The Bench was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR that accused the petitioners of organising a Christian prayer meeting, distributing Bibles, and attempting to convert Dalits and poor persons. Alongside the conversion charges, the FIR also invoked Sections 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Court not only cast serious doubt on the FIR, but also reproached the police for swiftly arresting all accused on the very day the FIR was lodged, despite no victim having come forward at that time.

No Victim, No Conversion: FIR has no legal backbone, says Court

The FIR, registered on 17 August 2025 by one Manoj Kumar Singh, alleged that the petitioners had organised a prayer meeting, preached Christian tenets through an LED screen, distributed Bibles, and attempted to convert Dalits and economically vulnerable persons.

However, the Bench—after a close reading of the FIR—observed that:

• No individual had come forward on 17 August 2025 to claim they were being converted.
• The FIR merely recorded that an LED screen and Bibles were present at the site.
• There was no reference to force, misrepresentation, coercion or allurement at the time of registration.

The judges emphasised that distribution of Bibles is not a crime, and preaching a religion is not criminalised anywhere in law. In its order, the Bench held unequivocally that:

“Learned AGA has failed to indicate and obviously would not be able to indicate that distribution of Bible is a crime. Further, even preaching of a religion has not been prescribed as a crime anywhere. Thus, the sine-qua-non to invocation of Section 3 of the Act, 2021 prima facie would be coming forward of a ‘person’ to allege that either he has been converted to any other religion or is being coerced or given some allurement to convert to some other religion which is patently missing at the time of lodging of the FIR.” (Para 15)

Crucially, the judges emphasised that Section 3 of the 2021 Act requires the presence of an actual ‘person’ who alleges coercion, force, undue influence, misrepresentation or allurement. This foundational requirement, they held, was “patently missing” on the date of the FIR.

Two-month silence from alleged victims raises red flags

The State attempted to rely on the supplementary statement of a purported victim recorded on October 25, 2025, claiming that he later mentioned being given an “allurement” to convert.

But the Court underlined two troubling facts:

1. His first statement on September 4, 2025 said nothing about conversion,
2. The allegation surfaced only after more than two months of the FIR.

The witness’s wife also recorded her statement only on 25 October 2025, mirroring the same unexplained delay.

The Court found this chronology deeply questionable, noting that the very offence alleged in the FIR “has only been supported after more than two months.”

“Interestingly, in the initial statement of Sri Ram Dev recorded on 04.09.2025 he has not indicated anything about any attempt being made to convert him or any allurement etc. having been given which has only come in the subsequent/supplementary statement recorded on 25.10.2025 wherein he has indicated about the allurement. Thus, it is apparent that the offence under the Act, 2021 as indicated in the FIR lodged on 17.08.2025 has only been supported after more than two months on 25.10.2025!” (Para 16)

“Interestingly, even the statement of wife of the witness Sri Ram Dev namely Smt. Nisha had been recorded on 25.10.2025 i.e. after a period of more than two months of the date of the alleged incident indicating the accused asking the petitioners to convert.” (Para 17)

HC: Police “bent themselves backward” to arrest petitioners without any basis

What particularly troubled the Bench was the immediate arrest of all petitioners on the same day the FIR was filed. At that time, there was:

• no victim complaint,
• no allegation of coercion,
• no evidence of conversion, and
• only a recovery of the Bible and an LED screen—neither of which is unlawful.

The judges remarked:

“Even more interesting is that fact that immediately on lodging of the FIR on 17.08.2025 the petitioner(s) have been arrested on the same date. As already indicated above, the statement of the alleged victim has been recorded more than two months later to indicate the alleged offence. Although an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia containing all the facts of the entire evidence rather it is only meant to set the criminal law in motion yet considering that the Act, 2021 is a special Act as such at least the authorities should have applied their mind to the fact that on the date the said incident is committed i.e. 17.08.2025 there was nothing to indicate the commission of the said offence. Thus, it is prima facie apparent that the authorities have bent themselves backward in order to arrest the petitioner(s) even though it is not known as to how the complainant had got information about any offence as alleged in the FIR having come to his knowledge. These are all strange facts which need to be explained by the authorities more particularly when it is the life and liberty of the petitioner(s) which is involved.” (Para 18)

The Court reminded the State of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. (2025), stressing that the 2021 Act is a special law requiring strict, not presumptive, compliance.

Court turns spotlight on complainant’s conduct; issues notice with tough questions

In a rare and telling move, the High Court has issued notice to the complainant—Manoj Kumar Singh—directing him to file a counter-affidavit answering pointed questions:

1. Where did you get information about the alleged offence?
2. How did you gather a group of people to accompany you?
3. If you barged into a private home, what offence did the petitioners commit by stopping you?
4. How do offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNS apply at all?
5. What is your criminal history, if any?

This line of inquiry signals the Court’s concern about possible vigilantism, motivated complaints, and misuse of the conversion law to target religious minorities.

A Clear Judicial Message: Anti-conversion laws cannot be used lightly

Importantly, the Bench issued notice to complainant Manoj Kumar Singh (respondent no. 4) and required him to file a detailed counter-affidavit responding to a series of sharp questions:

1. Source of information: From where did he learn of the alleged conversion activity?
2. Mobilisation of crowd: How did he gather a group of people to accompany him to the petitioners’ home?
3. Unlawful entry: If he forcibly “barged into” a third person’s residence with others, what offence were the petitioners committing by trying to stop him?
4. Applicability of BNS charges: How can Sections 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation causing threat of death or grievous hurt) be justified against the accused in such circumstances?
5. Criminal history: The Court specifically asked for disclosure of the complainant’s criminal antecedents, if any.

This shift in judicial focus—from accused to complainant—signals the Court’s concern about possible misuse of the conversion law and potential vigilantism. By demanding explanations from both the State and the complainant, the High Court has effectively signalled that the criminal process cannot become a tool for harassment or intimidation in the name of controlling conversions.

Strict Interpretation of Section 3: Conversion requires a specific person alleging harm

The Court reaffirmed that for an offence under Section 3 of the 2021 Act, there must be:

• A person claiming, they were subjected to force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, or allurement;
• A complaint indicating actual or attempted conversion;
• Immediate and credible allegations, not delayed statements recorded months later.

The Court reiterated that:

• Preaching Christianity, installing an LED screen, or holding a prayer meeting does not amount to conversion.
• Distributing the Bible is not an offence.

In the absence of a named victim at the time of the FIR, the statutory ingredients were missing.

Order and next steps

The Court has granted:

• 4 weeks to the State to file its counter-affidavit,
• 2 weeks to the petitioners to file a rejoinder thereafter, and
• will hear the matter afresh after completion of pleadings.

Pending this, the Bench’s observations stand as a significant judicial caution against the weaponisation of conversion laws and arbitrary arrests, while also curbing attempts by private actors to take the law into their own hands.

The complete order may be read here:

Related:

Survey of Churches, anti conversion laws only empower radical mobs: Archbishop Peter Machado

Rajasthan: Civil Society demands arrests, rule of law and end to minority targeting under anti-conversion law

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP urges SC to curb misuse of anti-conversion statutes by states

The post Allahabad HC slams overzealous police action, says distributing Bibles or preaching Christianity is not an offence under UP conversion law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Another factor is that his struggles and the demands he raised were very innovative. When demands were raised in a way that at a practical level it was relatively less burdensome and hence more likely for the governments and various authorities to accept them then the   chances of struggles becoming successful increased considerably. His innovativeness was also seen in the low-cost community kitchen which served healthy food to workers.

Beyond this, Baba Adhav will always be remembered with great respect because of his very deep commitment at a wider level to creating a society based on equality, justice and dignity to all sections of society with special emphasis on those sections who have suffered injustice and inequality at historic level. He could be very firm ideologically on these and related issues, not making any compromises.

Yet at a personal level, he could be very gentle and friendly, as I realised when I went to interview him and write about his work, spending some days in Pune, resulting in the publication of two booklets and several articles. He was also committed deeply to his family, led by his wife Sheetaltai, a trained nurse who, on a lighter note, once listed him as ‘non-earning husband’.

In fact, for some years Baba Adhav continued his practice as an ayurvedic doctor (indigenous medical system) but then gave it up to devote himself to the cause of workers. It was perhaps his base in indigenous medical system that enabled him to keep continuing to contribute in important ways to causes of justice even in his ninety plus years, and he could go on prolonged fasts even at this stage to press for various issues dear to him.

Unorganised workers form the bulk of India’s workforce, yet the majority of these workers face several serious problems including difficulties in accessing social security. Neglected by both the government and the bigger, more established, trade unions, many of these workers suffer from exploitation, health hazards and highly insecure working and living conditions. This dismal and dark situation is lighted only here and there by a few encouraging initiatives in various parts of India to mobilise these workers.

Some of the brightest and most sustained of these efforts which brought genuine relief and bigger hope to workers were led and inspired by Dr. Baba Adhav. His efforts to organise head-loaders (hamals) started way back in 1952 when he was only 22. It has been a tremendous achievement to sustain such an effort for almost 70 years, linking it time and again with wider national efforts so that the experience gained and models developed in his main work area in and Pune (Maharashtra) can reach a much wider number of workers.

Baba Adhav received The Times of India’s first Social Impact Award for Lifetime Contribution in 2011. As the newspaper reported, he got this award for “decades of selfless work to secure labour rights and social security for lakhs of people in the unorganised sector.” Earlier the ‘Week’ magazine, which named Baba Adhav the ‘man of the year’ in 2007, called him, tongue-in-check, ‘Coolie No. 1’ for all his labours to help head-loaders get their rights and dignity.

If such awards have come quite late in the life of Baba Adhav, jail terms came too early. In fact, Baba Adhav served as many as 53 jail terms in his six to seven decades of struggles, the last one being in 2008. To sustain all this work and to keep expanding it for over 70 years in the middle of all these jail terms and other harassments was a monumental achievement, which becomes all the more inspiring when it is kept in mind that Baba Adhav neither sought nor received funds from the government or from foreign donors for his numerous activities.

Unlike several other initiatives for workers, this one has been marked less by rhetoric and more by innovative efforts. It was difficult to get enough funds for providing social security to head-loaders, so Baba Adhav and his colleagues thought up the idea of a levy on all payments made to head-loaders which could be used to provide provident fund, gratuity, bonus, insurance and other benefits to workers who lift heavy loads.

While organising head-loaders, who would have thought that women who clean the grain also need to be protected and organised? But this effort included them too and held talks with merchants to improve their conditions.

Who would have thought that the few scattered people who collect used lubricating oil for re-refining can also be organised and protected from needless harassment? But this effort tried to include even such completely marginalised and neglected groups of workers. As a result of the dedicated, continuing and sustained efforts of Baba Adhav and his associates, many such small and big unions (called panchayats) embracing the marginalised and unorganised workers have been organised in Pune. Some of the unions also reach other towns and villages of Pune district, while some other unions – like head-loaders – reach some of the most remote districts of Maharashtra as well (or more specifically the agricultural produce marketing committees of these districts).

These unions have brought improvements in working, living and social conditions of workers. This is most visible in the case of older unions like those of head-loaders or hamals (head-loaders). Earnings have increased, over 400 houses have been built and others are on way. A school provides good quality, free education to children of hamals and other workers. An information technology instruction unit is being started for senior students. Hamals now get provident fund, gratuity and health insurance benefits, and now demand for pension is also picking up. Their union has made substantially successful efforts to implement an ILO resolution which limits the weight to be lifted by a head-loader to a maximum of 50 kgs. This has helped to reduce health hazards for workers, although other hazards continue for more specific loads like those of chillies and cement. As a result of many-sided improvements, children of hamals are now able to access college education and some of them are getting engineering education.

Even in the case of unions formed much later such as those of rag-pickers, already substantial gains have been achieved. Rag pickers have been protected from police harassment and exploitation by scrap traders. Child labour has been greatly reduced and many of them can now access education. Group life insurance cover has been provided. In addition, medical insurance cover is provided by Pune Municipal Corporation. SWACH Coop project has helped to link improved livelihoods for rag pickers with environment protection. National and International linkages have helped to provide wide reach to innovative ideas and work. The union here (KKPKP) also provides the secretariat for a wider Alliance of Waste Pickers.

Similarly, unions of domestic workers, vendors, rickshaw drivers and other unorganised sections have recorded important achievements. In the case of vendors, policy guidelines have been formulated by local authorities in addition to the 2007 national policy. These as well as the union’s support enable the vendors now to protect their livelihood rights more strongly than before, apart from resisting the illegal extortion made by the police and others. Even for those who are evicted, there is now a better chance for rehabilitation.

The Domestic Workers Union today wants reforms in the newly enacted legislation on the lines of the law for hamals. At the same time, it is trying to speed up registration (which is essential in order to benefit from the new law) and this could not have been speeded up without the union’s support. Auto rickshaw union wants recognition of this work as a public utility and social security by a Board for those who work for the utility. Various unions are supported mainly by membership fees. Angmehanti Kashtkari Sangarsh Samiti provides an over-arching platform for various unions and workers organisations.

Social Entrepreneurship

However, many of the economic gains could not have been sustained and protected but for the simultaneous setting up of several co-operative credit societies alongside the unions or panchayats, in order to enable head-loaders, rag-pickers, vendors and rickshaw-drivers to obtain credit at a low interest rate. It is this facility which enabled them to escape the clutches of moneylenders while at the same time also expanding their income-earning activities (such as by purchasing auto-rickshaws or expanding their retail vending business), constructing houses and educating their children.

Earlier most of the workers had to borrow from private moneylenders at a high interest rate of 5 to 10 percent per month. The high interest made it difficult to pay back the loan, or to invest profitably in any new entrepreneurial activity. Commercial banks did not encourage workers as customers or groups of customers with their small savings and needs.

On the other hand the setting up of their own cooperative credit societies with their own share capital enabled workers to obtain loans much more easily at a much lesser interest (compared to private moneylenders) while at the same time having a strong sense of ownership of the entire effort. This sense of ownership motivated them to contribute to the strength of the credit-ops by timely repayments of their loans.

At regular intervals new credit co-ops were started for head-loaders, vendors, auto-rickshaw drivers and rag-pickers. Keeping in view the high interest rates of moneylenders, the combined impact of these initiatives has been to save millions of rupees for weakest section families which could then be used for small-scale entrepreneurial activities as well as for housing and meeting education expenses. The fact that frustrating delays and bribes could be altogether avoided at the time of obtaining loans increased the possibility of using easily accessible money for entrepreneurial activities.

A visit to well-maintained co-operative credit societies revealed the pride union workers take in their own credit institutions. A huge, financially self-sustaining community kitchen has been another example of social entrepreneurship initiatives. Another successful initiative has been SWACH Coop., a wholly owned cooperative of self-employed waste-pickers and other urban poor. This has opened up new possibilities to some of the poorest people to obtain better livelihood opportunities which are linked to protection of environment in the form of more and better composting as well as greater opportunities for useful recycling of waste. As smartly dressed women drive waste-carrying vans and their pick-up vans are welcomed by citizens, this becomes an example of fighting poverty, providing dignity to the poorest while at the same protecting environment and creating a cleaner city.

Wider Role

As Baba Adhav used to say, “Our effort is to combine improvement of living conditions, working conditions and social conditions. Hamals have higher earnings, bonus, provident fund and insurance. They have houses, their own school and community centre. But in addition, we need social improvement, a sense of dignity and pride in their work, which is linked also to wider social change that can break the shackles of caste, hierarchy and narrow-minded discrimination in Indian society.”

Baba Adhav’s yearning for wider social change is inspired by the work of Mahatma Jyotirao Phule, Baba Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi, Chatrapati Shivaji and others greats of our history. Their teachings are spread among people with a special emphasis on contemporary needs and relevance. For example, the teachings of Chatrapati Shivaji here are linked to his concern for protection of environment and for communal harmony.

Nitin Pawar, who has been closely associated with Baba Adhav’s multi-faceted work says, “Although at the national level, it is Baba’s contributions to unorganised sector workers which have been most highlighted, it will be a great injustice to confine his work only to this aspect. He has striven for much wider mobilisations in many areas to end socio-economic injustice. Way back in 1972 at the time of a serious drought Baba worked tirelessly to end discrimination in access to water-sources in villages where-ever there was social discrimination. Then he fought a long battle for providing justice to nomadic and de-notified tribes, and another one on behalf of devadasis or women who were victims of social oppression., so that pension could be provided to them. When he stopped his private medical practice due to wider social involvement, he helped to create public-spirited hospitals. He was closely involved with Hamid Dalwai’s efforts for social reforms among Muslims as well as for reforms in the Bohra community. During emergency he valiantly resisted slum-demolition and he was promptly sent to jail for 14 months. Whether working as President of the PUCL or in other ways, Baba contributed to civil liberties in many ways. He helped to set up a National Integration Committee and fought and resisted sectarian forces at several fronts.”

In fact, Baba Adhav was much ahead of his times in taking up issues like displacement of farmers caused by dams and other projects. These efforts led to a rehabilitation policy in Maharashtra at an early stage.

Baba’s vision of social change has a special place for a wider role by women. Women dominate the membership of some of the unions like those of domestic workers, rag-pickers and, to a lesser extent, vendors.

A socialist, satyagrahi, and a satyashodhak (someone who yearns for truth to prevail) was how Baba Adhav liked to describe himself. He is all this and more, a symbol of hope for millions of workers and oppressed people. Even during his sunset years, he did not hesitate to join national level struggles and efforts for new laws for social security and universal pensions. His wife Sheela remained for long the biggest support for his many-sided activities and achievements. Baba Adhav will be remembered for long as one of the most respected social activists in India, with his great work combining mass mobilisation for justice with social entrepreneurship initiatives for many decades.

 (The author is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Man over Machine, When the Two Streams Met and Protecting Earth for Children.)

Related:

Baba Adhav the grassroots campaigner and leader of the socially oppressed passed away at 96

It is religion-based politics that refuses to root out caste: Baba Adhav in conversation with Teesta Setalvad

The post Baba Adhav is no more; his Life and Work remain an inspiration for those working for Justice and Equality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement may be read here:

We, concerned Indian citizens and organisations, are alarmed to note that efforts are being made to promote biometric identity systems similar to Aadhaar in other countries.

Aadhaar is India’s unique identity number, linked with a person’s biometrics (fingerprints, iris and photograph as of now). The number was rolled out with fanfare from 2009 onwards. The use of this number, and of Aadhaar-based biometric authentication (ABBA), was promoted to the hilt by the Indian government in close collaboration with the IT industry. Aadhaar was supposed to be voluntary, but it quickly became clear that living without it would be very difficult for most. Today, it is as good as compulsory. Most social benefits are out of reach without Aadhaar.

Aadhaar was rolled out in an explicitly “evangelistic” mode from day one. In recent years, it has been projected as a grand success by its promoters. Their friends in high places (like Davos, the World Bank, and the B & M Gates Foundation) are on board. There is an attempt, partly successful already, to project Aadhaar as a model and “export” it to other countries.

For our part, we view Aadhaar as a failed and objectionable model that should not be replicated in other countries, certainly not in its Indian version.

Our main concerns are as follows:

1. Aadhaar involves the creation a centralized database that includes biometrics as well as demographic information (e., name, gender, date of birth and address). This could turn into a dangerous tool of social control, especially but not only in the hands of an authoritarian government.
2. The linkage of numerous databases with Aadhaar magnifies the danger of it becoming a tool for profiling, surveillance, exclusion and Centralised databases also pose data security risks by creating a single point of failure.
3. While the “core biometrics” (biometrics minus photograph) in the Aadhaar database are supposed to be secure, the rest is freely shared with authorised users of Aadhaar authentication, with minimal This is a major infringement of privacy.
4. The demographic details attached to Aadhaar numbers in the database are full of errors, partly due to hasty rollout. Yet severe restrictions have been placed on correcting this Meanwhile, people are expected to align other documents with this unreliable information. This is causing endless hassles to poor people. Many of them are excluded from some or all social benefits.
5. Biometric failures are another major source of social exclusion, especially for the elderly. Aadhaar was rolled out without any transparency about the reliability of biometric authentication.
6. A significant minority of people, mainly from marginalised groups (including disabled persons), do not have Aadhaar for some reason and no fault of their own. They are excluded from most social benefits.
7. If an Aadhaar number is lost, it can be very difficult to Poor people have been forced to make long and expensive trips to regional assistance centres for this purpose. Some never managed to retrieve it, and are now deprived of all social benefits.
8. The coercive “seeding” of Aadhaar with endless databases (ration cards, job cards, pension lists, bank accounts, voter lists, what not), associated with function creep, is a monumental waste of time for functionaries and Seeding sounds simple but it requires biometric or demographic verification. Both can be very cumbersome.
9. The rush for correction or update of Aadhaar details has led to humongous queues at many assistance centres, where people often wait in line for hours with no guarantee of remedy. There are no facilities for tracking of grievance redressal, continuity of assistance, or other People’s time and money are wasted to no end.
10. Far from rooting out corruption, Aadhaar’s centralised database has enhanced information asymmetries and reduced Integration of Aadhaar with the banking system has magnified exposure to new vulnerabilities such as identity fraud.
11. At every step, the Aadhaar project has been a law unto It began without any legal backing. Later, the Aadhaar Act was passed by bypassing the Upper House of Parliament. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) often violates orders of the Supreme Court of India (e.g., protections for children and against use by private entities). It has enormous power and regularly issues rules that make life difficult for millions, without any serious feedback from affected people. A critical provision for parliamentary oversight of UIDAI was dropped in the final version of the Aadhaar Act.

Articles and reports amplifying these concerns are available at rethinkaadhaar.in

The promoters of Aadhaar were never able to justify this particular identity model or to explain what ills it is supposed to remedy. Instead, they relied on propaganda to push for it. Many countries have functional identity systems that are less coercive, invasive, exclusionary and unreliable than Aadhaar.

We urge the greatest caution from countries that are considering a replication of the Aadhaar model. We would be happy to facilitate field visits for anyone interested in understanding these problems in more detail.

(Endorsed by more than 50 organisations, aside from individual signatories – see attached list.)

Signatory Organisations 

1. All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA)
2. All India Lawyers Association for Justice {AILAJ)
3. All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA)
4. All India Students’ Association (AISA)
5. Ambedkarijame Punadi (Andhra Pradesh)
6. Bahutva Karnataka
7. Campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD)
8. Dalit Bahujan Front
9. Democratic Students’ Federation (DSF)
10. Gig and Platform Services Workers Union
11. Grakoos Union
12. Hamal Panchayat (trade union)
13. Human Rights Law Network (HRLN)
14. Internet Freedom Foundation
15. Jan Jagran Shakti Sangathan (JJSS)
16. Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA)
17. Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha (JJM)
18. JNU Students Union
19. Karwan e Mohabbat
20. Khudai Khidmatgar India
21. LibTech India
22. Maadhyam (a civic engagement initiative)
23. Maharashtra Shramik Ustod & Vahtuk Kamgar Sanghatana (trade union)
24. Manjeera Dalitha Seva Samithi (Telangana)
25. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS)
26. Moneylife Foundation
27. National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)
28. National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights {NAJAR)
29. National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Workers
30. National Campaign Committee for Unorganised Sector Workers (NCCUSW)
31. National Campaign Committee on Eradication of Bonded Labour {NCCEBL)
32. National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI)
33. National Confederation of Dalit Organisations (NACDOR)
34. National Federation of Indian Women {NFIW)
35. National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled {NPRD)
36. New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI)
37. NREGA Sansharsh Morcha
38. NREGA Watch (Jharkhand)
39. Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity (PBKMS)
40. Pension Parishad
41. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
42. People’s Union for Democratic Rights {PUDR)
43. RANG Foundation
44. Rethink Aadhaar
45. Right to Food Campaign
46. Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA)Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT)
47. Samalochana Association (Andhra Pradesh)
48. Sangatin Kisan Mazdoor Sangathan (SKMS) SO. Satark Nagrik Sangathan
49. Social Accountability Forum for Action and Research (SAFAR)
50. SR Sankaran Adivasi Sahaya Kendram (Andhra Pradesh)
51. United Forum for RTI Campaign (Andhra Pradesh)
52. United Milli Forum (Jharkhand)

Individual Signatories

1. Aakar Patel, Writer
2. Aban Raza, concerned citizen
3. Abha Bhaiya, India coordinator, One Billion Rising campaign
4. Aditi Mishra, Jawaharlal Nehru University
5. Adv Albertina, National Alliance of People’s Movements
6. Advocate Dr Shalu Nigam, Lawyer and researcher
7. Advocate Vertika Mani, Secretary, People’s Union for Civil Liberties
8. Akhila Phadnis, concerned citizen
9. Akshay S Dinesh, Action for Equity
10. Alok Laddha, Chennai Mathematical Institute
11. Alphonse Raj, concerned citizen
12. Amber Sinha, Tech Policy Press
13. Ambika Tandon, University of Cambridge
14. Anand Mazgaonkar, concerned citizen
15. Anand Patwardhan, Filmmaker
16. Anand Teltumbde, Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, Mumbai
17. Anantha, concerned citizen
18. Anivar A Aravind, concerned citizen
19. Ankita Aggarwal, concerned citizen
20. Annie Raja, concerned citizen
21. Anjor, Dialogues on Democracy and Development
22. Anupam Pachauri, Indira Gandhi National Open University
23. Anuradha Talwar, Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity
24. Anurag Mehra, Retired IIT Faculty
25. Arun Khote, National Movement for Land, Labour & Justice
26. Arun Kumar, Retired Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
27. Aruna Rodrigues, concerned citizen
28. Aruna Roy, School for Democracy
29. Arundhati Dhuru, NAPM Convenor
30. Arundhati Roy, Writer
31. Ashish Ranjan, National Alliance of People’s Movements
32. Ashlesh Biradar, Brave New Web
33. Ashok Bharti, National Confederation of Dalit Organisations
34. Ashokan Nambiar, C MAHE, Manipal, Karnataka
35. Avantika Tewari, Jawaharlal Nehru University
36. Baghamabar Pattnaik, Anti-slavery India
37. Bela Bhatia, Lawyer and writer
38. Bezwada Wilson, National Convenor, Safai Karmchari Andolan
39. Bhanuj KappaI, Independent journalist
40. Bhanwar Meghwanshi, People’s Union for Civil Liberties
41. Bhargav Oza, National Alliance for Justice, Accountability, and Rights
42. Bhoomika Pandhare, concerned citizenBhupen Singh, University of Sussex
43. Bittu KR, Women against Sexual Violence and State Repression
44. Brinda Crishna, concerned citizen
45. Budhaditya Bhattacharya, concerned citizen
46. Chirashree Das Gupta, Jawaharlal Nehru University
47. Clifton D’Rosario, advocate
48. Colin Gonsalves, advocate
49. Danish Ali, concerned citizen
50. Dayamani Baria, concerned citizen
51. Deep Chandra Joshi, concerned citizen
52. Devi, All India Democratic Women’s Association
53. Dorothy Vallado, concerned citizen
54. Dr lndu Prakash Singh, Facilitator, CityMakers Mission International
55. Dr Sudhir Vombatkere, concerned citizen
56. Dr Sylvia Karpagam, Public health doctor
57. Dwiji Guru, National Alliance of People’s Movements
58. Edwin, OpenSpace
59. Firoz Ahmad, school teacher
60. Francis Bosco, National Federation of Unorganised and Migrant Workers
61. Gangaram Paikra, concerned citizen
62. Gautam Bhatia, Constitutional law scholar and Professor of Law
63. Gouranga Mahapatra, Jana Swasthya Abhiyan Odisha
64. Gowramma, Akila Bharath Janavadi Mahila Sangatane (Karnataka)
65. H M Sunasara, concerned citizen
66. Harish Dhawan, concerned citizen
67. Harsh Mander, Karwan e Mohabbat
68. Hemant Sareen, concerned citizen
69. Himmat Singh Ratnoo, Former Secretary MDU Teachers’ Association (MDUTA) Rohtak
70. Hindolee Datta, concerned citizen
71. Indira C, Public health researcher
72. Indira Unninayar, Advocate, Supreme Court and Delhi High Court
73. Jagdish Patel, concerned citizen
74. Jayati Ghosh, Economist
75. James Herenj, NREGA Watch Jharkhand
76. Jean Dreze, Development economist
77. John Dayal, Writer
78. John Simte, Lawyer
79. Justice P. Shah, Retired Judge and former Chairman of the Law Commission of India
80. JT D’souza, concerned citizen
81. A. Verghese, Green Kerala
82. Karen Gabriel, St Stephen’s College, Delhi
83. Karuna M, NREGA Sangharsh Morcha
84. Kalyani Menon Sen, Independent researcher
85. Kelvin, concerned citizen
86. Kiran Jonnalagadda, concerned citizen
87. Koninika Ray, National Federation of Indian Women
88. Krishnakant Chauhan, Activist
89. Laavanya Tamang, Independent researcher
90. Lawrence Liang, Legal academic
91. Laxmi Murthy, Journalist and researcher
92. Lubna Sarwath, Advocate
93. M S Sriram, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
94. Balakrishnan, concerned citizen
95. Maimoona Mollah, Women’s rights activist
96. Martin Macwan, concerned citizen
97. Marthe Mautarelli, concerned citizen
98. Meera Sanghamitra, National Alliance of People’s Movements
99. Meghna Jayanth, concerned citizen
100. Meghna Yadav, Researcher
101. Mritiunjoy Mohanty, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta {retd)
102. Mukul Kesavan, Retired teacher
103. Nandini Sundar, University of Delhi
104. Nandita Narain, Associate Professor (Retd), Stephen’s College, Delhi University
105. Nandita Sengupta, Journalist, Times of India
106. Navsharan Singh, Researcher activist
107. Nayanjyoti, Lecturer in Development Studies, Delhi
108. NB Murthy, concerned citizen
109. Neeraj Hatekar, Researcher
110. Nikhil Dey, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan
111. Nishant S, Researcher
112. Nishi, concerned citizen
113. Nitish Kumar, Former JNUSU President
114. Nivedita Menon, Jawaharlal Nehru University
115. Om Damani, concerned citizen
116. Sainath, journalist
117. Padmini Ramesh, Johns Hopkins University
118. Paran Amitava, PhD Scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University
119. Parth Sharma, Nivarana
120. Parthasarathi Paul, concerned citizen
121. Persis Ginwalla, concerned citizen
122. Praavita, Rethink Aadhaar
123. Pradeep E, concerned citizen
124. Pradyumna Behera, Independent researcher
125. Prafulla Samantara, President, Lok Shakti Abhiyan
126. Prakash Louis, Bihar migrant hub
127. Prasad Chacko, Social worker, Ahmedabad
128. Prasanna s, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
129. Praveer Peter, National Alliance of People’s Movements
130. Prof Ritu Dewan, Director (Retd), Mumbai School of Economics & Public Policy
131. Mohan Rao, concerned citizen
132. Purbayan C, Advocate
133. Pushpendra, Former Professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
134. Rahul Basu, concerned citizen
135. Raj Shekhar, Right to Food Campaign
136. Rajaraman, Independent journalist and researcher
137. Rajesh Ramakrishnan, concerned citizen
138. Rajinder Chaudhary, Former Professor of Economics, MD University, Rohtak
139. Rama Teltumbde, concerned citizen
140. Raman Jit Singh Chima, Lawyer
141. Ramdas Rao, Member, People’s Union for Civil Liberties
142. Rammanohar Reddy, Editor
143. Reetika Khera, Development economist
144. Renuka Kad, concerned citizen
145. Ritash, RANG Foundation
146. Rohini Hensman, Writer and independent scholar
147. Rohith Jyothish, concerned citizen
148. Rosamma Thomas, concerned citizen
149. Q. Masood, ASEEM
150. Sakina Dhorajiwala, LibTech India
151. Sameet Panda, Right to Food Campaign
152. Sandeep Khurana, Retired professional
153. Sandeep Mertia, Stevens Institute of Technology
154. Sarah M, concerned citizen
155. Seema Mahi, concerned citizen
156. Shabnam Hashmi, Independent social activist
157. Shahjahan, concerned citizen
158. Shahvir Aga, concerned citizen
159. Shailja Tandon, concerned citizen
160. Shailly Gupta, concerned citizen
161. Shantha Sinha, Independent advocate of children’s rights
162. Sharanya, Indigenous People’s Land, Life and Knowledge Collective
163. Shishu Ranjan, All India Forum for Right to Education
164. Shiva Shankar, Retired academic
165. Shreekant Gupta, Professor (retired), University of Delhi
166. Shruti Narayan, Lawyer
167. Siddharth de Souza, concerned citizen
168. Siddhartha Das, Public health activist
169. Snehan Kekre, Technologist
170. Sookthi K, concerned citizen
171. Srikanth, CashlessConsumer
172. Srinivas Kodali, Independent researcher
173. Srujana Bej, Jindal Global Law School, P. Jindal Global University
174. Stella James, Independent legal consultant
175. Sucheta Dalal, Founder Trustee, Moneylife Foundation
176. Sudhir Gandotra, concerned citizen
177. Sunil Kaul, Right to Food and Information
178. Suresh Chandra Joshi, concerned citizen
179. Suruchi, concerned citizen
180. Swathi, Eddelu, Karnataka
181. Swati Desai, concerned citizen
182. Swati Narayan, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
183. Syed Asif Ali Zaidi, Lawyer
184. TM Krishna, Musician and author
185. T. Ramakrishnan, concerned citizen
186. Tarangini Sriraman, King’s College, London
187. Timir Basu, Frontier Weekly
188. Trilochan S, concerned citizen
189. Uma Chakravarti, historian
190. Usha Ramanathan, Independent law researcher
191. V Rukmini Rao, Feminist activist
192. V Upadhyay, Retired professor
193. Vasavi Kiro, concerned citizen
194. Vasundhar, concerned citizen
195. Veena Shatrugna, Independent researcher
196. Vickram Crishna, Independent researcher
197. Vimala s., concerned citizen
198. Vipul Paikra, Independent researcher
199. Vivek K, concerned citizen
200. Winona D’Souza, Lawyer, Mumbai

Related:

New “advisory on Aadhaar as date of birth proof soon

Assam government introduces stricter Aadhaar rules amid concerns over population discrepancies, increases chances of bureaucracy in the process 

ECI undertaking to SC: Aadhaar number not mandatory to enrol as voter

The post Beware of Aadhaar: A warning on India’s biometric identity model on International Human Rights Day appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yet, the film’s real significance lies not in its artistic value but in its ideological purpose. It continues a project begun decades ago by P. N. Oak, a Maharashtrian Brahmin ideologue whose writings fused conspiracy, caste supremacy, and cultural chauvinism into a potent mythos. Oak’s “Tejo Mahalay” theory, though dismissed by every serious historian and by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), continues to shape popular nationalist imagination. Yet beneath the spectacle of “historical reclamation” lies a more insidious purpose—Oak’s narratives serve to consolidate Brahminical supremacy under the garb of cultural nationalism, while simultaneously erasing Rajput agency and demonising Muslims.

The Ideological Lineage: From Savarkar to Oak 

P. N. Oak (1917–2007) came from the same ideological and cultural milieu as V. D. Savarkar, M. S. Golwalkar, and K. B. Hedgewar—all Maharashtrian Brahmins who sought to define India as a Hindu Rashtra under Brahminical hegemony. Their nostalgia for the Peshwa era of the Maratha polity reflected a longing for a Brahmin-led theocratic order—one that combined scriptural orthodoxy with militant nationalism. In their eyes, the Peshwas represented a purified Hindu past: Sanskritic, hierarchical, and morally austere, unlike the syncretic world of the Rajputs and the cosmopolitanism of the Mughals.

For Oak, as for these ideologues, the Mughal empire epitomised “foreign domination,” while Rajput kingship—though Hindu—was morally suspect because of its historical engagement with the Mughals through diplomacy and marriage. The Rajputs’ cultural openness and martial honour did not fit into the Hindutva binary of invader versus resister. Thus, Oak’s project was twofold: to vilify Muslim rulers and to discipline Rajput history—absorbing it into a Brahmin-sanctioned Hindu narrative where Rajputs were useful only as foils or symbols.

“Tejo Mahalay”: The Appropriation of the Rajput Legacy

Oak’s most famous work, republished as The Taj Mahal: The True Story (1989) — claimed that Shah Jahan merely took over a pre-existing Rajput palace or temple, allegedly dedicated to Shiva and known as “Tejo Mahalay.” He even speculated that it had been built by the Chandelas of Bundelkhand or the Kachhwahas of Amber—two illustrious Rajput lineages. This claim was entirely devoid of evidence, but it was ideologically potent. It allowed Oak and later Hindutva propagandists to erase Muslim creativity while simultaneously appropriating Rajput heritage into the Brahminical fold.

In this retelling, Rajputs cease to be historical agents; they become tokens in a morality play staged by Brahminical nationalism. Their temples, forts, and palaces are recast as manifestations of an imagined “Vedic civilisation” over which Brahmins alone hold interpretive authority. Once their history has served its purpose—negating the Muslim contribution—it is re-absorbed into the greater “Hindu” past defined by Sanskritic ideology. Thus, Tejo Mahalay functions as a symbolic colonisation of Rajput legacy: the Rajput is stripped of agency, and the Brahmin is enthroned as interpreter and custodian of history.

“Mina Bazar”: Objectifying Rajput Women to vilify Mughals

Another recurring motif in Oak’s writings—and in later Hindutva propaganda—is the Mina Bazar, a courtly fair allegedly held during Mughal times where noblewomen and men interacted. Oak and his ideological successors portrayed this event as a site of immorality and licentiousness, an emblem of Mughal decadence. But within these retellings, Rajput noblewomen— who actively participated in courtly diplomacy—became the primary objects of moral commentary. They were presented as helpless “Hindu daughters” exploited by Muslim kings, their identities erased and their agency denied.

Yet, historical, and literary records reveal an entirely different picture. Rajput and Mughal cultures carried similar notions towards honour of women — including each other’s. One such episode, recounted in both Rajasthani oral traditions and Mughal chronicles, involves Raja Aniruddh Singh Hada of Bundi and Jahanara Begum, the daughter of Shah Jahan.

When Jahanara Begum once found her camp attacked by Marathas, she called Rao Aniruddh Singh Hada close to her elephant and told him:

“Asmat-e-Chaghtaiya wa Rajput yak ast”: The honour of a Chaghtai (Mughal) woman and that of a Rajput are one and the same.

She added, “If God gives us victory with this small army that would be good; otherwise rest assured about me, I shall sit down after doing my work.” Moved by this declaration of shared honour, Raja Hada and his Rajput soldiers fought valiantly and emerged victorious.

This exchange—whether apocryphal or literal—speaks to the deep respect and chivalric regard that often-defined Rajput-Mughal interactions, far removed from the predatory caricatures peddled by Hindutva storytellers. Oak and his successors rewrite a history of mutual cultural respect into one of sexual conquest.

In short, the Mina Bazar myth is anti-Rajput woman, a patriarchal narrative disguised as historical morality.

The Brahminical Core of Hindutva Historiography

Oak’s work exposes the Brahminical DNA of Hindutva historiography. His narratives consistently elevate the Brahmin as the intellectual and moral authority over India’s past, while marginalising both the Rajput’s martial honour and the Muslim’s cultural brilliance.

By glorifying the Peshwas and appropriating Rajput heritage, Oak reaffirmed a social hierarchy in which Brahmins claim ownership of sacred knowledge and interpretation, while warriors, artisans, and others exist merely as instruments. This is why the “Tejo Mahalay” theory cannot be dismissed as mere eccentricity—it represents a Brahminical takeover of historical memory, a deliberate attempt to collapse India’s plural past into a single, Sanskritic mythos.

In doing so, Oak’s revisionism advances two parallel exclusions:

1. It excludes Muslims from the civilisational narrative by branding their contributions “foreign.”
2. It subordinates Rajputs by converting their legacy into property of the Brahmin-defined “Hindu civilisation.”

The result is an ideological order where only the Brahmin remains autonomous; everyone else, living or historical, exists within his interpretive domain.

From Fringe Pseudo-history to State-sanctioned Narrative

For decades, Oak’s theories were dismissed as fringe conspiracy. Yet today, his ideas echo through court petitions, WhatsApp forwards, and government-linked cultural projects. His books are republished, his claims amplified by television debates and political speeches. The release of The Taj Story marks the cultural mainstreaming of this pseudohistory. By presenting Oak’s fiction through the medium of film, the Hindutva ecosystem gives it emotional force and legitimacy. The courtroom format of the movie—where the Taj Mahal is “put on trial”—turns propaganda into performance, inviting audiences to see pseudohistory as suppressed truth.

This is not about rediscovering history—it is about owning it. By turning monuments into religious battlegrounds, Hindutva ideologues redirect social frustration away from real inequities—caste injustice, unemployment, agrarian distress—and towards imagined enemies. The Rajput, whose history of honour and sovereignty once stood apart, is now re-cast as the obedient foot-soldier of this Brahminical nationalism.

Rajputs in the Crossfire of Myth and Politics

The irony is profound. The same ideological movement that glorifies “Hindu warriors” has historically shown disdain for Rajput political traditions. Savarkar and Golwalkar’s writings betray a deep discomfort with Rajput alliances with Mughals, and an implicit preference for Brahmin-led militarism like that of the Peshwas.

Oak’s narratives continue this trend: Rajputs are celebrated only as mythic ancestors, never as living agents. Their plural political ethos—the synthesis of valour, diplomacy, and cultural patronage—is erased. Their women become allegories of victimhood; their men, backdrops for Brahminical triumphalism.

This trend is exemplified by a recently viral X post  by Brahmin influencer Amit Schandillia, who appropriates the pre-16th century Jauhars of Rajput women to vilify the Muslim community. He deliberately frames these pre-16th century tragedies as ‘Hindu’ events and uses them to erase the long, convivial, and harmonious history shared between Rajputs and Muslims up to 1947.

In this way, the Hindutva appropriation of Rajput history mirrors its treatment of India itself: a civilisation reimagined as a homogenous Brahminical state, scrubbed of diversity and stripped of nuance.

Conclusion

P. N. Oak’s legacy is not one of historical revision but of ideological engineering. His “Tejo Mahalay” myth and “Mina Bazar” fantasy are not just anti-Muslim—they are anti-Rajput and fundamentally Brahminical. They recast the Rajput past into a mere accessory for Brahminical nationalism, while exploiting Rajput women’s image to moralise history through patriarchal codes.

Behind the spectacle of “Hindu pride” lies a deeper agenda: the re-assertion of Brahmin control over India’s collective memory. What appears as the reclamation of the Taj Mahal is, in truth, the conquest of the past by caste. Oak’s project—and the films and movements that follow from it—transform history from a field of inquiry into a battlefield of hierarchy.

To defend the integrity of India’s past, one must see through these saffron myths and recognise their caste logic. The struggle is not just over monuments but over meaning—between those who seek to understand history in its fullness, and those who wish to reduce it to the propaganda of a Brahminical state.

(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)

Related:

Hate Watch: BJP MLA demands demolition of Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar, willing to donate one year’s salary to have temples built on those…

EXCLUSIVE: Shahjahan returned properties of King Jai Singh for donating haveli for Taj Mahal

Is Taj Mahal not a part of Indian Culture?

The post The Taj Story & Resurgence of a Myth, the ideological engineering of a Brahmanical narrative of pseudo-history appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice M.R. Mengdey, delivering a detailed judgment in Navdeep Mathur & Ors. v. State of Gujarat on December 4, 2025, has not only quashed all the impugned prohibitory orders, including a 2025 notification under Section 37 of the Gujarat Police Act, but also issued binding directions to the State: future prohibitory orders must be widely publicised through social media and other accessible platforms, as publication only in the official gazette is inadequate and inaccessible to the public. He held that the State had “clearly circumvented” legal protections designed to prevent exactly this kind of prolonged, opaque restriction on public assembly.

Section 144 cannot be a “standing order”: Court questions years of continuous restrictions

The petitioners, peaceful protestors against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019, argued that they were prosecuted for violating Section 144 — a provision they never knew had been imposed. The reason became clear once the Court examined the records: from 2016 to 2019, Ahmedabad Police issued one Section 144 order after another, often overlapping, ensuring the city was almost perpetually under prohibitory restrictions. The Court found this argument fully substantiated.

The Court found this deeply problematic:

• No material facts were recorded in the orders
• No emergent circumstances were demonstrated
• No prior inquiry, as required by law, was carried out
• No notice was issued to affected citizens except in supposed “emergencies”
• No attempt was made to use less restrictive measures

This, the Court said, reduced a temporary emergency provision into a standing administrative tool — precisely what Supreme Court precedents warn against.

The judgment shows a clear concern: Ahmedabad Police had normalised an emergency provision, issuing one order after another—sometimes even overlapping—and effectively creating a continuous bar on public assembly for years. As the Court held:

“The material available on record indicates that the Respondent authorities continued to issue Notifications under S.144 of the Code one after the other. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner is right in contending that, on occasions, the subsequent Notification was issued even when the earlier notification was holding the field.” (Para 13)

Such a practice, the Court said, circumvented Section 144(4), which caps the duration of an order at two months unless extended by the State Government. Notably, the State never once invoked its power to extend any of these notifications; instead, the police simply kept reissuing fresh ones.

“No reasons, no facts, no transparency”: Judicial scrutiny exposes procedural vacuum

Justice Mengdey emphasised the principles laid down in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, Gulam Abbas v. State of UP, and Acharya Jagdishwaranand. The law requires:

1. Material facts to be recorded
2. Reasoned satisfaction of the need for immediate action
3. Prior inquiry, unless a genuine emergency prevents it
4. Temporary, tightly-tailored restrictions

But the Court found that none of the Section 144 notifications examined contained reasons, factual foundations, or evidence of emergent circumstances.

“As per the settled legal position, these powers being amenable to the judicial review and scrutiny, exercise of it, requires to appear reasonable and therefore, the authorities exercising these powers are also required to give their reasons for the same. The Notifications questioned in the present petition do not bear any reasons given by the authorities for issuing the same. When, by exercise of powers under S.144 of the Code, the fundamental rights or constitutional rights of a class of citizens are being affected, the exercise needs to be transparent. The scheme of the provision of S.144 of the Code itself makes it clear that the authority exercising these powers is required to come to a conclusion that it is necessary to exercise these powers to prevent disturbance to public peace and tranquillity.” (Para 9)

“The impugned notifications do not mention any such material facts. The safeguards and procedure prescribed in the Section are not an empty formality. Their strict adherence is mandatory as the impugned notifications propose to impose restrictions upon the citizens affecting their fundamental rights.” (Para 9)

By affecting fundamental rights without a factual basis, the State had acted in “utter disregard of the safeguards” built into the law.

Failure to use other lawful measures: State cannot label every gathering a threat

A crucial aspect of the judgment is the Court’s reminder that dissent—peaceful protest—is a constitutionally protected exercise of democratic freedom. Section 144 may be imposed only when other methods fail and only as a last resort. Before invoking it, authorities must try less intrusive methods of maintaining public order. Yet the State could not produce evidence showing any such effort.

The Court made this explicit:

“Therefore, prior to resorting to exercise of powers under S.144 of the Code, it was incumbent upon the Respondent authorities to take recourse to the other measures available to them under the law for maintenance of peace and tranquillity and it was only when those measures were found to be insufficient, the powers in question could have been exercised. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Respondent authorities had even taken recourse to the other measures and it was only upon their failure that the powers in question were exercised.” (Para 12.1)

The repeated, blanket restrictions therefore failed the test of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness.

Court also strikes down the 2025 Ahmedabad Police Commissioner’s order under Section 37 of the Gujarat Police Act

The judgment goes beyond the Section 144 regime. Petitioners pointed out that even after the practice of constant Section 144 orders was discontinued, the State simply switched to issuing equally broad prohibitions under Section 37 of the Gujarat Police Act.

The Court closely examined the Commissioner’s November 3, 2025 notification, which cited vague allegations of violent gatherings in “certain police station areas” but did not specify which areas, when the incidents occurred, or why the entire city needed to be restricted.

The Court concluded the State had:

• Provided no nexus between the facts alleged and the sweeping prohibition imposed
• Curtained legitimate protest across Ahmedabad
• Failed to target actual offenders, instead opting for a city-wide ban that punished peaceful citizens

The same violated principles set out in George Fernandes v. State of Maharashtra, which requires a proximate, rational connection between the threat perceived and the restrictions imposed. Blanket bans fail this test.

“These observations would apply to the facts of the case on hand as well as the authorities concerned have miserably failed in demonstrating any such rationale and proximate connection or nexus between the prohibition sought to be imposed with the necessity for prevention of public order.” (Para 20)

“The aforesaid discussion would make it clear that the powers have been exercised by the respondent authorities in utter disregard of the safeguards provided for exercise of the powers in question. Therefore, the exercise of powers by the authorities appears to be arbitrary in the present case. Therefore, the notification in question including the notification of the Police Commissioner dated 3^rd November 2025, are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and therefore, are liable to be quashed and set aside.” (Para 21)

Adjudication despite expiry of orders

The State argued that all the notifications had “expired” and therefore no adjudication was necessary. The Court rejected this. Justice Mengdey emphasised that citizens were still facing prosecution for alleged violation of these notifications, and therefore the validity of the orders directly impacted their liberty.

“It is argued that the Notifications have lived their lives. However, there would be many including the Petitioners, who would be facing prosecution for violation of these Notifications. Therefore, even if the Notifications have lived their lives and are no more in force today, their validity is required to be considered, as, if the same is not done, the Petitioners and many others, would be facing prosecution for violation of the Notification which stands declared arbitrary. Therefore, these Notifications were required to undergo the judicial scrutiny even after their expiry.” (Para 23)

This ensures that criminal proceedings arising from unconstitutional notifications do not continue.

Publicity failure: Official gazette is not enough in the digital era

One of the most important directions in the judgment relates to transparency.

The State claimed that the orders were “widely publicised.” The Court disagreed, noting that the petitioners had demonstrated that the public had no meaningful way to know such orders were in force at all.

Justice Mengdey observed:

“In the present era, mere publication of such Notifications or orders in the official gazette would not be sufficient. Moreover, the public at large has no access to such official gazette. In the era, where several modes of mass communication, including social media platforms are available, it is incumbent upon the Respondent authorities to publish such Notifications / Orders by using such modes. While quashing and setting aside the Notifications impugned in the present petition as well as the Notification dated 3.11.2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City being violative of fundamental rights of the citizens, the Respondent Authorities are hereby directed that, in future, while exercising such powers available under BNSS or Section 37 of the G.P.Act, due care shall be taken for adhering to the procedural aspects and the inherent safeguards required for exercising such powers and the Notifications / Orders issued under these provisions shall be given wide publicity on social media to make the public at large aware about it.” (Para 25)

The Court therefore directed:

• Mandatory publication of all Section 163 BNSS / Section 37 GP Act orders
• On social media, websites, and modern communication platforms
• In addition to regular modes
• To ensure actual public awareness and compliance

This is a major structural direction that significantly alters how prohibitory orders must be disseminated in Gujarat going forward.

A corrective moment for democratic policing

The judgment is a firm reminder that:

• Section 144 cannot be normalised
• Perpetual restrictions on peaceful assembly are unconstitutional
• The State must provide reasons, facts, inquiry, and evidence
• Blanket city-wide bans are disproportionate
• Citizens must be informed through accessible means
• Transparency and accountability are essential before curtailing democratic freedoms

The High Court’s intervention decisively pulls back an executive practice that had been allowed to operate unchecked for nearly a decade.

Conclusion: A decisive reaffirmation of democratic freedoms

By quashing the impugned notifications—both under Section 144/163 and Section 37—the High Court has sent a clear signal that public order powers cannot be used casually or mechanically to stifle dissent.

The ruling enhances procedural safeguards, demands transparency, and restores constitutional balance at a time when administrative reliance on prohibitory orders has become routine across many Indian cities.

The Gujarat High Court’s directions will now require every future invocation of Section 163 BNSS or Section 37 GP Act to satisfy:

• Reason-based scrutiny
• Evidence-based justification
• Prior exploration of lesser restrictive alternatives
• Wide public dissemination for awareness

A crucial precedent, the judgment stands as a robust defence of the right to protest and the constitutional promise that emergency powers must remain exceptional, temporary, and accountable—not a default policing mechanism.

The complete judgment may be read here:

Related:

Does imposition of Sec. 144 indicate Saffronisation of TN state machinery?

Gujarat High Court Widened Anti-Conversion Law: ‘Victims’ can be prosecuted as offenders

The post Gujarat High Court calls out “routine emergency”, strikes down years of Section 144 orders, demands transparency in all future restrictions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Gandhian to the core, an uncompromising anti-liquor campaigner, a spellbinding orator and Principal of Mahatma Gandhi College, Thiruvananthapuram, Manmathan was a contemporary of Mannath Padmanabhan, the visionary founder of the Nair Service Society which went on to build an empire of educational and medical institutions.

I had the privilege of hearing him once at my alma mater, St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry. He was invited to speak on a subject that was electrifying campuses across the world at that time: students’ unrest. American universities were convulsed by protests against the Vietnam War.

From Berkeley to Columbia, students were questioning imperialism, racism and militarism. Europe, too, was aflame with agitation—Paris 1968 had already entered history as a revolt of ideas as much as of streets.

Prof Manmathan began by extolling the courage and moral seriousness of students in the West.

Then, with his trademark mix of irony and sting, he turned to Kerala. “There, students earn their living to fund their education. They have skin in the game. Here, parents pay the fees, feed the children, clothe them and even buy their bus passes. What stake do they have in the education system? Nothing,” he said.

Then came the coup de grâce: “They enjoy strikes because colleges close and they can sit at home.” For many students, strikes were less about revolution and more about recreation.

Many years later, that long-ago speech came back to me while watching a video clip of S. Gurumurthy, a chartered accountant-turned-ideologue of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Ideologically, Gurumurthy stands at the opposite pole from Prof Manmathan’s Gandhism. Yet, in an odd way, they converged on the same sociological truth.

Gurumurthy narrated an anecdote from a lecture he delivered at a prestigious American university. Listening to him, I was reminded of my own long-held view that institutions there recognise talent more readily than we do in India, where caste and community considerations often intrude.

The much-publicised case of Harvard inviting Lalu Prasad Yadav to speak on how his unconventional ideas rescued Indian Railways from financial free-fall comes to mind in this context.

Then came Gurumurthy’s experiment. He asked all the students in the audience to raise their hands if their education was fully funded by their parents.

Without exception, every Indian student raised a hand.

Then he asked who among them had taken bank loans to finance their education. Every American hand went up—black and white, men and women alike. That, he said, revealed who had real stakes in their education.

Listening to Gurumurthy, I was reminded instantly of Prof Manmathan’s cutting question: what real right did Indian students have to speak of “students’ unrest” when so many of them had no financial stake in their education or in the system that sustained it?

When Neighbouring Nations Rise — and India Doesn’t

Recently, The Economist carried an article that asked a troubling question: why are young men and women in India so curiously unmoved by political and social upheavals that would have set generations elsewhere on fire? The magazine contrasted India’s political quietism with the turbulence in its immediate neighbourhood.

Take Nepal. For years, the country had suffered under a political class steeped in corruption and cynicism. Public institutions withered while politicians bickered and bargained. When students took to the streets against corruption and misgovernance, it was not mere tokenism. Campuses became nerve centres of resistance. The agitations were sustained, creative and relentless.

The protests snowballed into a wider public movement. The government, cornered by the moral authority of the youth and the pressure of the streets, was finally forced to step down.

Young Nepalis discovered something transformative—that protest could actually produce political change. They were not merely shouting into the void.

Sri Lanka offers another powerful example. For decades, an oligarchy ruled the island nation, entrenching itself through corruption, nepotism and economic mismanagement. By 2022, the economy had collapsed, fuel and food were scarce, and ordinary citizens were pushed to the brink.

It was the youth who lit the spark. Students, professionals and ordinary citizens poured into the streets.

They occupied public buildings, camped outside official residences and refused to budge. The protests were largely peaceful but unwavering.

The President Gotabaya Rajapaksha was forced to flee the country. Power slipped from the hands of a seemingly invincible ruling elite. Today, Colombo has a new leadership, born out of the anger and aspirations of a mobilised citizenry.

In Bangladesh too—whether one approves of the outcome or not—the youth uprising changed the course of politics.

Students and young citizens protested against what they saw as high-handed governance and shrinking democratic space. The unrest grew in intensity and scale.

The Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was eventually forced to flee the country and seek asylum in India. That this happened at all is testimony to the disruptive power of youth-driven politics in our neighbourhood.

Crises Without Rebellion: India’s Strange Silence

India, meanwhile, has witnessed convulsions far more severe—yet without comparable mass upheaval.

Consider demonetisation. In one stroke, Prime Minister Narendra Modi invalidated high-value currency notes.

The stated objective was to strike at black money and counterfeit currency.

What followed was chaos. The informal economy collapsed overnight. Millions of workers lost their jobs. Small businesses shut shop. Daily-wage earners were reduced to penury.

People stood in serpentine queues outside banks and ATMs to withdraw their own money, only to be told that the cash had run out. Deaths occurred in queues from exhaustion, anxiety and despair.

And yet, there was no nationwide uprising. There was anger, yes; private misery, certainly; public rebellion, hardly.

Then came the pandemic. Without warning, Modi announced an all-India lockdown. The decision may have been justified as a public health emergency, but its execution was brutal in its insensitivity.

Tens of millions of migrant workers lost their jobs overnight.

With no income, no food and no certainty about when the lockdown would end, workers from Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh—dismissed casually as “laggard states”—began walking home from cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Nagpur.

They walked hundreds of kilometres under the scorching sun, with children on their shoulders and belongings on their heads. Many were lathi-charged for violating Covid norms.

Some died on the roads. The images were heart-rending. The suffering was biblical in scale. Yet again, there was no nationwide revolt. No sustained student movement. No paralysing civil disobedience.

At that time, someone remarked to me with chilling resignation: “We are like that. We won’t rebel. We won’t protest.”

There is a crude joke often made about Indians and sex—that they are obsessed with it in private but prudish in public. Perhaps something similar can be said about protest: we complain endlessly in private but submit meekly in public.

The Weight of Fatalism on a Nation’s Conscience

We are, at bottom, a deeply fatalistic people. Fatalism is the belief that everything is preordained, that human will counts for little, that destiny rules supreme. It is a worldview that teaches acceptance rather than resistance, endurance rather than struggle.

The great poet Ulloor S. Parameswara Iyer captured this worldview in his celebrated poem Premasangeetham. In one stanza, he surrenders completely to divine choreography:

“Salutations to You, the Giver of my life, Lord of Dance, Supreme Soul!

In this world-stage of humanity, I am but a small part of Your dance troupe.

What role I am to play is Yours to decide, O Lord;

My duty is to dance as You will, with devotion and grace.

Be it as a servant or a player upon the stage.

To portray joy or sorrow, I am here to fulfil Your purpose.

You, the unseen Director, guide my every step like the wind.”

This is fatalism at its most lyrical—and its most paralysing. Man becomes a puppet, God the unseen puppeteer. Responsibility dissolves into resignation.

This worldview is profoundly at odds with the doctrine I believe in. According to the Biblical vision, God created man in His own image.

Man is not a puppet but a moral agent. He is sovereign in the limited sphere granted to him. He can choose the right path or the wrong one. Even Adam and Eve had that choice. History is not just enacted upon humanity; it is shaped by human decisions.

Man has the power to transform his life. Let me illustrate with two small stories from my own life. My wife and I were fond of a boy who used to visit our home to play with our grandson. His father pressed clothes for a living.

My wife offered to support the boy’s education. But the father had other ideas. He wanted his son to fetch clothes, return the ironed garments and collect money. Education was seen as a distraction.

The boy was not encouraged to study. He inherited his father’s trade. Today he earns Rs 5 per piece of clothing he irons. Fate did not destroy his prospects; choices did.

In contrast, when I admitted my elder son to a school in Kayamkulam, one of my neighbours—a barber by profession—admitted his son to the same school. Our children travelled in the same school bus. That boy studied diligently, became an engineer, went to the Gulf and today is far richer than my son. Education transformed his life, just as its denial froze the other boy’s.

Last week, while delivering the Justice P. Subramonian Poti Memorial Lecture at the Kerala Club in New Delhi, Prof S. Sivakumar narrated another telling story.

A rich man was extremely liberal in helping his servants with money for festivals, marriages and childbirths. But he steadfastly refused to support the education of their children. His logic was chilling in its candour: if they got educated, they would no longer work as servants.

Is it any wonder, then, that a small shipload of Portuguese soldiers could capture power in Goa, then ruled by Muslims over a predominantly Hindu population? They were the first Europeans to establish a lasting presence in India. They ruled for over 500 years without facing sustained mass resistance.

How many Mughals came to India initially? A few hundred at most.

Yet they ruled India for nearly 700 years. Under Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire reached its territorial zenith—larger than present-day India. In 1700, India accounted for 25 percent of the world’s GDP. Aurangzeb died peacefully of old age, not at the hands of a revolutionary mob.

Today, Modi’s supporters take pride in the fact that he has ruled for 11 years. In contrast, the British ruled India for about 200 years. The British population in India never exceeded one lakh. Yet they governed a subcontinent of hundreds of millions with astonishing ease.

When Mrs Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency, I was in Delhi. There was not even a whimper of protest initially.

Her police rounded up Opposition leaders with ruthless efficiency—Morarji Desai, Jayaprakash Narayan and countless others disappeared into jails.

Civil liberties were suspended. The press was muzzled. And the people accepted it, contrary to later claims of universal resistance.

Today, we encourage poor youth to indulge in rituals rather than reflection. They walk hundreds of kilometres to fetch holy water. Along the way they are fed with food, beverages, fruits and sweets. They also receive intoxicants. Meanwhile, the children of their leaders go abroad for higher studies.

From Opium to Algorithms: A New Age of Distraction

The colonial rulers used opium to keep the Chinese subdued. In India today, there is a new intoxicant: the mobile phone.

Nowhere in the world is the Internet so cheap. Tens of millions are addicted to their screens.

Yesterday, I saw an autorickshaw driver watching video clips on his mobile, neatly fixed at the centre of his steering handle. He seemed almost pleased when the traffic signal turned red—it gave him uninterrupted viewing time.

Algorithms work with perverse efficiency: if you watch nonsense, you are rewarded with an endless torrent of more nonsense.

Hands chained to mobile phones, symbolising digital addiction and how smartphones control modern life.

Smartphones have become the new chains—an addiction more potent than opium.

Grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, servants, drivers, cleaners, workers—each is sealed inside a personalised digital cocoon, scrolling in splendid isolation.

How can people hypnotised by viral trivia be bothered about price rise, unemployment or the cynical manipulation of public sentiment?

The colonial rulers had opium; we have the smartphone—and it is far more lethal because we swallow it willingly.

Courtesy: The Aidem

The post Mobile as Opium: A Nation Sedated By Screens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Though the movement was centred on Tamil speaking areas of the Madras Presidency and Pondicherry, it influenced deeply even downtrodden communities in Dharavi and Pune, Travancore Princely state and the migrant Tamil communities in Malaya, Singapore, Ceylon and Burma.

Privileging  ‘Self-Respect’  as the  birth right of human beings  as against the claim of B.G. Tilak’s Swaraj,  Periyar argued, that caste does not make for a healthy sense of the self, and to develop such a sense, one would have to practise self-respect, learn to value one‘s self. In fact, this had to precede all other values and objectives, including freedom and self-rule, in short even swaraj. Periyar defined self-respect in diverse ways, and depending on the context of his utterance and the historical moment in which that utterance was required, self-respect was aligned to socialism, Islam, to the Buddhist notion of samadharam. Periyar‘s use of the word ‘samadharma’, as a counter to Manudharma, and as an adjunct of socialism, which he argued had to do with the logic of just distribution, whereas ‘samadharma’ required a just and equal ethics which implicates all of us, the form of that ethical consensus that we forge with each other, that we shall hold and exercise rights and compassion in common.

Periyar’s criticism of Hinduism proceeded from his understanding of caste as a system and ideology: the Brahminical ideology that determined what the women and men of the Hindu faith ate, how they dressed, whom they married, their choice of a profession, their relationships with each other, their behaviour in public places, their political choices, their modes of worship, in short, a religious sensibility was manifest in the Hindu’s each and every actions. Hinduism was fundamental to the very organisation of caste society and had to be viewed not merely in terms of beliefs, faith and the succour it offered to the believer, but in terms of its material everyday existence. Periyar’s idea on brahminical patriarchy drew its sustenance from his rejection of the conventional ideal of chastity. Periyar argued that ‘child rearing’ could be taken up by the men as well. By making parenthood rather than motherhood the decisive factor in the nurture and care of human life, Periyar liberated the female body and thus granted the female person both will and subjectivity. He also attacked the fetishisation of female body and urged the women not to internalise notions of beauty and become mere ‘pegs’ on which one hangs jewellery.

The politics of the SR movement was defined as a critique of Congress nationalism and political Non-brahminism.  Self-respecters understood political Non-brahminism as a creed that rejected what it termed, the hierarchical privileges of the caste order, opposed brahminical pride and social power, endorsed the rights of untouchables to an equal, self-respecting and free existence, and which upheld women’s reproduction rights as well as their right to education and independence. Further, even when Periyar supported governments that appeared to him to be receptive to social justice ideals, he never allowed such support to interfere with his critical work in the civil and public realms. He was insistently critical of the electoral politics and legislative exercises, which to him, were inexorably given to instrumental reasoning and limited goals. He felt that being active in this sphere could prove corrupting – and so decided to keep away from it, and instead function as a permanent dissident and critical movement in society.

Interestingly, the SR movement also drew inspiration from the Russian Revolution, though it abhorred violence manifesting in any form. The  only English weekly the SR Movement has ever had was ‘revolt’ launched from Erode on November 7, 1928,which, in the words of the leader written for its first anniversary number was “that memorable  day in the history of the nations, the day of the… immortal Revolution in Russia..” One can see from the journals of the SR movement hundreds of articles on the achievements of Soviet Russia, some of which looked for the social markers of women’s progress civil society as well (It had great admiration for King Amanullah Khan of Afghanistan and Mustafa Kemal Pasha  of Turkey for  overturning the centuries old dress code for the women.)  Periyar had the Preamble and the first section of the ‘Communist Manifesto’ translated into Tamil and published it in ‘Kudi Arasu’ before leaving for a ‘global tour’, which was only a ploy to enter into Soviet territories. After returning to Erode by the end of 1932, he and S. Ramanathan, a veteran of the SR Movement translated into Tamil seven articles of Lenin on Religion to be published in ‘Kudi Arasu’. A few months later’ Kudi Arasu’ featured the first Tamil translation of Engels’s ‘The Principles of Communism’ by another Self Respecter and during 1937-38, a full-length biography of Karl Marx were published.

The SR movement forged close contact and comradely relationship with Babasaheb Dr B.R. Ambedkar. It was the SR journals that introduced Babasaheb to Tamil Nadu through its reports on the Mahad Satyagraha and Kalaram Temple entry movement and it mobilised all its strength to support of the Separate electorate demand. Similarly from 1935 onwards it supported Ambedkar’s decision to leave the Hindu fold not to die as a Hindu. Periyar however, was unhappy about Babasaheb’s decision to join the Constituent Assembly as he felt that the latter’s legilslative  labour would only  be harvested by the ‘North Indian Aryans’. In post Independent India, Periyar disagreed with Babasaheb’s solution to Kashmir problem and also his advocacy of aligning with the USA. But these political differences were overcome with Periyar’s support to Babbasaheb on other issues.

Periyar maintained that social inequalities derived from one’s birth would remain active under any economic system as a deterrent to any radical change in society and would even reproduce the economic disparities that were abolished. Pointing out that it was under the caste system that several people became wealthy and acquired a superior status, he insisted that even implementation of Communist doctrines in full force could not bring about any reform in a hierarchically organized caste society and that therefore the first and fundamental task of a Socialist in this country was to abolish the caste system. Periyar’s position was not agreeable to the ‘socialists’ (future Communists) in the SR movement like M. Singaravelu who insisted on ‘class struggle’ and broke away from Periyar to join the Congress Socialist Party in 1936. It was precisely during this period, Periyar was able to get a copy of’ the ‘Annihilation of Caste’, and translated into Tamil and serialised this in ‘Kudi Arasu’.

This ‘love and hate’ relationship between the Self Respect Movement and the Communists continued after 1947 ( between 1946-1947 there was a sharp ideological struggle between the Self Respecters and the Communists on the question of  understanding the real  nature of the ‘Independence’ of India granted by the British. However, the Dravidar Kazhagam (the reshaped Self Respect Movement) was the only party in the Tamil speaking areas of the erstwhile Madras Presidency that condemned the ban on the Communist Party of India imposed by the Nehru Government in 1949. It expressed it solidarity with the Communist Prisoners and organised state-wide meetings to condemn the killing of 22 Communist Prisoners in Salem Central Prison. The prisoners were protesting against the ill-treatment and frequent torture, inferior quality of food supplied to them, denial of the right to receive the visitors of their choice, reading materials and other rights given in the Jail Manual. During the first general election held in 1952 with adult franchise, Periyar supported the Communist candidates in specific constituencies while the Communists were expected to support a few candidates of Periyar’s choice. Though Periyar never believed in electoral politics, he decided to field one of his close comrades of that time, a Dalit for the reserved seat in a double member parliament constituency.  But the gentlemen’s agreement was flouted by the Communists who fielded their own candidate in that constituency. Infuriated, Periyar spared no efforts to ensure the victory of his candidate Of late, in Tamil Nadu, the Communists and the Self Respecters (members of the DK) who have until now been viewing each other with disdain until two decades ago, have, through the re-discovery of Periyar by the former realised the value of a political reaffirmation of the fundamentals of the Self-Respect Movement; this is crucial in the state given the current context of the brutal march of ‘Hindutva Hegemons’.  Both movements now face a historical challenge, in theory and practice, to be able to convincingly –and through action — club the anti-caste struggle with the class struggle.

The range of concerns and the commitments of the Self Respecters could be seen in the pages of the Self-Respect journals which published a wide variety of articles ranging from scholarly critiques of Ramayana, Mahabharatha, Bhagwad Gita and the Puranas to the translations of anti-clerical articles from the West, essays of Voltaire, Rousseu, Thoams Paine and Ingersol on the one hand and the writings of Dr R.P.Paranjape, J.Krishnamurthi and M.Singaravel on the other. These journals also featured atheist writings of Bertrand Russell and Bhagat Singh. Some of the stories of Boccacio were also translated and published along with one or two articles by Rahul Sankrityayan and Meghnath Saha. All these were intended to cultivate a rationalist outlook and critical thinking amongst the Self Respecters and also the general public.

Periyar’s  genius, for example, is his profound knowledge of Indian Philosophical systems which can be observed in his  article ‘Materialism or Pragrridivad’,  written from what he called ‘the perspective of Nirvana’ remains to be  explored  by those interested in understanding  Periyar and his anti-caste movement.

Despite  Periyar’s radicalism with  which  he selflessly spent nearly  75 years of his long  life, it is yet to gain a solid anti-caste space in the civil society  while the ‘real-politik’ of the political parties that claim his  legacy has  led  them to get immersed in the logic of  Westminster system  resulting in the   emergence of powerful intermediate castes whose ‘caste pride’ entails in the  increasing number of  atrocities on  Dalits.  While Tamil Nadu has done better than the rest of the country as many indicators show,  in interpersonal caste relationships  however , it is  becoming   intolerant  and violent  whenever the norms of castes are challenged. This has led the new generation of Dalit Intellectuals who have begun rejecting the entire trajectory of the Self-Respect movement.  We also witness a blatant slanders and distortion of Periyar’s thoughts and mission resorted to by some of these, even at the risk of losing a powerful ally in their struggle for equality, fraternity and dignity.

Related:

Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEP 2020’s three-language formula: a federal pushback against central imposition

Periyar the icon of social justice and humanism

Periyar: Caste, Nation and Socialism

The post The Tamil Nadu Challenge: The Self-Respect Movement and Periyar E.V. Ramasami appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Social revolution also means caring and sharing and a demonstrative programme,” said Adhav when he spoke of this initiative launched after inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi (launched on Gandhi Jayanti, October 2, 1974). From one such eatery launched in 1974, forty years later, in 2014 it had expanded to 12 such in Pune provided tasty bhakaris prepared by women from working class families to close to 12,000 workers!

Widely revered as a prominent progressive leader in the socialist movement in Maharashtra who had fought against the caste system and for the rights of labourers, head-loaders, waste-pickers, and street vendors, Baba Adhav has also participated in the freedom movement, Samyukta Maharashtra movement, anti-Emergency protests, one village one water source movement (against caste system), and protests for the removal of Manu’s statue. He had also helmed a cycle rally from Pune to Delhi to seek social security for unorganised labourers.

In remembrance, Leader of Opposition (LOP), Rahul Gandhi said, “Baba Adhav was the strong pillar of social justice. He dedicated his entire life fighting for the rights of the marginalised, the exploited labourers. The flame of struggle ignited by Adhav in Pune became a torch for social justice movements across the country.”

Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee president Harshwardhan Sapkal wrote on X, “Carrying the torch of the truth-seeking tradition in his hand, Dr Baba Adhav, who fought against injustice in society and fought for the rights of the underprivileged throughout his life, passed away today. The progressive movement of Maharashtra has lost a major guide today. Heartfelt tribute to this fighting personality!”

As a recall of his prescience and work, we at Sabrangindia bring to you this conversation with this inspirational leader, Baba Adhav, conducted with co-editor, Teesta Setalvad in October 2014.

The interview and transcript of the Interview may be read/heard here.

It is religion-based politics that refuses to root out caste: Baba Adhav in conversation with Teesta Setalvad

The post Baba Adhav the grassroots campaigner and leader of the socially oppressed passed away at 96 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In 1952, he joined a satyagraha (protest) against high prices and food rationing during a drought, and went to jail — for three weeks — for the first time. “I have been (to jail) 52 or 53 times after that,” he says with a toothy chuckle to Setalvad. In May 2008, he served 14 days in judicial custody for protesting against, yet again, rising prices. More on www.sabrang.com

Excerpts of the Conversation of Baba Adhav with Teesta Setalvad, October 18, 2014

The Interview may be viewed here:

Baba Adhav:

Deep Inequality, especially Economic Inequality has increased, as has awareness.  Domestic workers, Rag pickers with whom I work just listen to their slogans. “Kachra Hamara Haq Ka:, Na Kisi ke Baap Ka!” However, the Political transformation of these Social Issues/Struggles against Inequality is lacking!

Baba Adhav recalls Jyotiba Phule:

Jyotiba Phule had pointed out in the 1800s how All Religious Books authored by Men and questioned what has religion done for women? He had said that in today’s India, in 2014, it is the mixing of Religion (Dharam) and Politics (Rajniti) is the problem

Baba Adhav On Ek Gaon Ek Panavtha (Kua) Movement of the 1970s:

In 1972 Maharashtra had a Devastating Drought: That was also the year of the launch of the Centenary Year of the Foundation of the Satyashodhak Samaj (set up by Jyotiba Phule) on September 24, 1873. ((Satyashodhak Samaj (Society of Truth Seekers) was founded, to challenge Brahmanical dominance and caste-based exploitation by promoting education, equality, and social justice for marginalized groups (Shudras, Dalits, women). It advocated for direct access to God, simple rituals without Brahmin priests, and empowering the oppressed to achieve self-respect and rights, becoming a significant force in India’s social reform history.

So what I, Baba Adhav did in the three years between 1972- 1974 (before I was arrested in the Emergency)—I recall that even Vijay Tendulkar had come with us to farflung villages of Maharashtra— was to travel far and wide and that is how I saw the deep segregation and caste exclusions at work. That is how and why this movement, One Village, One Water Source/Well (Ek Gaon Ek Panavtha) Kua was launched.

Baba Adhav: Dalit Ostracisation Today (2014): Dalits may not be ostracized because of Water but Dalits are Killed for Inter-Caste Marriages! The Bharatiya Samaj (Indian Society) is based on Caste,

Setalvad: Has not Indian Politics (Bharatiya Politics) adjusted with the Caste System and not confronted it?

Baba Adhav: Yes because there is no political or social programme to root out Caste.

Speaking to Setalvad soon after the Regime Take over in 2014, he had also presciently stated that the crucial question is whether the Indian State adheres to the Constitution or to a Caste Drives/Based Hindu Faith.

Baba Adhav on Flood Relief for Kashmiris in 2014:

Punekars had responded positively to the programme! How the working class response has been generous, rickshawallahs, hamaals, businessmen all have responded generously? Last week alone we collected Rs 1 lakh for the flood affected in Kashmir. Donations are with receipts for those who wanted. This programme is not for Relief alone but to ensure a deeper engagement with Kashmir (including Jammu and Ladhakh). The CPI-M has announced that the Kashmir Flood is a National Calamity but what use is this if there is no Programme to match this?

Setalvad: Pune City has been historically one of deep contradictions. It is home to the opporessive Peshwa Raj and also the seat of a revolutionary social reform politics symbolized by Jyotiba Phule, Savitribai Phule of course also reflected in what Shivaji Maharaj and Sahu Maharasj stood for! How do both these factors reflect today?

Baba Adhav:  Historically the city on the western side of it was dominated by Brahmins and the eastern side Dalits and the Backward/Oppressed. Urbanisation in Maharashtra happening with fast speed. In 25 municipal corporations this is reflected: because we have abandoned de-centralisation in favour of centralization. In education too, large, five to six “deemed Universities”, private universities. Today, this city character is changing. However the unorganized sector is playing a rule-the rickshawallah is semi-lettered yet it is an influential section (The victory of Arvind Kejriwal is reflective of this). Kolkatta is similar. In Pune how is this reflected? This unorganized sector—the rickshawallah, the hamaals, the domestic workers, the women who form self-help groups—in this entire section, there is a deep awareness; which will now not be taken for granted. Though in 2014 general elections they voted right to give the establishment a jolt, the local by-elections saw a turn away from the right. The problem is organising this section—opposition established political parties, left is just not doing this. But Shiv Sena is doing this—dhol, violence. Young people today don’t want to struggle nonviolently, go to jail. I have been to jail 53 times for a nonviolent struggle!

Setalvad: In 1848, the first school for girls was set up in Bhidewada, Pune by Jyotiba-Savitribai Phule in which Fatima Shaikh and Usman Shaikh played a role. Today a Bank runs at the location, few Indian textbooks deal with this aspect of our history, that challenges caste and inequality. Will Baba Adhav give us a text book from his vast expereriences and knowledge?

Baba Adhav: Constitutional Values should form the base of Education.

And then Adhav ends by singing for us a beautiful song from Phule.

The Transcript of the Interview conducted in Hindi can be read below:

https://sabrang.com/cc/ccinterviews/BabaAdhavTranscript.htm

Baba Adhav in conversation with Teesta Setalvad  (Transcript Hindi)

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    बाबा आधव जी आपका हार्दिक स्वागत है और हम से बात करने के लिए बहुत बहुत धन्यवाद। आज हम बहुत ही अहम सवालों पर बात करने की कोशिश करेंगे, कि सामाजिक असमानता, सामाजिक प्रश्न और आज की राजनीति, जो इलेक्शन की राजनीति हैं इसमें इतने मतभेद क्यों हैं?

बाबा आधव: जो आप कह रही हैं, इसकी वजह यह है कि असमानता बढ़ी है तो जागृति भी हुई है यह भी मानना पड़ेगा। समानता की मांग करनेवाले जितने शोषित लोग हैं,  जिस जनता में मैं काम करता हूं। समझें कि काम करनेवाली घरेलू औरतें हैं, डोमेस्टिक वर्कर्स, रॅग पिकर्स इनमें ज्यादा से ज्यादा औरतें दलित वर्गों की हैं, तो मैं देख रहा हूँ कि उनकी मांगें बढ़ रही हैं। हिमायत बढ़ रही हैं, वह खुद कहती हैं…आप स्लोगन देखिए न कैसे हैं। कचरा हमारे हक़ का, नहीं किसी के बाप का…रस्ते पे जो कचरा हैं वो मेरे हक़ का है…नहीं किसी का। लेकिन जब म्युनिसिपल कॉरपोरेशन के ध्यान में अभी ये आया कि इसमें इसकी ज़िन्दगी है तो उससे वह रोकने लगे। कचरा हमारा हैं, तो इस स्लोगन पर जो झगड़ा हुआ तो इसलिए मैंने कहा की मांग करने वालों की जागृति तो बढ़ रही हैं, तब एक नतीजा होगा। लेकिन आम तौर पर ये दिखाया जाता हैं की असमानता बढ़ी हैं, जो कि आर्थिक रूप से बहुत बड़ी है।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    मगर सर ये जो असमानता है, वो हमारी राजनीति में एक्सप्रेस नहीं होती। कहीं न कहीं राजनीति वही २०-३०-४०% की राजनीति हो जाती हैं। जो इलेक्शन की राजनीति है और इसलिए इस तबके के लोग कभी चुन के नहीं आते, या आगे बढ़ के नहीं आते! आप इतने सालो, ५०-६० सालों से आप आंदोलन चला रहे हैं, तो इसमें पोलिटिकल ट्रांसफॉर्मेशन कब होगा?

बाबा आधव:  देखिये पहले तो मैं पोलिटिकल पार्टी में था, अब मैं समाजवादी हूं। इसलिए मैं जिस सोशल आइडॉलोजी को मानता था, उसे सोशलिस्ट आइडॉलोजी ने खुले दिमाग से नहीं स्वीकार किया था। वो राजनीति के ढंग से ही काम करते थे तो मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि कल्चरल लेवल पर कभी तो ये देश ऐसा है कि जिसमें विषमता पर ही बिल्डिंग खड़ी कर दी गयी है। यानी कि भारत में असमानता का ही आधार है। यानी कि सब लोग जन्म से समान नहीं होते हैं।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    ये तो जातिवाद की वजह वजह से है न?

बाबा आधव:       जातिवाद की नहीं धर्म की बात है! हिन्दू धर्म की बात सुनिए, इस्लाम की बात सुनिए…किसी भी धर्म की सुनिए! महात्मा फुले जी ने कहा था कि मजहब की सभी किताबे मर्दों ने लिखी हैं, एक भी किताब औरत ने नहीं लिखी नहीं! और मर्दो ने औरतों का क्या हाल किया हैं वो तो बताने की जरुरत ही नहीं हैं। हमारे भारत में धर्म और राजनीति एक दूसरे में जितने जुड़े हुए हैं, ये भी एक बात है। तो हम जब सेक्युलर और धर्मनिरपेक्ष समाज की बात करते हैं तो बीजेपी वाले कहते हैं ये छद्म सेकुलरिज़म है। वो खुद ऐसा नहीं कहते हैं कि हम धर्मनिरपेक्षता वाली बात कर रहे हैं। तो बात ऐसी है भारत में, और समाज कभी आगे जाता हैं, कभी पीछे हट जाता हैं। मुझे ऐसा लग रहा हैं की ७७ में जो हुआ…७४ में इमरजेंसी थी भारत में और हम लोग जेल में भी थे। उसके बाद में इंदिरा गांधी की हार हुई और हम लोगो ने कहा कि ये डेमोक्रेसी की जीत हुई है।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड: गांव और कुंआ का जो आपका स्लोगन था सत्तर-अस्सी के दशक में, आज अगर उस नारे के बारे में आप सोचेंगे, तो आपको लगता हैं वो रिलेवेंट हैं? आज भी उस तरह की जातिप्रथा है या कुछ बदला है?

बाबा आधव: बिलकुल, मैं यही कह रहा हूँ कि इसलिए हमने जो किया…मैं चर्चा-गोष्ठी करने में रुचि नहीं लेता हूँ। सही में…मैं थोड़ा तंग हो जाता हूँ! अगर आप बोलेंगे कि सेमिनार में आ जाओ, तो मुझे थोड़ा ऐसा लगता हैं कि क्या लाभ हैं सेमिनार में?

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    काम करो, ऑर्गनाइज़ करो

बाबा आधव: काम करो, काम करो, चलिए अब और देखिये कि 1972 में महाराष्ट्र में बहुत भीषण अकाल था. उसमे मैंने देखा कि कि महात्मा ज्योतिराव फुले ने जिस सत्यशोधक समाज की स्थापना की थी, उसकी वर्षगांठ थी। हमने सोचा कि एनीवर्सरी में कोई चर्चा-गोष्ठी करने के बजाय हम गांव में क्यों न चले जाएं और देखें गांव में पानी की क्या व्यवस्था हैं? तो इसलिए दो-तीन साल ७२ से लेकर ७४ तक मुझे जेल में डाल दिया। फिर बाद में हमने बाहर शुरू कर दिया। तेंदुलकर जी की बात आप जो कह रही थी, वो हमारे साथ में आये थे देखने के लिए, और हिंसा के पैटर्न्स की कोई खोज कर रहे थे। तो उनकी सोच थी कि उसमे से कोई नतीजा निकलता हैं क्या? तो अस्पृश्यता का जो मामला हैं आज पानी का नहीं है लेकिन आज वो कास्ट मैरिजस में इंटर कास्ट मैरिज का बन गया है। तो दलित लोगो की हत्या कैसे होती है? अभी भी खरड़ा में जो हुआ…जवान लड़का दलित है और ये मराठा लोगो की लड़की थी…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    तो मतलब आज पानी के मामले में न हो मगर फिर भी जातिव्यवहार में वैसी ही बात हैं?

बाबा आधव: बात होती हैं, बात चलती हैं, तो यह हैं वजह, लेकिन उसमे मैंने देखा की ये टोटल मामला कास्ट सिस्टम का ही हैं. और भारतीय समाज की कास्ट पर ही…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    और वो आज भारतीय जो लोकशाही हैं वो कास्ट से पूरा एडजस्ट कर चुकी हैं, अभी तक वो मुकाबला नहीं कर सकती है?

बाबा आधव: नहीं, प्रोग्राम ही नहीं हैं. असमानता के खिलाफ, जातिव्यवस्था के खिलाफ, जेंडर के भेदभाव के खिलाफ, हमारी पढाई में ही कुछ नहीं हैं। हम लोग, राजनीतिक लोग ये चाहते हैं कि संघर्ष नहीं होना चाहिए। ऐसे संभावित बोलते हैं मराठी में… अरे हां ठीक हैं वगैरह।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    संघर्ष नहीं होना चाहिए

बाबा आधव: ऐसी बात होती है कि नहीं होना चाहिए…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    तो पढाई में ये असमानता की बात हम बच्चों को नहीं समझाते, जिससे समाज में ये समझ नहीं बनती, संघर्ष नहीं बनते और राजनीति में इसका फेर बदल नहीं होता…तो फिर जवाब कहां से मिलेगा ?

बाबा आधव: जवाब ऐसे मिलते हैं कि हम मांग कर रहे हैं न। आज देखिये, आज राजनीति में एक अहम सवाल आया हैं, राजनीति दिल्ली में बदल गयी हैं. लेकिन एक सवाल उभर कर आया है कि आप कॉन्स्टिटूशन मानते हैं या नहीं?

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    आपको लगता हैं की ये सबसे अहम सवाल हैं?

बाबा आधव: जी बिलकुल।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    क्यों ?

बाबा आधव: बात ऐसी हैं की जो लोग आज सत्ता में आए, वो लोग हिन्दू धर्म की बात कर रहे थे। और आज लोग बोलते हैं की भाई संविधान में क्या लिखा हैं? बाबा साहेब ने अगर कहा हैं कि स्वतंत्रता, समता, लोकशाही, फ्रैटर्निटी, बंधुता, धर्मनिरपेक्षता वही बात कर रहा हैं। गाइडिंग प्रिंसिपल में  साइंटिफिक  टेम्पोराइज की बातें कही हैं। बढ़ाने की बात की है।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    वो हमारे समाज में नहीं बढ़ी।

बाबा आधव: कहां? मूल्यों के प्रति पढाई कुछ नहीं हैं, वो उधर ही रहा है। हम को मूल्यों को शामिल करना चाहिए।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    स्कूल से लेकर।

बाबा आधव:       कहां हुआ हैं? उल्टा रास्ता हुआ हैं। धर्मनिरपेक्षता की चेष्टा-मसखरी करते थे।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    अभी राष्ट्रीय एकता समिति का जो आपका काम चल रहा हैं वो किस मुद्दे पर चल रहा है सबसे ज्यादा?

बाबा आधव: अभी नया कार्यक्रम जो चला है जो हमारे कश्मीरी लोगों को पीड़ा हुई हैं, उन लोगो की सहायता के लिए।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    तो पुणे मैं शहरी लोगो का क्या रेस्पॉन्स हैं?

बाबा आधव: अच्छा, बिलकुल अच्छा, वर्किंग क्लास का रेस्पॉन्स इतना अच्छा हैं कि क्या कहूं आपको। हम झोली लेके जब जाते हैं वहा और पुकारते हैं, कश्मीर के बाढ़ ग्रस्तो के लिए मदद दीजिये, मदद दी जाये। दे दिया चलो आइये हमाल, आ जाईये रिक्शावाला, आ जाईये व्यापारियों, आजाईये…हम गली में ऐसे पुकारते हैं। तो लोग झोली में आकर डालते हैं। पहले तो हम डिब्बे लेके जाते थे। लेकिन डिब्बे हमने तोड़ दिए क्यू उसमे वो ना-ना बोलते हैं…यानी अट्ठनी डालते हैं। लेकिन झोली देखो तो दस रुपये की नोट डालते हैं, तो थोड़ी ये बात होती हैं। तो देखो भाई हफ्ते में, एक पूरे गए हफ्ते में लाख रुपये से ज्यादा हम लोग इकठ्ठा करते हैं।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    वर्किगं क्लास, पूरा कामगार वर्क्स

बाबा आधव: कामगार हो या व्यापारी, रास्ते में से जब भी जाते-जाते ये बात होती रही है। वैसे तो डोनेशन उसकी रिसीप्ट भी रखते हैं, हिसाब भी रखते हैं हम लोग। लोगो को हिसाब भी दे देते हैं।  कोई बोला मुझे रिसीप्ट चाहिए तो रिसीप्ट भी देते हैं। लेकिन इसमें एक बात है कि पैसा जमा करना बात नहीं है…कश्मीर के लिए भारत को जरा ज्यादा प्रयास करना चाहिए। क्योंकि कश्मीर और भारत में अलगाव की बात चलती हैं हमेशा। दो बात हैं उसमे। और उस में भी देखो जम्मू के लिए अलग से बात होती है, लद्दाख के लिए अलग से बात होती हैं, कश्मीर के ऊपर अलग से होती है। ठीक है ऐसा है लेकिन अगर कश्मीर, भारत में आता है तो हमारा ये काम है कि हम अभी इसी वक़्त पूरा भारत उनके लिए खड़ा रहे।  पी.एम. ने तो ऐलान कर दिया के ये नेशनल कॅलामिटी हैं। लेकिन नेशनल कॅलामिटी होते हुए प्रोग्राम देना चाहिए था पब्लिक को।  एक भी पार्टी ऐसा नहीं करती है।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:          बाबा आधव जी पुणे नगरी जो हैं वो ऐतिहासिक स्तर पे एक कंट्राडिक्शन की शहरी रही हैं।  जहाँ पे एक तरफ से पेशवाओं की पूरी पेशवाई थी यहाँ पे वो एक तरफ से जुल्म की राजनीति थी।  उसके साथ साथ सुधारवादी राजनीति का भी एक पूरा यहाँ से एक जत्था निकलता है। ज्योतिबा फुले, सावित्रीबाई फुले, शाहू जी महाराज, शिवाजी महाराज…तो पुणे नगरी में आज का जो कल्चर हैं…एक परिस्थिति हैं वो किस तरह से इन सब प्रभावों को उभर कर लाता हैं ?

बाबा आधव: अभी पहले तो था के पूना के दो भाग थे, पूर्वी भाग और पश्चिमी भाग…यानी पश्चिम में ब्राह्मणों की अधिक आबादी थी और पूर्व भाग में दलितों की, पिछड़ों की…आज भी थोड़ा बोला जाता हैं लेकिन इतना नहीं… महाराष्ट्र में नागरिकीकरण, अरबईनाइजेशन बहुत जोरो से चालू हैं।  यहाँ महाराष्ट्र में अभी २५ कॉर्पोरेशन्स महानगरपालिका बन  चुकी हैं।  ये बहुत गंभीर समस्या पैदा हुई है। यानी वो डिसेंट्रलाइजेशन हमने छोड़ दिया हैं और केंद्रीकरण से झोपड़ीवाले का  सवाल और बिगड़ जाता है…उसमे भी फिर बाद में करप्शन वगैरह सब बातें आ जाती हैं । दूसरी बात ये है कि एजुकेशन में ऐसा हुआ है कि पूना में इतने बड़े संस्थान बना दिए गए हैं…यानी कि ५-६ डीम्ड यूनिवर्सिटीज हैं, अभिमत विद्यापीठ जैसी, जिसे कहा जाये भारत विद्यापीठ, एस.एन.डी.टी. पहले से है, कर्वे यूनिवर्सिटी हैं वगैरह-वगैरह। डी.वाय. पाटिल की भी एक यूनिवर्सिटी बन चुकी है। तो इस शहर का जो एकीकरण हुआ है… मैं रिक्शा यूनियन चलाता हूँ…रिक्शावाला कम्युनिकेशन में इतना बड़ा भारी आदमी है…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    घूमता रहता हैं, एक जगह से दूसरी जगह।

बाबा आधव:       घूमता रहता हैं और..

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    सुनता रहता हैं

बाबा आधव: ही इज अ सेमी एज्युकेटेड मैन नॉट सेमीइलिटेरेट यानी वो अनपढ़ भी नहीं होता है। यानी मिसाल के तौर पर बोल देता हूँ कि दिल्ली में जो केजरीवाल की बात चली थी। केजरीवाल को रिक्शावालों ने चुन के भेजा था।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    सही बात हैं।

बाबा आधव: सही बात हैं। और मैं दिल्ली में, मैंने देखा कि प्रचार तो सब बीजेपी का हैं।  मैंने वो रिक्शावाले को पूछा, बैठा था…रिक्शावालों के साथ मेरा थोड़ा ताल्लुख होता हैं क्यूंकि मैं लीडर हूँ, तो वो बिहारी था बोला…”क्या समझत हैं बाबू हमें… ” ”मैं समझता हूँ बोलो।” ”केजरीवाल आएगा” बोला, ”आप आप आएगा।” कलकत्ता में यही मैंने देखा। तो आज कैसा हुआ हैं पूना में, पूना के हाल आप पूछ रही हैं तो रिक्शावालों को या रॅग पिकर्स को, या हमाल हो, या घरेलू औरते हो, ये बचत गुट की महिलाये हो ये पूरी तबके में एक ऐसा माहोल बना हुआ हैं। तो अभी एक चीज़ तो मैं बोल दूंगा कि कोई पोलिटिकल आदमी हमको फसा नहीं सकता।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    इतनी आसानी से।

बाबा आधव:       इतनी आसानी से।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    मगर २०१४ में तो हम सब फस चुके हैं, मई के इलेक्शंस में।

बाबा आधव:    नहीं थोड़ा होता हैं न, लोगो को धक्का देना चाहते थे, जैसे १४ में हुआ, १४ में दूसरे १०० डेज के बाद क्या हुआ आपने बाय-इलेक्शंस में देखा। इसमें एक बुनियादी बात मैं कह देता हूं कि, भारत की जनता बहुत होशियार हैं। आपको शायद आश्चर्य लगेगा जब आपातकाल में जेल में थे तो ऐसा था की हमारा क्या होगा बाहर? पूरे जनसंघ वाले हम लोगों को कहते थे इंदिरा गांधी जिन्दा हैं, तब तक हम नहीं छूटेंगे। मैं कहता था की नहीं अगर इलेक्शन हो जाये तो हम जीत जायेंगे। लोगो ने हमको जिताया आज जो हुआ है ठीक है। ये एक साधारण अवस्था हैं।  लेकिन इसमें भी बदलाव आ सकता हैं।  इसके लिए हमे थोड़ी हिम्मत चाहिए। मैं जिनके साथ काम कर रहा हूं…उन लोगो में है। भले उनके पास पोलिटिकल फ्रंट नहीं हो, लेकिन जो लोग पोलिटिकल फ्रंट बनाने का प्रयास कर रहे हैं वो आर्गेनाईजेशन के बारे में जानकारी रखते ही नहीं हैं। वही बात हैं। अभी जवान लोगो के साथ की बात हैं, आपने नहीं पूछा इसलिए कह रहा हूं। क्या होता हैं जो १८ से २०-२२ तक की जो उमर वाली, उनके साथ हमारी पोलिटिकल पार्टी का कोई यानी जैसे लेफ्ट हो.

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    रिश्ता ही नहीं हैं।

बाबा आधव: याने कोई संवाद होता है तो शिवसेना का होता है, क्यों? तो उनको वो ऐज ऐसा रहता है कि थोड़ी हिंसा के प्रति उसके, और ढोल बजाने की बात हैं। अभी इतने ढोल देते हैं, क्या कहूं आपको ढोल तो समझती हो। लेकिन हम बोलते हैं लड़ो। लेकिन लड़ाई में भी एक बात होती है, मैं कहता हूँ चल जेल में जायेंगे। जवान लोग जेल में आने के लिए तैयार नहीं। आई हैड बीन इन जेल फॉर ५३ टाइम्स अॅट द ऐज ऑफ़ ८० अल्सो आई हैड बीन इन द जेल।  इसका मुझे गर्व नहीं है। लेकिन मैं चाहता हूँ के नॉन-वायलेंट मीन्स से आंदोलन की इज़्ज़त भी बढ़ जाती हैं। आप मुझसे जो बात करे,  आपने मुझे बुलाया इसलिए कि आप मेरी इज़्ज़त कर रहे हो।  मेरी इज़्ज़त नहीं हैं।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    काम की इज़्ज़त हैं

बाबा आधव: जो काम की इज़्ज़त है, वो हो जाती हैं। तो मुझे ऐसा लग रहा है की मैं तो निराश नहीं हुआ। आई ऍम नॉट डिसहर्टनेड।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    पुणे में, हिंदुस्तान में भारत की सबसे पहले बच्चियों का स्कूल १८४८ में शुरू किया गया, ज्योतिबा और सावित्रीबाई फुले ने, वहां पे उस्मान शेख और फातिमा शेख का साथ था, वहीं भीलेवाङा में आज बैंक चल रहा है। ये जो एक ऐतिहासिक एक ठिकाना पूना में जो बना है, उसका आज हमारी पाठ्यपुस्तकों में ज़िक्र नहीं है…तो हम किस तरह का इतिहास हमारे बच्चो को पढ़ा रहे हैं?

बाबा आधव: बात ये हैं कि आज कल की पढाई में मैं कह रहा हूँ की सेकुलरिज्म की किताब आप पढ़ाती हो। सर्व धर्म समभाव, और उसका नतीजा एक है अगर तुकाराम को लिया तो ज्ञानेश्वर को लेना पड़ता है…क्योंकि वो ब्राह्मण है…ये कुणबी हैं। फिर संत नामदेव को लिया जाता हैं की वो टेलर हैं और ये दूसरा रोहिदास हैं वो चर्मकार…ये हमारा हाल हुआ हैं। आप जितने सवाल पूछेंगी उतनी वजह हैं, लेकिन अनुभव हम पाते हैं, कि कही तो एक जगह भी आना पड़ेगा और कहना पड़ेगा, नहीं कॉन्स्टिटूशन में जो लिखा हैं, जो मेमोरेंडम दिया हैं, उसको खुद को अर्पित किया हमने।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    सो नीड्स फॉर कोंस्टीटूशनल वैल्यूज एंड एजुकेशन। तो क्या बाबा आधव जी एक टेक्स्ट बुक हमे लिख के देंगे?

बाबा आधव: नहीं, मैं तो इनकार भी नहीं कर सकता हूँ।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    नहीं आप जरूर काम शुरू कीजिये।

बाबा आधव: बात इसकी हैं की थोड़ी फुरसत वाली बात होती हैं, और मेरा दिमाग ऐसे हैं.…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    नहीं आपको फुरसत निकालना हैं, इतने अनुभव हैं आपके।

बाबा आधव: मैं क्या कह रहा हूं कि एक आदत स्वीकारो…कुछ भी समझो, लेकिन कर सकता हूँ, नहीं ऐसा नहीं…मैं नहीं मेरे साथी हैं और, मैं अकेला काम नहीं करता हूं, वो जो मेरे साथी हैं वो करते है। इसलिए तो मैंने कहा कि जो प्रार्थना आपको मैंने कही थी…

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    थोड़ा सा गा दीजिये हम टेप कर लेंगे।

बाबा आधव: वही बात हैं, देखो फुले जी ने इतनी अच्छी प्रार्थना कही हैं।

सत्य सर्वांचे आधी घर,

सर्व धर्मांचे माहेर,

जगामाजी सुख असा रे,

खास सत्याची ती पोरे,

सत्य सुखाला आधार,

बाकी सर्व अंधकार,

आहे सत्याचा बाजोर,

काढ़ी भंडाचा तो नीर,

सत्य आहे ज्याचे मूळ,

करी धुरतांशी बाराल,

बल सत्याचे पाहुनी,

बहुरूपी झले मनी,

खरे सुख नटा नोहे,

सत्य ईर्ष्या वर्जो पाहे,

ज्योति पार्थी सर्व लोका,

व्यर्थ दंभा पेटू नका,

सत्य सर्वांचे आधी घर,

सर्व धर्मांचे माहेर।

सर्व धर्मांचे माहेर।

तीस्ता सेतलवाड:    बहुत बहुत शुक्रिया बाबा आधव जी, बहुत बहुत शुक्रिया।

The post It is religion-based politics that refuses to root out caste: Baba Adhav in conversation with Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On 4 December 2025, a division bench of the Bombay High Court (BHC), comprising Justices A. S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha R. Bhonsale granted bail to Hany Babu, more than five years after his arrest by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020. The court also refused the NIA’s request to stay the bail order pending appeal.

The bail has been granted principally on the ground of prolonged pre-trial incarceration without commencement of trial, and pending framing of charges or discharge applications. The bench relied on the ruling in UOI vs K.A.Najeeb, which held that the constitutional courts could grant bail, despite statutory restrictions under the UAPA when the fundamental rights are at stake. This decision, after repeated earlier bail rejections under the stringent anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is widely seen as a watershed moment, and marks a potential turning point in how courts deal with prolonged UAPA detentions.

Case History: From 2018 onwards, the arrests

The flashpoint was the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Koregaon Bhima (1818), an event of deep historical significance for Dalits. On 31 December 2017, a public event called Elgar Parishad was held at the historic Shaniwarwada Fort in Pune, reportedly attended by tens of thousands, with speeches, cultural performances, slogans, etc.

The following day, 1 January 2018, in an entirely unconnected sequence of events, violence broke out near the memorial at Koregaon Bhima, between sections of the far Hindu right Maratha and Dalit Communities, which led to stone-pelting, mob clashes, along with several injuries.  Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)  has traced the actual sequence of events and the manner in which the narrative was twisted to protect supremacists. This may be read here. The initial and first crimes recorded in the FIRs were against Milind Exbote and other extremists, details of which may be read here.[1]

Ironically, a month later, in February 2018, the Supreme Court criticised the Maharashtra state government and probe agencies for the slow progress in their probe against Milind Ekbote, questioning the agencies’ claims that he was allegedly ‘untraceable’. At the time the BJP’s Devendra Phadnavis was Maharashtra Chief Minister and the Shiv Sena, an alliance partner.

Within weeks of the filing of the first FIR dated January 2, 2018, later that month, a Pune-based businessman with controversial leanings filed a First Information Report (FIR) blaming revolutionary speeches made at the Elgaar Parishad for the January 1 Bhima Koregaon violence, in which one person was killed. Youth leader and MLA from Gujarat, Jignesh Mevani and student leader, Umar Khalid, approached the Bombay High Court for quashing the FIRs filed against them. Details can be read here. On April 22, 2018, one of the key witnesses of the violence, a 19-year-old Dalit woman who had lost her house in the violence was found dead in a well. Her family alleged that she was being pressured to withdraw her statements in the case. What followed was a spate of arrests of activists and advocates including Professor Hany Babu. Details of the sequence of arrests may be read here.

While the immediate event was treated as anti-Dalit violence, later, even the police under the Fadnavis government and then the NIA investigations invoked an alternate narrative: that the Elgar Parishad was not a benign cultural gathering, but part of a broader “conspiracy aiming at destabilisation of the government.

After the first FIR in January 2018 by a ‘Pune-based businessman’, and on November 15, 2018 the Pune Police filed the first chargesheet. On January 24, 2020, the case was transferred to the NIA, which thereafter treated this as a terror/conspiracy case under UAPA, rather than as caste or communal violence.

Over time, a total of 16 individuals; a mixture of activists, academics, lawyers, and cultural performers; came to be known as the accused group in this case, widely referred to as “BK-16”.

These included: Hany Babu (associate professor at Delhi University), Ramesh Gaichor, Sagar Tatyarama Gorkhe, and other lawyers, socio-cultural activists from groups like Kabir Kala Manch (a Dalit cultural troupe), and writers/academics.

Timeline of Key Arrests and Legal Steps

The Allegations & Charges: What the State Has Claimed

The prosecution’s theory (as advanced by NIA), presented the Elgar Parishad event as a front for an “urban Maoist conspiracy” aimed at destabilising the State, fomenting caste-based violence, and reviving the banned CPI (Maoist). The accused (BK-16) were allegedly engaged in organising, recruiting, propagating ideology, and planning activities in consultation with Maoist leadership.

In Hany Babu’s case, Frontline reports that NIA alleged that he had “deep involvement” with CPI (Maoist) and purported front organisations such as Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF). They accused him of facilitating coordination, communication, and perhaps recruiting or organising under the guise of academic/social-justice work.

On July 28, 2020,  Hany Babu was arrested on the accusation for commission of offences punishable under Sections 121, (waging, attempting or abetting waging of war against the Government of India) , 124A (Sedition), 153A ( promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, place of birth, etc) , 115 (Abetment of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life- if not committed), 120B (criminal conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code, 1872 and Sections 13 (punishment for unlawful activities), 16 (punishment for terrorist act), 18 (punishment for conspiracy), 18A (organising of terrorist camps), 20 (being member of terrorist gang or organisation), 38 (membership of terrorist organisation) and 39 (support given to terrorist organisation) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. (Read Sabrang’s previous coverage on Bhima Koregaon case: NIA court denies bail to Hany Babu and Kabir Kala Manch members)

On 19 September 2022, a division bench of the Bombay High Court (Justices N. R. Borkar and N. J. Jamdar) rejected Babu’s regular bail plea, alleging his ‘direct involvement’ in the.  Babu then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court of India (SC). However, on 3 May 2024, he withdrew the SLP, opting instead to approach the Bombay High Court again, in light of changed circumstances, namely that several co-accused had since been granted bail.

After a reversal of order on 3rd Oct, 2025, BHC finally granted bail on 4th December, 2025.

Contentious Forensic Evidence

One of the most contentious and legally critical aspects of the case is the reliance on digital evidence, particularly materials allegedly recovered from the laptops/computers of the accused persons.

The Caravan, in an interview with Hany Babu, reports how only 2 books were seized from his bookshelf, which were books related to GN Saibaba’s arrest.

For analysing the integrity of the digital evidence, Independent forensic firms, notably a US-based firm, Arsenal Consulting, engaged by the defence, concluded that at least some of the devices seized were compromised well before seizure, via remote-access malware. In particular, the device of co-accused Rona Wilson was found to have been infected by a remote-access trojan (RAT) which could have allowed third-party actors (hackers) to plant incriminating files without the user’s knowledge.

Experts have also pointed to the absence of proper forensic safeguards: no contemporaneous hash-value recording at time of seizure, no secure chain-of-custody protocols, and repeated vulnerabilities in how the state forensic labs handled the data.

This raises a fundamental question: if evidence may have been planted remotely, can it form a reliable basis for charging people with terrorism, conspiracy or membership of banned organisations? Critics argue the answer should be no, or at least the court must insist on independent re-forensic audits. Many civil-society, digital-rights and human rights organisations, as well as academics, see the case as a stark example of “investigative overreach.”

Procedural History, Bail Denials and Relief to the Accused

Over the years, other accused have secured various forms of release: bail, medical bail, house arrest, or default bail. Some key examples:

• Sudha Bharadwaj — granted bail by special NIA court in December 2021 after over three years in jail.
• Varavara Rao (elderly poet-activist) — granted medical bail in May 2021.
• Anand Teltumbde — granted bail by Bombay High Court in November 2022.
• Gautam Navlakha — released on house arrest (later bail) per Supreme Court order in 2024.

These developments reflect a gradual, though uneven, judicial acceptance that indefinite pre-trial detention under UAPA may not be sustainable, especially given long delays, weak evidence, and possible procedural or forensic infirmities.

Significance of the 2025 Bail Order for Hany Babu – Legal & Political

The Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to Hany Babu represents a legally and politically significant moment in the Bhima Koregaon prosecutions, particularly given the long pattern of bail denials under the UAPA, where courts have often accepted the prosecution’s case at face value at the pre-trial stage. By intervening after years of prolonged incarceration, the order signals a renewed judicial willingness to treat personal liberty as a substantive constitutional guarantee rather than an abstract principle that must yield to the severity of the charges.

It also reinforces a growing line of jurisprudence visible in recent Supreme Court and High Court decisions that recognises that under UAPA, where trials can stretch over decades, pre-trial detention must not be permitted to operate as de facto punishment. Politically, the decision comes at a time when the foundational claims of the Bhima Koregaon investigation have been shaken by multiple independent digital forensic analyses indicating that key incriminating files on co-accused devices were likely planted through sophisticated malware attacks.

Against this backdrop, the bail order may be read as an acknowledgement of the dangers of excessive reliance on contested digital evidence and the need for heightened judicial scrutiny in cases built around electronic material. More broadly, the ruling underscores enduring constitutional anxieties around the criminalisation of dissent, surveillance-driven investigation, and the shrinking space for academic freedom and civil liberties. In doing so, it places the spotlight back on the core democratic concern that national security laws must not be used to stifle legitimate political expression or to detain individuals indefinitely without trial.

The bail order granting bail to Hany Babu may be read here.

Broader Constitutional and Human Rights Concerns

The Elgar Parishad case, and the recent bail order for Hany Babu, raise profound constitutional and human-rights questions:

1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
   • The prolonged pre-trial detention of Hany Babu under the UAPA directly implicates Article 21, which has been repeatedly strained as incarceration stretches into years without trial.
   • The case underscores how UAPA’s stringent bail conditions risk converting pre-trial custody into punishment.
2. Article 22 – Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest & Detention
   • The heavy procedural restrictions under the UAPA dilute safeguards envisioned under Article 22, including timely production before a magistrate and meaningful opportunities to seek bail.
   • The difficulty of challenging the prosecution’s case at the bail stage restricts the accused’s ability to exercise constitutional protections.
3. Article 19(1)(a), (b), (c) – Freedom of Speech, Assembly & Association
   • Many accused, including Babu, were engaged in academic, human rights, or cultural work—activities protected under Article 19.
   • The characterisation of dissent, research, social justice advocacy, or association with civil liberties groups as “Maoist links” raises concerns about criminalising constitutionally protected expression.
4. Academic Freedom as Part of Article 19(1)(a)
   • Babu’s position as a university professor brings into focus the chilling effect such prosecutions have on academic inquiry and the freedom to engage with controversial or critical political ideas.
   • Criminalising academic networks or scholarly communication undermines the constitutionally recognised value of intellectual freedom.
5. Article 14 – Equality Before the Law & Protection Against Arbitrary State Action
   • Allegations of planted evidence and compromised digital devices raise serious questions about arbitrary or unfair investigative practices.
   • Article 14 requires investigations to be free of bias, fabrication, and selective targeting—standards potentially violated in the Bhima Koregaon probe.
6. Due Process & Fair Trial Rights (Articles 14 & 21 read together)
   • Extraordinary delays in filing chargesheets, framing charges, and commencing trial jeopardise the right to a fair and timely trial.
   • The case exemplifies systemic concerns over investigative overreach, reliance on contested digital evidence, and inadequate judicial oversight; issues that collectively erode due process protections.
7. Risk of Criminalising Dissent & Shrinking Civic Space
   • The prosecution narrative reflects a broader pattern where activists, lawyers, academics, and cultural workers face national-security charges for political or ideological opposition.
   • This drift signals a constitutional danger where UAPA becomes a tool to suppress dissent rather than genuinely combat terrorism.

In conclusion, the case highlights systemic faults in India’s criminal justice system when dealing with UAPA: over-broad charges, misuse of digital evidence, poor forensic standards, unlimited pre-trial detention, delayed trials, and weak institutional safeguards. While the Hany Babu bail marks a turning point in the history of pre-trial detention cases, the real challenge arises when the trial begins. Mere bail does not lead to acquittal. Ultimately, the case is emblematic of the tension between national security discourse and constitutional democracy: a test of whether India’s liberal democratic institutions can resist attempts to criminalise dissent.

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

[1] This hate-spewing supremacist surfaced once again after a period of relative silence—17 years to be precise– on January 1, 2018 when the violence unleashed against peaceful Dalits assembled at Bhima Koregaon to commemorate 200 years of the battle, was reportedly provoked by the machinations of extremists of the Hindutva brigade. Ironically, a month later, in February 2018, the Supreme Court criticised the Maharashtra state government and probe agencies for the slow progress in their probe against Milind Ekbote, questioning the agencies’ claims that he was allegedly ‘untraceable’. At the time the BJP’s Devendra Phadnavis was Maharashtra Chief Minister and the Shiv Sena, an alliance partner.

Related:

Bhima Koregaon case: NIA court denies bail to Hany Babu and Kabir Kala Manch members

Bhima Koregaon case: Prof Hany Babu to remain in pvt hospital till June 15

Seek court’s permission before discharging Hany Babu: Bombay HC

Not Proscribed, Not Prima Facie: The labyrinth of bail under UAPA

The post Bombay HC bail for Hany Babu signals a critical reassessment of the Bhima Koregaon Case appeared first on SabrangIndia.