriousness and administrative discipline. From the 1980s through the 2000s, states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and undivided Andhra Pradesh implemented population control measures effectively, bringing down fertility rates early and stabilising population growth. This was not merely a demographic achievement — it translated into better allocation of resources, improved public health systems, and higher human development outcomes.

In contrast, several North Indian states failed to implement these policies with the same urgency or effectiveness. Population growth continued at high levels well into the 2000s and even the 2010s, creating a widening demographic imbalance within the Union.

The Constitution itself recognised the risk of penalising states that performed well.

Under Article 81 of the Constitution of India, representation in the Lok Sabha is linked to population. However, to ensure that states which successfully controlled their populations were not politically disadvantaged, Parliament intervened. Through the 42nd Amendment (1976), the allocation of seats was frozen based on the 1971 Census. This freeze was later extended by the 84th Constitutional Amendment (2001) until 2026, with the 87th Amendment (2003) allowing adjustments based on the 2001 Census without altering the total number of seats.

The principle was clear: demographic responsibility should not lead to political punishment.

Today, that principle stands on the verge of being reversed.

With delimitation expected after 2026, the Union government is preparing to re-link parliamentary representation strictly to population. The implications are profound. States that adhered to national policy, controlled population growth, and managed their resources responsibly will see their political weight reduced. States that failed to do so will gain greater representation and influence in Parliament.

This inversion of justice is not a technical correction — it is a structural distortion.

States that cooperated with Union policy in the national interest are now being “rewarded” with a loss of rights and voice. States that disregarded the same policy are being “rewarded” with expanded political power. One is forced to ask: is this justice? And more importantly, who is being asked this question — a government that increasingly exhibits fascist tendencies in its centralisation of power?

When this contradiction is placed before constitutional forums, the deeper tensions within this approach will become evident.

At the same time, the Union government continues to repeatedly invoke the Constitution to justify delimitation. But this raises a more fundamental question: why is delimitation being pushed with such urgency, while far more pressing structural issues remain unaddressed?

The real crisis in Indian governance today is not a shortage of representatives; it is the over-centralisation of power. Parliament is burdened with subjects that rightfully belong to states. Fiscal powers remain concentrated at the Union level, forcing states to depend on central allocations even for basic welfare and infrastructure. A town should not have to wait for Union schemes for drinking water, nor should farmers depend on central approvals for incentives. These are failures of federal design — not problems that delimitation can solve.

Instead of correcting these imbalances by strengthening states and local bodies, the Union government is pursuing a path that further concentrates power. This is not administrative reform. It is authoritarian consolidation — fascism expressed through institutional control.

The consequences extend beyond federal structure into economic reality. The government that has failed to significantly improve development outcomes or quality of life in lagging regions is now attempting to extract from the more productive states. The burden of demographic imbalance is being shifted onto the South — not to uplift the North in any meaningful way, but to redistribute power and resources.

Will this extraction benefit the ordinary people of North India? There is little evidence to suggest so. Instead, the pattern increasingly points toward concentration of economic gains in the hands of a few corporate entities — most notably a select coterie.

Thus, delimitation is not merely a constitutional exercise. It is a political project — one that seeks to reconfigure representation, alter federal balance, and entrench a particular ideological dominance.

The question, therefore, is not whether delimitation is constitutionally permissible. The question is whether it is just. And in its current form, it is not.

Why Delimitation Now?

If delimitation does not solve governance issues, why push it? Because the objective is political. Southern states have identified and are exposing the fascist tendencies of the Union government. They are taking this message across India. This creates a threat to the Fascist Propaganda.

So BJP is trying to,

• Increase MPs from northern states where the BJP has stronger control
• Reduce the relative political strength of southern states
• Entrench RSS ideology structurally

Delimitation becomes a tool of political domination.

A Pattern of Imposition

This fits into a larger pattern:

• Hindi imposition through the three-language policy
• Sanskrit cultural imposition through the New Education Policy
• Sanatana imposition through schemes like Vishwakarma
• Minority property targeting through Waqf amendments
• Citizenship insecurity through CAA-type laws
• Public sector, transport, and infrastructure assets being handed over to private corporate entities

States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Telangana have resisted all of this. Unable to handle these states politically, the Union government is attempting to weaken them structurally.

The Federal Resistance

As Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy pointed out, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin was among the first to bring these issues to light. He has also pushed for unity among states. This is critical. Because this is not just policy — it is a battle over India’s federal structure.

Conclusion: What India Actually Needs

India does not need more MPs.

It needs:

• Stronger states
• Empowered local governance
• Fiscal autonomy
• Respect for federalism

Delimitation offers none of this.

Instead, it risks:

• Weakening federal balance
• Reducing real representation
• Expanding centralised, fascist control

This is not democratic reform. It is democratic distortion in the service of power.

Tamil Nadu will fight — Tamil Nadu will win. And along this path, states across India will unite and speak the truth.

(The author is an independent Tamil journalist with YouTube channels, Peralai, AranSei)

Related:

Will delimitation have severe, undemocratic consequences following the SIR?

PM Narendra Modi’s frequent visits to Tamil Nadu, his “love” for Tamil culture exposed

The post Delimitation: A false solution driven by centralised power appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava made these observations while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Mohd. Faizan and others, who sought the quashing of an FIR lodged in Bahraich district.

The FIR in question accused the petitioners of enticing away the complainant’s 18-year-old daughter, alleging an intent to forcibly convert her religion and compel her into marriage. However, the case took a decisive turn when the Court was presented with the woman’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. In her testimony, she unequivocally stated that she had been in a consensual relationship with the petitioner for three years. She firmly denied any allegations of religious conversion, coercion, or sexual misconduct.

Significantly, the woman expressed a clear desire to live with the petitioner and voiced apprehension for her own safety and that of her family. She specifically urged that members of certain Hindu organisations should not harass or intimidate them following her statement.

The Court took serious note of the fact that despite this categorical rebuttal of the FIR’s claims, the Investigating Officer chose only to drop the rape charge (under the BNS), while continuing to pursue charges of kidnapping, assault, and violations under the 2021 anti-conversion law. Calling this a “peculiar turn,” LiveLaw reported, the bench observed that once the victim’s own account dismantled the foundation of the FIR, continuing the investigation appeared wholly unjustified.

In a pointed remark, the Court stated that, prima facie, the Investigating Officer seemed to be acting under external pressure or influence, though it refrained from elaborating further at this stage.

The bench also highlighted a broader pattern: an increasing number of such FIRs are being initiated not by the alleged victims, but by third parties. It noted that a similar concern had recently been flagged by the Supreme Court of India in Rajendra Bihari Lal vs State of U.P., reinforcing the systemic nature of the issue.

Taking a stern stance, the High Court directed the complainant—who is the woman’s father—to appear in person at the next hearing and explain why action should not be initiated against him for filing what the Court described as a “patently false, fake, and frivolous” FIR.

In a further move signalling institutional accountability, the Court ordered the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit detailing the steps being taken to address the filing of such baseless cases. The affidavit must be submitted by May 19, failing which the official has been directed to appear before the Court in person with all relevant records.

Pending further proceedings, the Court has stayed the arrest of the petitioners. It has also directed the State authorities to ensure adequate security for the petitioners, the woman at the centre of the case, and her family members within three days—acknowledging the credible threats and fears expressed before it.

Related:

Intrusive and Unconstitutional: CJP’s dissent note on Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Law

35 civil society groups oppose Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion law, warn of threat to women’s autonomy and constitutional freedoms

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

Street Pressure, State Power, and the Criminalisation of Choice: How Hindutva groups are pushing Maharashtra’s anti-conversion law

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

The post Allahabad High Court flags surge in “false” conversion firs, seeks accountability from UP government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Following delimitation, the parliamentary representation of southern Indian states is projected to decline from 23.6% to approximately 20%, whereas the representation of the Hindi-speaking northern and central states—where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has substantial electoral strength—is expected to increase from 38.1% to 43.1%. This shift enables the ruling BJP to maintain political dominance even without substantial support from southern states.

Beyond its federal implications, this issue also raises normative concerns regarding democratic principles.

The delimitation process is grounded in the principle of “one person, one vote and One Vote One Value”, that is  the equal value of each vote. Ideally, each parliamentary or legislative constituency should represent a comparable number of voters across the country. Based on this principle, the allocation of seats in state assemblies and the Lok Sabha is determined.

For instance:

In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Uttar Pradesh (UP) had approximately 15.4 Crore registered voters and 80 parliamentary seats, implying that each Member of Parliament (MP) represented around 19.3 lakhs voters.

In contrast, Tamil Nadu (TN) had about 6.24 crore voters and 39 seats, with each MP representing roughly 16 lakh  voters. This discrepancy suggests that the relative value of an individual vote varies across states.

From a theoretical standpoint, delimitation could address such disparities by standardising representation—for example, by ensuring one MP per 10-15 lakh voters nationwide. However, such an approach would increase representation for more populous states while comparatively reducing it for states that have achieved lower population growth.

This raises a fundamental question for a democracy with many regional complexities and existing regional imbalance in political representation:

How can equitable representation be ensured without exacerbating regional imbalances?

The Modi governments’ approach to delimitation intended to reinforce existing myopic political advantages for the BJP at the cost inciting regional unrest leading to centrifugal tendencies which is already brewing in the republic.

An additional dimension of the debate concerns the interaction between delimitation and SIR. While delimitation determines the number of parliamentary seats, SIR determines the electorate itself.

The combined effect of these processes result in disproportionate disadvantage to southern states. To illustrate let us take the examples of both UP and TN where the SIR process has been completed and check the impact of Delimitaion.

Under the proposed framework (based on the 2011 Census):

Uttar Pradesh’s Lok Sabha seats may increase from 80 to 143.

Tamil Nadu’s seats may increase from 39 to 49.

Following the SIR:

Uttar Pradesh is estimated to have approximately 13.39 Cr voters, after the SIR, resulting in one Member of Parliament (MP) per about 9.36 lakhs voters.

Tamil Nadu, after the SIR, is estimated to have around 5.67 million voters, leading to one MP per approximately 11.57 lakhs voters. Thus, disparities in voter-to-representative ratios would persist, with southern states potentially experiencing relatively lower vote value.

A similar pattern is projected for Karnataka. After delimitation, the state may receive 41 seats. Depending on changes in the voter base following SIR, the number of voters per MP could remain comparatively higher than in northern states.

In comparative terms, if all states were represented at the same ratio as Uttar Pradesh (approximately one MP per 9.36 lakhs voters), Tamil Nadu should get 60 seats instead of 49, with similar implications for Karnataka. Thus both the SIR and delimitation of the Modi government as currently proposed, is a lethal attack on Parliamentary Democracy.

It is for this reason that the country should say a clear NO to both the SIR and the Delimitation.

An alternative framework that preserves the principle of equal vote value while minimizing regional disparities in representation need to be evolved through democratic consultation with the People and States of the Republic.

Related:

Procedure for tabling bills on women’s reservations & delimitation both opaque and non-consultative: Experts and Citizens

“Inside the SIR”: Booklet flags ‘mechanical disenfranchisement’ in electoral roll revision

No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer

The post Will delimitation have severe, undemocratic consequences following the SIR? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One of the statements reads:

“We are writing to express our deep concern about the complete lack of transparency regarding the draft legislations proposed to be taken up during the 3-day special extension of the Budget Session of Parliament scheduled to be held from April 16 to 18, 2026. As per media reports, the cabinet has cleared 3 bills to ostensibly pave the way for 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies from 2029 – an amendment to the Women’s Reservation Act (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam), a Delimitation Bill and a separate bill to extend the quota to Union Territories. The draft legislations reportedly include a proposal for a uniform 50% increase in seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, raising the Lok Sabha’s strength from 543 to 816 and total assembly seats from 4,123 to 6,186.

“The laws will fundamentally re-shape India’s electoral democracy and impact every voter in the country. Given the far-reaching ramifications of these legislations, it is shocking that the citizens of the country have been kept completely in the dark about the contents of the bills, their implications and the rationale for bringing these constitutional and legislative amendments. Information about the proposed laws is reaching people only through media reports based on “sources”. This is a flagrant violation of peoples’ fundamental right to information and the principles laid out in the Pre-legislative Consultation Policy.

“The Pre-legislative Consultation Policy adopted by the Union Government in 2014 mandates placing draft legislations in the public domain for at least 30 days, inviting public comments and making a summary of feedback/comments received available on the concerned ministry’s website prior to sending it for Cabinet approval. It also requires that wide publicity be given to the consultation process and the draft legislation through print and electronic media, or in such other manner considered necessary to reach the affected people.

“Given the tremendous impact the three legislations proposed to be taken up in the upcoming session of Parliament will have on our democracy, we demand that the government:

• make the text of the draft bills public immediately and ensure wide dissemination through various modes, and in multiples languages;
• put the draft bills through robust public consultation in line with the Pre-legislative Consultation Policy.

“While we wholeheartedly support reservation for women in legislature, and many of us have been part of campaigns demanding the same, we strongly oppose the secretive, non-democratic manner in which the proposed legislations are being brought. It is a profound irony and a grave disservice to the democratic process to introduce legislation for women’s empowerment while simultaneously excluding women from the conversation. A reform of such historic magnitude deserves transparent debate, public scrutiny and the inclusion of diverse voices to ensure it truly empowers people, rather than being rushed through in the midst of ongoing state elections as a political tool.”

This statement has been endorsed by:

1.   Anjali Bhardwaj, Transparency activist, Delhi
2.   Prof. Ganesh Devy
3.   Prof Santosh Mehrotra, Visiting Prof, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Telangana
4.   Aditi Mehta, IAS Retd, Rajasthan
5.   Amitabha Pande, Constitutional Conduct Group, Uttar Pradesh
6.   Kamal Malhotra, Head, United Nations (retired), Delhi
7.   Ashish Joshi, IP&TAFS (retd), Former Civil Servant , Additional Secretary Equivalent       Uttarakhand
8.   Kamal Kant Jaswal, Former Secretary to the Government of India, Haryana
9.   Zoya Hasan, Professor Emerita, Delhi
10. Teesta Setalvad, Citizens for Justice and Peace, Maharashtra
11. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Haryana
12. V. Ramani, IAS (Retd.), Maharashtra
13. Harshavardhan Hegde, Doctor, Delhi
14. Ashok Sharma, IFS (retd.), Uttar Pradesh
15. Balveer Arora, Centre for Multilevel Federalism ISS, Delhi
16. Yamini Aiyar, Delhi
17. Niraja G. Jayal, Retired academic, Delhi

Related:

Delimitation: Strengthening democracy or rigging the game?

What the 2026 delimitation process has in store for Indian Muslims

Stop saluting us, treat us as equals, TN MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi’s impassioned speech on the Women’s Reservation Bill

The post Procedure for tabling bills on women’s reservations & delimitation both opaque and non-consultative: Experts and Citizens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His speech in the Constituent Assembly is significant because it forcefully argues that a good constitution cannot function well if it is handled by bad people. Similarly, even a bad constitution can yield good results if it is used by good people.

In other words, much more than formal rules and procedures, the social location, interests, and intentions of those who interpret or implement them are important—a point which is often missed by liberal scholars but not by Dr. Ambedkar.

The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly, with the aim of drafting the Constitution, was held on December 9, 1946, and it continued to function for around three years, with B. R. Ambedkar, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, bearing a major share of the responsibility. When the work of drafting the Constitution was completed, Dr. Ambedkar delivered his closing speech on November 25, 1949, a day before the Constitution was formally adopted. November 26 was later celebrated as Constitution Day to mark this historic event.

Giving his closing speech in the Constituent Assembly, Babasaheb put it: “… however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution.”

In his speech, Dr. Ambedkar argued that rules, laws, or the Constitution are not sufficient in themselves, nor do they guarantee justice, however well they may be framed. Beyond the law, the persons who interpret and implement it are the critical factor.

In the context of the Constitution, Ambedkar takes a critical sociological view and said that mere having good rules are not enough, if the person interpreting or implanting it has a bad intention. His argument is directly linked with his political movement to fight for the proportionate and effective representation for Dalits and other marginalised castes and communities.

The opponents of affirmative action, including reservation, often invoke the logic of meritocracy. However, anti-reservationists are not willing to accept the fact that merit is often defined through caste interests.

For example, the skills acquired by rich, upper-caste males are taken as the benchmark and imposed on the rest of society, ignoring the geographical, cultural, and linguistic diversity of the country, as well as the social and economic backgrounds of the people. Unlike such Brahminical logic, B. R. Ambedkar argued for bringing every caste and community within the process of decision-making so that they could not only make laws but also interpret and implement them in their own interests.

Dr. Ambedkar was of the view that if power is not shared and remains concentrated in a few hands, the interests of marginalised castes and communities are bound to be compromised. The same logic extends to the field of law, where mere formal rules cannot ensure justice for marginalised castes; rather, they must be in a position to interpret and implement them to ensure justice in society.

To illustrate B. R. Ambedkar’s argument, let us take the analogy of a car. A new car is not a guarantee of safe driving if it is handled carelessly. Conversely, even if a car has some technical faults, there is a greater chance that the journey will be safe if the driver is experienced and careful. In the context of law, Ambedkar is not merely satisfied with having a good constitution; rather, he is concerned about the misuse of a good constitution in the hands of bad people. But even if the constitution is not perfect, if those implementing it have good intentions, there is a greater possibility of bringing about justice in society.

Although Dr. Ambedkar, in his speech, disagreed with the Indian communists and socialists over their “condemnation” of the Constitution, Babasaheb’s sociological understanding of law comes very close to the Marxist critique of law. While liberal jurisprudence emphasizes rules and procedures and the idea of providing a level playing field to everyone seeking justice in a court of law, Marxist philosophers foreground the political dimension of law. Radicals argue that, in the absence of a genuine level playing field in society—where a few monopolise wealth and shape culture, religion, and other institutions to perpetuate their dominance—the judiciary and law cannot remain neutral zones of freedom and rational deliberation.

While the class character of society is central to Marxist thinking, it does not get displaced in Dr. Ambedkar’s analysis. While Ambedkar was a firm supporter of state socialism and of the state taking greater responsibility for people’s welfare, he strongly disagreed with the communists over their support for the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Dr. Ambedkar, on the other hand, was a strong advocate of bringing about equality and reconstructing an egalitarian order through democratic and constitutional means.

Having acknowledged these differences, Ambedkarite scholars and Marxists converge on the point that, unlike liberal scholars, they do not ignore the social reality and deep-seated inequalities that exist beyond the formal and legal structures of the state. While class and property relations are central to classical Marxist analysis, Dr. Ambedkar’s primary focus is on the caste-based graded inequality of Indian society. While Dr. Ambedkar does not ignore class contradictions in society, he, unlike Marxist scholars, explains class inequality through a caste-based analysis.

Since caste-based inequality remains deeply entrenched in society and the post-Independence state did not go much beyond providing formal equality to the lower castes and other marginalised communities, Dr. Ambedkar was acutely aware of the continuing presence of upper-caste hegemony from society to politics and from culture to the economy. That is why he was concerned that a good law in itself is not a guarantee of justice unless marginalised castes and communities are in a position to interpret and implement it in their own interests. These sociological insights of Dr. Ambedkar are crucial not only for understanding our judicial system but also for analysing other institutions of the state.

[The author is the author of the recently published book Muslim Personal Law: Definitions, Sources and Contestations (Manohar, 2026).]

Related:

Caste Shadow on Ambedkar Jayanti: From campus censorship to temple exclusion

On his 135th birth anniversary, we ask, would Ambedkar be allowed free speech in India today?

A principled PM, a determined law minister: Nehru, Ambedkar & Opposition in Indian Politics

The post Understanding power through caste: Dr. Ambedkar’s contribution to the sociology of law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death-Part 2-Pathbreaking Orders of the High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Davangere South trigger

The ongoing Davangere South by-election has crystallised these long-simmering grievances. The Congress decision to field Samarth Mallikarjun, heir to the Shamanur political family, instead of a Muslim candidate in a constituency with around 75,000–80,000 Muslim voters out of roughly 2.3 lakh has sparked visible anger and protest on the ground. Reports of community leaders and youth expressing resentment, coupled with calls for a Muslim candidate, have put the national party on the defensive. Senior Muslim functionaries have privately and publicly acknowledged disquiet over a pattern where Muslim votes are treated as guaranteed, but Muslim claims to candidature are treated as negotiable.

The Davangere episode is not an isolated misstep. For many Muslim leaders, it is merely the latest entry in a long ledger of slights, broken expectations, and what feels like deliberate undercutting of community leadership within the Congress.

The 2012 MLC election: a warning sign

The 2012 MLC election in Karnataka, when the BJP was in power and Congress sat in opposition, is remembered by many as an early warning. The party had to pick three candidates from the Assembly to the Legislative Council: C Motamma, an established woman leader; MR Seetharam; and Iqbal Ahmed Saradgi, a senior Muslim leader from Kalaburagi.

At this point, Opposition Leader Siddaramaiah is said to have demanded the Council seat for his close associate CM Ibrahim. When the party declined, Byrathi Suresh rebelled and contested the MLC election as an independent. The rebellion shook the party internally and created an atmosphere of uncertainty. In the end, Motamma and Seetharam won with 19 votes each, while Saradgi lost, and Byrathi Suresh emerged victorious with a significantly higher margin than any other candidate.

For many Muslim observers, the incident left two bitter impressions. First, that the factional tussle triggered around CM Ibrahim effectively jeopardised the lone Muslim candidate’s prospects. Second, that the party’s “damage control” later – including action against Suresh that quietly faded away – suggested that ensuring a Muslim win was never the system’s first priority. Within the community, it is now recalled as an early blow that foreshadowed how internal Congress power games could repeatedly come at the expense of Muslim representation.

Hebbal 2016: the CK Jaffer Sharief legacy sidelined

The 2016 Hebbal Assembly by-election is another case that fuels the current sense of grievance. The seat fell vacant after the death of BJP MLA Jagadish Kumar. In 2013, Congress’ CK Abdul Rehman Sharif – grandson of veteran leader and former Union Railway Minister CK Jaffer Sharief, a man credited with significant railway reforms and influence at the national level – had lost the seat by a relatively narrow margin of around 5,000 votes.

Given his political lineage, prior performance, and the constituency’s demographics, local Congress workers and observers believed Rehman Sharif was positioned to win the by poll if given a second chance. Instead, the contest saw accusations of internal manipulation and factional interference, with senior leaders and power brokers allegedly working in ways that undercut his campaign. The result was a decisive defeat – he reportedly lost by over 20,000 votes – and, in the subsequent 2018 election, the ticket went to Byrathi Suresh, who won and continues as MLA and now minister from Hebbal.

For many Muslims aligned with the Congress, Hebbal embodies a recurring pattern: Muslim candidates are projected as winnable only up to the point that they remain subordinate to entrenched caste and money networks. When their independent stature grows, or when they begin to look like serious power centres in their own right, they find themselves replaced or undermined.

Mysuru, Tanveer Sait, and the coalition years

The 2018 Congress–JD(S) coalition and the Mysuru city corporation elections brought another example into focus. Tanveer Sait, a long-time Muslim leader from Mysuru and son of heavyweight Azeez Sait, had been a minister in the previous government. However, local pressures and his tactical proximity to JD(S) leaders reportedly put him at odds with Siddaramaiah and sections of the Congress high command.

Though Tanveer Sait went on to win the 2023 Assembly election, he was denied a cabinet berth and instead accommodated only as a working president of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee. For a leader with ministerial experience and a strong local base, this demotion is seen within the community as another case where the party’s internal calculations trumped recognition of a Muslim leader’s stature and seniority.

Roshan Baig: reformer to outcast

If there is one episode that symbolises the cost of dissent for Muslim leaders in the Congress, it is the ouster of Roshan Baig. A veteran leader and the only Muslim to have held the Home portfolio in Karnataka, Baig is widely credited with important police reforms and with establishing the Hajj Bhavan in Bengaluru, which has become a model for similar facilities elsewhere.

In 2019, following the Congress’ dismal Lok Sabha performance, winning only one seat from Karnataka – Baig publicly criticised Siddaramaiah, then AICC general secretary KC Venugopal, and state leadership for their handling of the elections. His outburst was followed by swift disciplinary action, culminating in his suspension and political isolation.

For many in the Muslim community, the message was clear: decades of loyalty and policy contributions did not protect Baig once he took on the central leadership. The party’s willingness to discard a senior Muslim face over internal criticism reinforced the perception that Muslim leaders are tolerated only so long as they remain unquestioningly loyal.

CM Ibrahim: a national figure walks away

The trajectory of CM Ibrahim adds a national dimension to this story. A stalwart who held key Union portfolios like Civil Aviation, Tourism, and Information & Broadcasting in the Deve Gowda and Gujral governments, Ibrahim has occupied prominent positions in both the Congress and JD(S). Over the years, however, his relationship with the Congress leadership—especially Siddaramaiah—deteriorated, and he eventually walked away from the party’s fold.

For grassroots Muslim cadres, Ibrahim’s estrangement is often cited as proof that even the tallest Muslim leaders are dispensable when their interests collide with dominant caste factions or leadership ambitions inside the Congress.

Lok Sabha numbers: the structural deficit

Beyond individual stories, the structural underrepresentation of Muslims in Karnataka’s parliamentary politics is stark. For a state with around 12–13% Muslim population, Karnataka has sent only one Muslim MP to the Lok Sabha in the last 20 years – Iqbal Ahmed Saradgi from Gulbarga in 2004 and Mansoor Ali Khan in 2024.

Data from recent elections shows that the Congress, BJP and JD(S) together have fielded only 11 Muslim candidates across four Lok Sabha polls between 2004 and 2019 – less than 10% of the 112 candidates the three parties collectively put up in that period. In 2004, there were four Muslim candidates from major parties; in 2009 and 2014, there were three each; by 2019 and 2024, that number dropped to just one. None of these candidates belonged to the BJP.

Political scientists and community leaders point to multiple reasons: the lack of clearly decisive Muslim “vote bank” parliamentary constituencies; the refusal of parties to groom Muslim leaders beyond community silos; and the rise of majoritarian polarisation as a deliberate electoral strategy. Delimitation in 2008, they argue, also reshaped constituencies in ways that further reduced the perceived winnability of Muslim candidates.

The case of Mansoor Ali Khan in Bengaluru Central, who recently lost by around 30,000 votes, is often read through this lens. From the community’s perspective, the issue is not just his defeat, but the sense that Kuruba, Lingayat and other caste blocs—who have long benefited from Muslim support in their own constituencies—did not mobilise with the same intensity for a Muslim candidate when it was their turn to reciprocate

Assembly level signals: Gangavati and beyond

The 2023 Assembly election in Gangavati added another layer to this community alienation. Iqbal Ansari, the Congress candidate, lost by 7,000–8,000 votes. Local accounts attribute the defeat not to lack of appeal but to internal sabotage: Lingayat and Kuruba factions, allegedly shaped by senior local leaders, were unwilling to back Ansari fully because his victory might have strengthened his claim for a cabinet berth in the future.

Similar stories are whispered from other constituencies where Muslims form a decisive part of the Congress vote base but remain underrepresented in ticket distribution and cabinet appointments. At the same time, Muslim voters have consistently rallied behind non-Muslim Congress candidates, from Bidar and Kalaburagi to Raichur, Koppal and Ballari—often playing a critical role in their victories.

A politics built on asymmetry

Taken together, these episodes and numbers suggest a deep asymmetry at the heart of Congress–Muslim relations in Karnataka. On one side stands a community that has repeatedly voted for the Congress to keep the BJP at bay and to defend secular space. On the other stands a party that has been increasingly cautious, even reluctant – about translating that loyalty into proportionate representation.

Davangere South has therefore become more than a by poll. It is a symbol. For many Muslims, it confirms a pattern: when there is a clash between dynastic claims, dominant caste interests, and Muslim representation, the latter is almost always the first to be sacrificed.

Conclusion: A Lesser Evil

The central grievance emerging from Karnataka’s Muslim electorate is not that the Congress has never fielded Muslim candidates, nor that it has never elevated Muslim leaders. The grievance is that these gestures have become rarer, more conditional, and more vulnerable to internal sabotage, even as the community continues to vote for the party in large numbers.

In an era where majoritarian politics is openly dismissive of Muslim concerns, the Congress still benefits from being seen as the lesser evil. But “lesser evil” is not a sustainable political identity. For a party that speaks the language of diversity and inclusion, Karnataka’s record on Muslim representation – particularly in Parliament – stands as an uncomfortable indictment.

Unless the Congress begins to treat Muslim representation not as a risk but as a rightful outcome of long-term loyalty, the disconnect between its rhetoric and its ticket distribution will only widen. Davangere South is a test, but it is also a mirror. The question facing the party is simple: will it continue to rely on fear of the BJP to hold Muslim voters, or will it finally acknowledge and repay a political debt that has been accumulating for decades?

(The author is Editor in chief, NewsHamster (NH), a portal that majorly covers Bengaluru and Karnataka related stories.)

Related:

Karnataka: Hindutva groups call for economic boycott of Muslim vendors at Siddheshwar Temple

In line with the approaching Karnataka polls, BJP MLA KS Eshwarappa gives anti-Muslim speech

Supreme Court takes action amid outrage following Karnataka Judge’s anti-Muslim and gender-insensitive comments in court

The post Congress and Karnataka’s Muslims: Loyalty without Representation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: People’s Watch

The post Decoding the Sathankulam Judgement on Custodial Death – Part 1 – Context of Torture in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The recent criticism of Dhurandhar has pointed to a familiar pattern: the packaging of history into over-simplified narratives of Hindu valour and external threat. From naming its chief protagonists as Ajay Sanyal (a Brahmin), Sushant Sinha (a Bania), and Jaskirat Singh Rangi (a Jat Sikh), to misrepresenting administrative facts—such as portraying Prashant Kumar as Uttar Pradesh’s DGP during demonetisation instead of Javeed Ahmad—the film reveals which identities the right wing chooses to glorify and which it side-lines or obscures.

Yet such distortions are not merely about religious conservatism or anti-Muslim polarisation. They also perform a quieter function—re-inscribing Brahminical authority over knowledge and legitimising the capitalist dominance of mercantile communities, even as they mobilise broader Hindu identities against Muslims while exacerbating caste fissures among non-Brahmin non-Bania communities. In this sense, Hindutva deploys distorted or fabricated history to divert attention from governance failures or to manufacture social conflict.

Controversies on History to serve corporate interests

On December 22, while addressing a Bhil audience, BJP veteran and Punjab Governor Gulab Chand Kataria passed remarks about Maharana Pratap that were widely seen as condescending—ironically invoking a figure the BJP has long used for emotive mobilisation. He was criticised by Rajkumar Roat of the Bhartiya Adivasi Party, who stressed Pratap’s enduring place in Adivasi historical memory.

Unease has also surfaced within the BJP’s broader ecosystem. On January 2, speaking at an event attended by Rajnath Singh, Vishvaraj Singh Mewar cautioned for an end to the political misuse of history.

Kataria’s comments also carried a political subtext in a region where mining interests are largely controlled by Jain and Agrawal business groups, while tribal-agrarian communities like Bhils and Rajputs dominate demographically yet bear the disproportionate ecological and social costs. Together, Roat’s direct criticism and Mewar’s measured appeal signal growing discomfort with the appropriation of tribal and agrarian histories to serve entrenched economic and political interests.

Crucially, the RSS–BJP project today goes beyond appropriation. It increasingly involves the active invention of Hindu warriors, the rebranding of historical dynasties, and their institutionalisation through social media, popular literature, and state-backed infrastructure.

Understanding this is essential to grasp how both Hindutva and caste-based parties are together reshaping North India along caste-communal lines while steadily eroding historical literacy and public intelligence.

The Hindutva Factory of Manufactured History 

While the RSS and its Maharashtrian leadership have enlisted sympathetic scholars to sanitise figures like Savarkar and produce grand panegyrics—through novels and high-budget films—on Shivaji, Sambhaji, and the Peshwas, the Hindutva ecosystem has simultaneously generated a stream of previously unknown “historical” figures in North India. These fabrications are deployed to exploit caste fault lines and deliberately flatten historical consciousness among targeted communities.

In recent years, BJP-aligned platforms have circulated stories of King Sudhanwa Chauhan, an alleged ruler of Mahishmati said to have governed an empire larger than that of the historical Chauhansthat of the historical Chauhans of Ajmer–Sambhar, and portrayed as a disciple of Adi Shankaracharya. Other inventions include Kirandevi, claimed to have threatened Akbar with a dagger in a Meena Bazaar for his alleged misdeeds.

None of these figures are supported by inscriptions, chronicles, or even local oral traditions. By contrast, owing to long periods of political dominance—comparable to the Mughals or the Sikhs—the Rajput past is unusually well documented across Hindu, Islamic, and Sikh sources, making such fabrications relatively easy to expose. The scholarly rejection of the sixteenth-century Prithviraj Raso by figures such as G.H. Ojha, Namvar Singh, and Cynthia Talbot, in favour of the contemporaneous Prithviraj Vijaya Mahākāvya by Jayanaka, illustrates this point. As Cynthia Talbot notes, despite more than a century of scholarly dismissal, claims of the Raso’s twelfth-century authenticity persist in popular culture.

The real targets of this strategy are communities that lacked sustained political dominance and now seek a martial or regal past in the absence of historical records.

A Galaxy of Fiction against Phule–Ambedkarism 

Manoshi Sinha Rawal’s 2019 book Saffron Swords, published by Garuda Prakashan also mainstreamed several such fabrications by presenting unsubstantiated valour tales as authentic history.

Endorsed by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, Ratan Sharda, and Union minister Kiren Rijiju, the book exemplifies how myth is laundered into legitimacy. Among the promoted figures are Rampyari Gujjari, Jograj Singh Gujar, and Harvir Singh Gulia, who allegedly mobilised an army of 40,000 in western Uttar Pradesh and defeated Timur-i-Lang—who is even claimed to have died from wounds inflicted by Harvir Singh Gulia. This narrative was publicly echoed by then Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar. When Alt News sought scholarly verification, historian Heramb Chaturvedi dismissed the claim as “absolutely absurd.”

The correlation between such martial myth-making among landed castes and rising anti-Dalit violence in western Uttar Pradesh cannot be ignored. These narratives offer a fragile sense of caste superiority within the Brahminical Varna (caste) framework, deflecting attention from structural inequality while undermining solidarities forged through Phule-Ambedkarite politics.

Progress for the Rich, Pride for the Poor & Erasure of Muslim Past

Hindutva’s historical fabrication increasingly materialises through state infrastructure. In July last year, Yogi Adityanath unveiled a forty-foot bronze statue of Raja Suheldev Rajbhar in Bahraich. The Caravan has documented how the BJP and Hindu Yuva Vahini mobilised Rajbhar OBCs through Suheldev’s legacy, further popularised by Amish Tripathi’s novel Legend of Suheldev (2020).

Yet the Sangh Parivar’s engagement with Suheldev is older. In 2003, a dubious text, Tulsī Dohā Śatak, was promoted by Rambhadracharya—later debunked by Namvar Singh—as falsely attributing temple destruction narratives to Tulsidas. No eleventh-century inscriptions of the Gaharwar or Kalchuri dynasties, which dominated the region, mention any ruler named Suheldev. His first appearance occurs in the seventeenth-century Mirat-i-Sikandari, where he is depicted not as a benevolent king but as an oppressive Hindu ruler. Thus, a fictional oppressive ruler is reinterpreted in later narratives as a historical Rajbhar king to draw OBCs away from Jatav-led Bahujan politics.

Similar processes are visible elsewhere. In 2000, India Post issued a stamp commemorating Maharaja Bijli Pasi, inaccurately presenting him as a contemporary of Prithviraj Chauhan. Prof. Badri Narayan analysed such inventions in Inventing Caste History. More recently, the Yogi government renamed Nihalgarh railway station—named after the town’s  Nihal Khan, a Bhale Sultan chief—as Maharaja Bijli Pasi station.

Lucknow’s founding is variously attributed in official narratives to Lakshman, Lakhan Ahir, or Lakhan Pasi. As Sunita Sinha observes, this competitive deployment of “caste regal histories” by BJP responds to BSP’s Ambedkar Parks by substituting emancipatory politics with symbolic pride. This is approved with resounding applause by RSS leadership who have themselves promoted such works by likes of Bijay Sonkar Shastri.

These narrative interventions are not merely ideological; they are anchored in networks of patronage and publishing historically dominated by mercantile capital, which shapes both what histories are amplified and which identities are valorised.

Kshatriyaisation: From Arya Samaj to RSS 

As early as 1907, Denzil Ibbetson described the Arya Samaj as a movement with strong political tendencies, rooted in shared interests of middle-class Brahmins and urban mercantile castes, and aimed at reshaping rural landed communities, which coexisted as both Hindus and Muslims. While Hindu–Muslim solidarities fractured, Hindu rural castes were also pitted against one another through competing Kshatriya claims—a project inherited and expanded by the RSS.

Writing in Hans (March 1998), cultural critic Rajendra Yadav argued that landed OBCs sought Kshatriya status within the Varna system, not its dismantling, limiting the scope of caste transformation. Kshatriya history offers an easily appropriable symbolic resource for this which can be “gifted” to landed OBCs in exchange for collaboration towards Brahminical institutional and Bania capitalist hegemony.

The project of Kshatriyaisation has historically involved linking diverse castes to Puranic mythological figures or retroactively assigning them Rajput history and figures. For centuries, Brahmins and Banias functioned as the principal gatekeepers of Hindu mythological and historical narratives—largely enabled by royal patronage across regimes, irrespective of whether the ruling elites were Rajputs, Mughals, Marathas, Afghans, or Jats.

With the dissolution of the princely states and the consequent de-institutionalisation of the Rajput masses, the Brahmin–Bania intellectual elite decisively became gatekeepers defining Rajput history and identity itself. This monopoly over historical narration endowed them with at least two significant socio-political powers within public discourse.

First, through selective manipulation and strategic cherry picking of Rajput history, they could simultaneously vilify Muslims and shame Rajputs for past Rajput alliances with Muslim rulers —, thus imposing upon them a perpetual burden of dharm-raksha. Second, this control enabled the reassignment of Rajput kingship and symbols of martial legitimacy to other dominant castes, such as Jats or Gujjars, often in exchange for political alignment against both Muslims and Rajputs.

For instance, in Rajasthan, the projection of the uncorroborated Jhunjhar Singh Nehra serves to displace Nawab Mohammad Khan’s historical role as Jhunjhunu’s founder. Similarly, official claims attributing Churu’s founding to a Chuhru Jat lack contemporary evidence, while the erasure of local Muslim history continues to marginalise living communities. What unfolded at Rajasthan’s Gogamedi shrine recently exemplifies this.

At one seminar, Kapil Kapoor asserted that Emperor Harsha was a Jat, while Hindutva platforms routinely project Alexander’s contemporary King Porus and Yashodharman, a 6^th century ruler of Central India,  as Jat rulers—replicating Arya Samaj strategies of Vedic Kshatriyaisation.

The most contentious claims concern the Gujjars. Attempts to “Kshatriya-ise” them link early medieval Rajput dynasties to Gujjar origins. In 1997, NH-24 was renamed Gurjar Samrat Mihir Bhoj Marg, and in 2010, a statue at Akshardham identified Mihir Bhoj as a “Gurjar Samrat.” Right-wing political scientist Meenakshi Jain and archaeologist K.K. Mohammed have advanced similar claims, despite their refutation by Prof. Shantarani Sharma in Indian Historical Review.

In Fractured Forest, Quartzite City, Thomas Crowley notes that Gujjar history has been “retrofitted, made into a glorious (if doomed) struggle against vicious outsiders,” In his dissertation , Frank Charles Spaulding highlighted that “there were no traditions, written, oral or otherwise, among the Gujjars to suggest the existence of this medieval kingdom and of the contemporary Gujars’ link to it” (pg. 74), hinting at their recent origins. These competitive claims by Jats and Gujjars over Rajput dynasties, engineered first by the Arya Samaj and later by the RSS, have only fractured agrarian unity rather than empowering marginalised groups.

Conclusion

While Hindutva’s historical revisionism primarily fuels anti-Muslim polarisation, it also functions to manage Hindu society—countering Dalit-Bahujan movements, fragmenting agrarian solidarity, and substituting governance with spectacle. The manufacture of history has become an ideological crutch for policy failure, deepening caste and communal fractures while hollowing historical consciousness itself. In this process, history is reduced from a means of understanding the past into an instrument of control, competition, and political distraction.

(The author is a mechanical engineer and an independent commentator on history and politics, with a particular focus on Rajasthan. His work explores the syncretic exchanges of India’s borderlands as well as contemporary debates on memory, identity and historiography)

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

Related:

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

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

Rajasthan: Gogamedi, a Rajput-Muslim shrine and the politics of communal capture

The post When History substitutes Governance: Hindutva’s Politics of Manufacturing Pasts appeared first on SabrangIndia.