The incident reportedly occurredd in the BMC office premises when the official, Additional Commissioner Ratnakar Sahoo, was in the midst of conducting a grievance redressal meeting at his chamber. According to a subsequent police complaint that Sahoo filed, six-seven unknown individuals entered his chambers and aggressively asked whether he had spoken to Jagannath Pradhan, a BJP leader from Bhubaneswar. Sahoo said he responded that he had a telephonic conversation with Pradhan earlier in the day. The group then allegedly started assaulting him without any provocation and demanded that he apologise to Pradhan. Why they wanted him to apologise was not made clear.

“They beat me brutally in full public view with an attempt to murder, in the presence of public representatives, i.e. corporators of the BMC, BMC officers, staff, and citizens. While I was trying to shield myself and plead for mercy, they threatened me and attempted to forcibly drag me into a vehicle, saying that I must come to Jagannath Pradhan and apologise,” Sahoo said in the complaint.

The assailants also allegedly snatched his mobile phone and uploaded scandalous content as his WhatsApp status, he said.

The incident has sparked state-wide outrage, with BMC officials staging a cease-work protest blocking a major road outside the BMC office. They demanded the immediate arrest of the miscreants. There was heavy police deployment within the BMC premises following the incident.

Police sources said they have registered a case and arrested three persons, including BMC corporator Jeevan Rout, in connection with the attack. Police said they were investigating the involvement of other persons.

Pradhan the BJP leader thereafter described the incident as unfortunate and said that he knew two people allegedly involved in the attack. He also said the BJP government would not shield anyone and would take action against all those involved in the assault.

The issue has also triggered a political row, with the Leader of Opposition and former chief minister Naveen Patnaik calling the attack “appalling”. He demanded “immediate and exemplary” action in the matter.

His post on “X” states:

I am utterly shocked seeing this video. “If a senior officer is not safe in his own office, then what law and order will ordinary citizens expect from the government?” Patnaik asked in a post on X.

Demanding immediate action to restore faith in his government, Patnaik said the government shouldn’t allow heinous acts to go unpunished. “The people of #Odisha will not forgive this,” he said.

Today, Shri Ratnakar Sahoo, OAS Additional Commissioner, BMC, a senior officer of the rank of Additional Secretary was dragged from his office and brutally kicked and assaulted in front of a BJP Corporator, allegedly linked to a defeated BJP MLA Candidate.

What is more appalling is that this happened in broad daylight, in the heart of the capital city-#Bhubaneswar to a senior officer while he was in his office, hearing grievances of people.

I ask @MohanMOdisha

Ji to take immediate and exemplary action against not only those who perpetrated but more importantly the political leaders who orchestrated and conspired this shameful attack. The people named by the officer in his FIR have behaved like criminals. If a senior officer is not safe in his own office, then what law and order will ordinary citizens expect from the Government

I only hope that Shri Majhi directs immediate action to be taken to restore faith in his government and not allow this heinous act to go unpunished like the assault on an officer by the ex-Governor’s son. The people of #Odisha will not forgive this.

I am utterly shocked seeing this video.

Today, Shri Ratnakar Sahoo, OAS Additional Commissioner, BMC, a senior officer of the rank of Additional Secretary was dragged from his office and brutally kicked and assaulted in front of a BJP Corporator, allegedly linked to a defeated… pic.twitter.com/yf7M3dLt9C

— Naveen Patnaik (@Naveen_Odisha) June 30, 2025

The post Odisha: senior Bhubaneswar municipal official assaulted on duty, told to “apologise” to BJP leader appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The ED dragged Sanjay Raut in a case wherein he was not at all involved. This book is a great account of how power is being misused. It shows how the agencies function now,” said NCP(SP) Supremo Sharad Pawar.

Book stirs controversy

Earlier, speaking about his book, Raut said that while he wrote 80 percent of his book in the prison, he took another two years after getting out of the prison to complete the rest of the book.

“This book is political. Those who want to work while in the opposition must read this book. This book is not for those who only seek power,” Raut said.

Along with Thackeray and Pawar, Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale, renowned writer-lyricist Javed Akhtar and several leaders from the Maha Vikas Aghadi including NCP (SP)’s Jayant Pawar, Anil Deshmukh, Shiv Sena (UBT)’s Aditya Thackeray, Anil Parab, were present at the event.

Raut’s book, which has made several explosive allegations, has come under fire from the ruling party. In his book, Raut has claimed that Sharad Pawar helped PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah avoid legal action after the 2002 Gujarat riots. He also said that Shiv Sena founder Balasaheb Thackeray helped Amit Shah when his arrest was imminent in the same case. He has also written a chapter about the arrest of Jharkhand’s independent journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh, who has been jailed since July 2022 under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The book has been met with jibes and criticism from BJP leaders over its explosive content. However, while speaking at the book launch, Pawar questioned how did the people in power know what’s in the book without even reading it.

Raut as well as the other dignitaries also mentioned several other opposition leaders like Saket Gokhale, Anil Deshmukh, AAP’s Sanjay Singh, who faced action under PMLA.

The use of PMLA

Pawar was part of India’s Union Government when the PMLA was enacted. Speaking at the book launch, Pawar shared that he had tried to warn the then UPA-led government of the potential dangers of this Act.

“It was P Chimdambaram who had proposed to the cabinet an amendment to the PMLA. I had informed the then prime minister Manmohan Singh that this proposal is very dangerous, we shouldn’t do that. If we lose power, it might be used against us. And then, we lost power and the first person who was arrested using PMLA was P Chidambaram himself,” Pawar said.

He was speaking of a provision under the PMLA, which puts the onus of proving innocence on the accused in order to even get bail, instead of the investigating agency having to prove his crime. The Supreme Court, last year, took note of this provision multiple times, criticising it.

Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale, who was also arrested under the PMLA in Gujarat, was present at the book launch. He also drew attention to this provision of the Act.

“This law used to break parties, people. ED is being used for that. Our judiciary has failed completely, that’s why this is happening. The judiciary is responsible for overseeing that the government functions properly. But when your cases don’t see the light of the day, the government does not fear anyone. It’s people like Sanjay Raut who instill that fear back in the government,” Gokhale said.

Pawar also pointed out how the UPA and the NDA governments used this law. He said that while the UPA government had evoked this law for a probe against nine people, there were no arrests made. However, he said that the NDA government has used this act against 19 leaders from different opposition parties and arrested most of them.

Shiv Sena (UBT) Chief and former CM Uddhav Thackeray also alleged that the Centre has been using agencies to intimidate the state governments.

“When I was the CM, Maharashtra’s Director General of Police (DG) and Chief Secretary (CS) were called by the CBI. Mamata Banerjee [West Bengal CM] also faced the same thing, her CS then resigned. If these people hold the strings of people using government agencies, how are we supposed to rule?” Thackeray questioned.

He also demanded that the states should also be allowed to force acts like PMLA. “Our country is a union of states. The states have just as much rights as the Centre, as they should. The states should also be allowed to use the ED, the Income Tax department, the CBI, the PMLA. Let’s put those found accused in the Central Government behind bars and ask them to prove that they are innocent,” Thackeray said.

Courtesy: Indie Journal

The post Sanjay Raut’s Prison Memoir Stirs Political Storm appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Signatories like Mrs Lalitha Ramdas, wife of Admiral Ramdas (retired), former Chief of the Indian Navy, Vishnu Bhagwat (retired), former Chief of the Indian Navy, Lt. General (Retd) Vijay Oberoi, Vice Admiral (Retd) Sanjay Misra, Major M G Devasahayam IAS (Retd), and EAS Sarma IAS (Retd) among several others have stated that such derogatory statements made by these two Ministers can “adversely affect the morale of the serving personnel of our Armed Forces resulting in the weakening of national security and territorial integrity.” Hence the signatories have demanded that both the Centre and the State should therefore initiate decisive action against the two Ministers for making such derogatory statements under the relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.  The Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh should remove forthwith the two Ministers from the State Cabinet. The central leadership of the concerned party should publicly condemn the derogatory statements made by the two Ministers and initiate action against them.

The signatories, in their open letter, dated May 17, 2025, have added that, because of the stringent Rules and discipline in the Armed Forces its members are unable to respond to these derogatory statements and humiliation. Therefore, as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces they have urged President of India, Draupadi Murmu to defend the honour and self-respect of the brave Indian Armed Forces by directing appropriate action against those indulging in such denigration and preventing the same in the future.

It may be recalled that statements made by deputy chief minister, Madhya Pradesh, Jagdish Devda and minister Vijay Shah came in for sharp criticism some weeks ag during the recent Indo-Pak conflict. First, Madhya Pradesh Minister Vijay Shah made a public statement referring to Col Sofia Qureshi, the official spokesperson for the defence forces as the “(terrorists) wiped the sindoor of our sisters and daughters (in the context of the recent Pahalgaon attack by terrorists), and we sent their own sister to give it back to them in kind ” openly betraying his gender-insensitive, non-secular, divisive state of mind, a statement that tends to deprecate women in general, incite communal fissures and insult the defence forces.

Second, Deputy CM Jagdish Devda, speaking at a training session for civil defence volunteers in Jabalpur on Friday, controversially told the audience, “Pradhanmantri ji ko bhi dhanyawad dena chahenge, aur pura desh, desh ki wo sena, wo sainik, unke charno mein natmastak hain. Unke charno mein pura desh natmastak hai. Unhone jo jawab diya hai (We would also like to thank the Prime Minister; the entire country, the country’s Army, its soldiers are bowing at his feet. The entire country is bowing at his feet. For the response he gave).”

The open communication also recalls and records that earlier, Shri Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of UP made a similar derogatory statement against the defence forces by calling the armed forces, “Modiji ki sena” in April 2019. Through all of these remarks that affect the dignity and morale of the forces the Government has chosen to remain silent in the matter leading to the repetition of the humiliation of the Armed Forces!

Besides, Shri Adityanath’s earlier statement and Shri Devda’s latest statement showed their outright disrespect for the letter and spirit of Article 53 of the Constitution, which defines executive power of the Union as follows:

“(1) The executive power of the Union  shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.

 (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.

 (3) Nothing in this article shall—

 (a) be deemed to transfer to the President any functions conferred by any existing law on the Government of any State or other authority;” In other words, under Article 52(2) of the Constitution, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall vest in the President of India and no other authority.

Finally, the letter records that it is unfortunate that, instead of questioning and condemning these “despicable acts” senior leaders of BJP at the national level and their handlers are supporting them. In conclusion, the signatories have stated that while expressing solidarity with Col Sofia Qureshi and the Defence Forces in general for their unwavering commitment to safeguarding national security, we unequivocally condemn the statements made by the two Ministers.

Signatories:

1. Mrs Lalita Ramdas, Wife of Admiral (Retd) L. Ramdas, Former Chief of the Naval Staff
2. Admiral (Retd) Vishnu Bhagwat, Former Chief of the Naval Staff
3. General (Retd) Vijay Oberoi
4. Vice Admiral (Retd) Sanjay Misra
5. Major M G Devasahayam IAS (Retd)
6. EAS Sarma IAS (Retd)
7. Surendra Nath IAS (Retd)
8. Prof (Retd) Sebastian Morris (IIM, Ahmedabad)
9. Thomas Franco (People First)
10. Joe Athialy (Centre for Financial Accountability)
11. Dinesh Abrol (Delhi Science Forum)
12. Soumya Dutta (MAUSAM, Environmental Activist)
13. V Sridhar (Journalist, Bengaluru)
14. Prasad Chacko (People’s Union for Civil Liberties )
15. Vijayakumar (Indian School of Social Sciences)
16. Smita Ramanathan (Social Activist)
17. R. Sankari (TNGPA)
18. Teesta Setalvad (Human Rights Activist)
19. Vivekanandan (Retd Professor, MUTA)
20. K Ashok Rao (Patron All India Power Engineers Frederation)
21. Kaushik Majumdar (Social Activist)
22. Vivekaanandhan (TANRECTA)
23. Praveer Peter (Sajha Kadam (for Peace & Harmony))
24. Venkatesh Athreya (Retd Professor, Economist)
25. Nityanand Jayaraman (Chennai Solidarity Group)
26. Amanulla Khan (All India Insurance Employees’ Association)
27. Tara Rao (Eddelu Karnataka)
28. Uma Shankari (Social Activist)
29. Meera Sanghamitra, Social Activist (NAPM), Telangana
30. Madhu Bhaduri, Delhi
31. Malathi N Thomas, Karnataka
32. Prabhat Patnaik, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
33. Arun Kumar, Haryana
34. Cedric Prakash, Gujarat
35. Arun Kumar
36. VIVEKANANDAN TD, Tamil Nadu
37. Ambassador K P Fabian, Delhi
38. Ashok Sharma IFS (Retd), UP
39. Elizabeth D’Souza , Mumbai
40. A. NATHAN – PRESIDENT – NEW LIFE PEOPLE’S PARTY, TAMILNADU
41. Sushil, Karnataka
42. Beena Choksi, Maharashtra
43. Sathish Kumar, Tamil Nadu
44. Sabina Basha, Karnataka
45. Biraj Mehta, Maharashtra
46. Rahul George, Karnataka
47. Sabala, Maharashtra
48. John Dayal, Delhi
49. Chellappa, Tamil Nadu
50. Maj Sharat Chandra Singh (DGM BOI Retd) Uttar Pradesh
51. H S Gujral Punjab
52. SHARAD BEHAR, IAS Retired       Madhya Pradesh
53. Armaity Irani, Maharashtra
54. Mariadasa, Tamilnadu
55. Prabhat Sharan (Senior Journalist), Maharashtra
56. Ravi Budhiraja IAS(Retd), Maharashtra
57. Ashish Kajla, Delhi
58. Aruna Rodrigues, Madhya Pradesh
59. AlokPerti, Delhi
60. Calvin Dsouza, Goa
61. Madhu Bhaduri, Delhi
62. Peter, Tamilnadu
63. Bob Monteiro, Karnataka
64. Mariadasan, Tamilnadu
65. Amanulla Khan, Karnataka
66. MOHAMED IMRAN, TAMILNADU
67. S M Sebastian, Tamilnadu
68. Pranjali Tripathi, Delhi
69. Kirity Roy, MASUM, West Bengal
70. Aditya Mukherjee, Delhi
71. Narendra Panjwani, Maharashtra
72. M.Fidelis , Tamil Nadu
73. Ramesh Dixit, Uttar Pradesh
74. Koshi Philip, Tamilnadu
75. Neera Burra, New Delhi
76. Antony Ravi J, Tamil Nadu
77. Maya Krishna Rao, Karnataka
78. ivy lobo karnayaka
79. S Om Prakash, Karnataka
80. Kripa Noronha, Karnataka
81. Mridula Mukherjee, Delhi
82. Hilarius , Tamilnadu
83. Justice D. Hariparanthaman (Retd)
84. Sarbendu Guha, West Bengal
85. T.R. Colaso, Karnataka
86. Samrat, Delhi
87. Captain Subbarao Prabhala IN Retd, Karnataka
88. Naveen Yadav, Delhi
89. Nagalsamy , Tamilnadu
90. Varsha, Telangana
91. Gleetus, Tamil Nadu
92. Anjali Bhardwaj, Delhi
93. Amrita Johri, Delhi

The post Save the honour and self-respect of India’s Armed forces: Former army naval personnel & citizens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This post was captioned “LOL Salam, Comrade” – a take on communists’ use of ‘lal selam’ or ‘red salute’. It was posted as a response to a press statement by the CPI(ML) condemning ‘Operation Kagar’ – a joint operation by the paramilitary, state police, and various security forces in the dense and hilly forests of Telangana and Chhattisgarh, in which officials said 27 ‘Maoists’ were killed.

The CPI (ML) had condemned the “cold-blooded extra-judicial killing of Maoist activists and Adivasis in Narayanpur-Bijapur.”

The party statement also said that Shah’s celebratory post reflected that the “state is spearheading Operation Kagar as an extra-judicial extermination campaign and taking credit for killing citizens and suppressing Adivasi protests against corporate plunder and militarisation in the name of combating Maoism.”

The connotations of a cauliflower 

While the Union government’s response has indeed been celebratory, it was, in fact, the presence of a cauliflower in BJP Karnataka’s X post that stunned online commentators.

The use of the cauliflower has become a de-facto stand-in for a call to Muslim genocide.

Capable of circumventing hate speech laws online, it was most recently widely shared by pro-BJP political commentators following the communal clashes in Nagpur.

The imagery is understood to refer to the 1989 Bhagalpur anti-Muslim riots in which over 900 people were killed. In the village of Logain, 110 Muslims were killed and buried in a farm. It is well known that cauliflower saplings were planted over their dead bodies.

In recent years, this reference has been revived by alt-right groups, particularly the trads. Some of its less disguised versions in the past have portrayed hijabi women as cauliflowers.

In their social media bios, many Hindutva ‘trads’ refer to themselves as “cauliflower farmers.”

Trads constitute the extreme end of the Hindutva universe, and comprise youth who want to serve as self-styled civilisational warriors online. Trads view other right-wingers as too liberal and call them ‘raitas’. They also consider PM Narendra Modi too weak to further the real Hindutva agenda due to his alleged appeasement of Dalits and inability to deal with the Muslims with an iron hand.

In 2022, The Wire had reported on these trads following the ‘Sulli Deals’ case in which a hundred Muslim women were ‘auctioned’ on an app.

The Wire had reported how trad iconography is usually designed to ‘trigger’ minority communities with shockingly violent ‘humour’. They include memes depicting the beheading of Muslims, caricatures of Muslims being mowed under their cars, Dalits depicted as “cockroaches” being gassed, or rape victims (who are either Muslims or Dalits) being urinated upon by a saffronised ‘Pepe the Frog.’

The report had said how this dependence on iconography draws directly from Western neo-Nazi creators and in some cases imitates the content of alt-right 4chan activists. References like the cauliflower meme or the invocation of the Ranveer Sena, a banned anti-Dalit militia accused of massacres in Bihar, are local additions.

While the BJP had so far steered away from this extreme discourse and gory trad imagery, the recent caricature is testament to its growing tolerance.

In the past year, trad iconography has become more acceptable in mainstream Hindutva lexicon, especially while addressing Muslims. In the many caricatures the BJP have posted since January 2024, especially during their 2024 Lok Sabha campaign, they adopted some of this imagery and symbols – like Pepe the Frog, a depiction of PM Modi dressed in saffron and taking on the Muslims in green, and an animation of Muslims taking away property and the belongings of the Dalits.

In 2022, in a post on X captioned Satyamev Jayate (truth alone prevails) a caricature was shared by the official handle of the Gujarat BJP featuring a dozen skull-capped and bearded men in white kurtas being hanged. Social media users and commentators drew comparison with Nazi caricatures and the tweet was taken down by Twitter. But the party said that they were not targeting any particular religion and that the cartoon was based on real incidents – a Gujarat court convicting terrorists for the 2006 Ahmedabad blasts.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post What the ‘Cauliflower’ in BJP Karnataka’s X Post Means appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While paying lip service to Ambedkar, RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat equated him to RSS Founder K.B. Hedgewar, “Both dedicated their lives to social progress and held a common aspiration for nation’s growth”. Now what is common between Ambedkar’s dream of social equality, democratic, federalism, abolition of caste and RSS founder’s vision of a Hindu nation, based on the ancient holy books upholding caste system and patriarchy? These are polar opposites. But as paying tribute to Babasaheb has become mandatory for all for electoral compulsions, Bhagwat has to stretch things to pull Babasaheb in the ambit of list of their icons.

Not to be left behind, Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India went on to criticise the Indian National Congress “Congress has become the destroyer of Constitutions. Dr Ambedkar wanted to bring in equality… Babasaheb wanted every poor, every backward to be able to live with dignity and with their heads held high, to have dreams and complete them…Congress has always treated SCs, STs, and OBCs as second-class citizens.”

In a way Narendra Modi is distorting the facts. It is true that Ambedkar was critical of Congress and Gandhi at various occasions; still it was Congress and Gandhi with whom he interacted maximally to achieve his goal of social equality in particular. Gandhi is much criticized for betraying the cause of Dalits. ‘Poona Pact’ has come under severe criticism, but all said and done this was the most practical step towards affirmative action for Dalits. Gandhi was so touched by Ambedkar’s positions that he understood the ills of caste in a deeper way and made eradication of untouchability as his major mission for the next two years. Going from village to village, ensuring that Dalits are permitted entry into the temples and are able to draw water from the village wells. This also became the mission for many Congress workers.

This is the time when BJP ideology founders were singing praises for the values of the caste system and arguing that it is this system which has given stability to Hindu society! Ambedkars yeoman service to the nation was recognized by the national leaders and they were keen that Ambedkar should be part of the Constituent Assembly, In her biography ‘BABASAHEB: My Life with Dr. Ambedkar’, Savita Ambedkar quotes correspondence between Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of Constituent Assembly, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister-elect, Sardar Patel, the Home Minister, G. Mavalankar, Speaker and BG Kher, the CM of Bombay state to stress how all the top Congress leaders were extremely keen to have her husband elected to the Constituent Assembly unopposed. For instance Patel wrote to Mavalankar on July 5, 1947: ‘Dr Ambedkar’s nomination has been sent to PM. I hope there would be no contest and he would be returned unopposed so that he could come here on the 14th.’ “

Congress ensured that Babasaheb won the seat for Constituent Assembly and made its Chairman. The participation and Contribution of Babasaheb, well supported by Congress, yielded the fruit in the form of the Indian Constitution. On the contrary Organiser, the mouthpiece of RSS, the father organization of BJP, came out heavily saying that this Constitution has nothing Indian about it. The ideological mentor cum fellow traveller of RSS, Savakar was against it saying the “Manusmriti is the Constitution for India.”

Same way Ambedkar handled the responsibility of drafting the Hindu Code Bill, with Nehru standing behind him. The Code was opposed by some elements within but mainly by the ideologues of Hindu Nationalism, who went on to burn the effigy of Ambedkar on 12 December 1949. While RSS-BJP are upholding the Brahmanical version of Hinduism Babasaheb had already declared that I was born a Hindu but I will not die a Hindu.

Similarly as RSS was talking of Hindu Rashtra, Babasaheb in revised edition of the book on Pakistan, opposed it on the ground that this may pave the way for Hindu Raj which will be the biggest tragedy for us. BJP’s Hindu nationalist ideology is deeply opposed to Babasaheb’s dream of Annihilation of caste and has been deeply opposed by Modi’s ideology. Modi’s parent organization RSS has floated Samajik Samrasta Manch, which talks about harmony among caste rather than its annihilation.

Currently some ideologues are arguing that since annihilation is not easy, so let us resort to strengthening sub caste identities to get them more privileges! This will be a disaster for the values of our Fraternity, the core principle of Indian Constitution. RSS is also trying to wean sections of Dalits by co-option and social engineering. RSS organizations are also inventing icons of sub communities among Dalits and giving them values of patriarchy, and caste hierarchy along with Anti Muslim slant.

One could see the response of BJP to implementation of Mandal Commission, which was a major step towards social justice. In response, BJP did not oppose it for electoral calculations but instead intensified their Ram Temple campaign. The way BJP is floating the identity issues and derailing the path of social justice is highly despicable. At the same time through various manoeuvres it has also succeeded in turning a section of deprived youth as its foot soldiers who dance in front of mosques with naked swords.

On the top of that it is Rahul Gandhi of Congress who brought to fore the implementation of the Constitution as the major path for social and economic justice. Putting the blame on the plight of Dalits/OBC and neglect of Babasaheb by Congress is like putting the truth on its head! At the same time it is putting the blame of one’s own doings on others.

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

The post Standing Truth on its Head: Ambedkar and BJP agenda appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The United Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Bill 2024, introduced by the ruling BJP-led Union government, has now been referred to the Joint Committee of Parliament (JCP) for further examination. Upon reviewing the draft Bill and observing reactions from the Opposition, media, and academics, it becomes evident that a crucial aspect is missing from the discourse. The responses from Muslim organisations follow a familiar pattern: an outright rejection of reforms deemed as religious matters, coupled with a resistance to any state intervention aimed at reforming these areas. This has been the typical stance on issues like Muslim Personal Law, Muslim University governance, and Waqf administration.

This reaction necessitates an intervention to bring forth a broader perspective.

The scope of the flawed bill

The proposed Bill ostensibly addresses the management and mismanagement of Waqf properties, rather than delving into the theological or historical legitimacy of Waqf as an institution. It seeks to address concerns about the assets held under Waqf, the proceeds they generate, and the persistent corruption within the Waqf administration. However, some Opposition leaders seem to be treating the Waqf Bill in the same way as they have treated other religious matters, such as the Shariat Act of 1937 and the governance of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).

It is important to clarify that, regardless of the Supreme Court’s upcoming verdict on AMU’s minority status, structural reforms in the governance of AMU will remain unresolved. For instance, the AMU will still have a preponderance (over 80%) of membership of the internal teachers in the Executive Council. In all these cases, there exists a widely held belief within all Muslim communities that the state should not interfere, that no reforms should emerge from within the community, and that these matters are divinely ordained and therefore immutable. This belief perpetuates a sense of Muslim exceptionalism, exclusivity, and isolation from the state.

Both the government and the Opposition appear to be engaging in the usual “vote-bank politics”, addressing their respective constituencies based on identity. This approach has already caused significant harm to India’s Muslim communities, due to the bizarre stance of their own self-serving elites as well as the ruling and intellectual elites of the country. It is crucial for ordinary Muslims to be informed by their theological and secular institutions (such as Deoband, Nadwah, Aligarh Muslim University, Jamia Millia Islamia, and MANU Hyderabad) that Waqf, arguably, does not have explicit Quranic or Shariah mandates. Imam Abu Hanifa (699-767) also didn’t approve of it as an institution indisputably and explicitly sanctioned by Sharia. Waqf-e-Aam and Waqf-e-Aulad (types of Waqf) are often more about circumventing Quranic inheritance rules and preventing division among heirs than about altruism and charity and public welfare. They are not divinely ordained.

The historical context of Waqf

In the latter half of the 19th century, Waqf in India became a means to fund identity politics and secure representation in colonial governance institutions. Gregory Kozlowski’s 1985 book, Muslim Endowments and Society in British India, highlights that most Waqfs in India emerged during this period when the colonial state turned land into a commodity. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898), a visionary pragmatist, was aware of both the British Indian judges’ concerns about Waqf-e-Aulad (Waqf for descendants) and the self-interests of the Muslim landed aristocracy. British judges rightly saw Waqf-e-Aulad as circumvention of Quranic inheritance laws and in their judgments invalidated many of these Waqfs, as they lacked charitable elements. This is why they kept invalidating such Awqaf, annoying the Muslim landed elites turning into Waqifs.

Sir Syed therefore, proposed a middle path. In 1879 –as member of the Viceroy’s Legislative council– he introduced a draft bill advocating that Waqf properties be used also for more meaningful and tangible charitable purposes such as education, healthcare, and social welfare, not just for mosques and madrasas. He argued that if managed properly, Waqf could be a powerful tool for social change and community development, brings out Prof. Shafey Kidwai’s column (India Today, August 13, 2024). Sir Syed’s proposal was also published in 1877 in his periodical Tehzibul Akhlaq, with the title, ‘A Proposal for Salvaging Muslim Families from Extinction and Destruction’. This was vehemently opposed by orthodox Muslims who saw the insistence on charity and public welfare as an innovation (bidat). As a result, Sir Syed succumbing to the conservatives and orthodoxy withdrew the bill.

In contrast, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the cunning politician, by the second decade of the 19th century, jumped in to protect the interests of the Muslim landed elites who needed the Waqf Validation Act of 1913. This act, supported by the colonial state, aimed to safeguard the landed assets of these elites, who were seen as potential allies against the growing anti-colonial movement. The Swadeshi Movement, which opposed the religious-communal partition of Bengal, had forced the colonial state to annul the (Bengal) partition in 1911-192, necessitating a political arrangement to secure Muslim support.

Such a political arrangement to safeguard the monopoly on landed assets is equally true for the Mahanths and their Mutths .Unfortunately this institution of Mahanths and Maths remains under-explored by the historians of peasant and agrarian relations. Prakash Jha’s film Mrityudand (1997) attempts to depict some of the degenerative aspects of the institution of Mahanth, but it eventually turned more into a melodramatic movie.

The BJP has got no intent of introducing a similar Bill to reform this Hindu institution of Mahanths’ Muths? This is therefore an additional reason why Muslim communities look upon the proposed Bill with alarming concern, as it creates an impression of targeting only Muslims with discriminatory treatment. One more apprehension is, turning the Bill into a tool to harass Muslims by local majoritarian forces and outfits in those smaller villages and mohallas where written deeds of a Waqf and mosques aren’t available.

The nature of Waqf: Neither divine nor immutable

Waqf is not the exact equivalent of charitable endowments in the “Christian” West. In many cases, as said earlier, it is a means of circumventing Quranic inheritance regulations. Just as the community’s elites have misled others into believing that Shariat is divinely ordained, Waqf has also been portrayed as an immutable, divinely sanctioned institution. This deception needs to be exposed for the greater common good.

Moreover, the looting and encroachment of Waqf assets have been a recurring issue across the Islamic world since the 7th century AD. This mismanagement occurred with the earliest prominent Waqfs, such as Khyber and Sawad (Iraq) during Caliph Umar’s time, and the Rumlah (Palestine) Waqf established in 912 AD by a person named Faíq (which has earliest surviving written record-stone inscription). All three “earliest” Waqf estates have since become non-existent, as their assets were looted by military and other elites!

Waqf mismanagement and loot

The looting of Waqf assets is almost as old as the institution itself. In India, there is a consensus that Waqf properties suffer from gross mismanagement and looting. Despite numerous legislations, the loot continues unabated. The existing laws, therefore, require a thorough re-examination. Unfortunately, neither the ruling party nor the Opposition has highlighted this consensus in the Lok Sabha, in media, or in academic debates. The near silence of academics from institutions like AMU and JMI on this matter is particularly notable.

The “Muslim-friendly” “secular” Opposition refrains from addressing Waqf loot because doing so would justify the need for the Bill. This also explains why their interventions in the Lok Sabha are superficial and merely rhetorical. The Opposition cannot afford to state frankly that Waqf is not divine and requires human intervention for reform in order to prevent its loot and redirect it for the welfare and empowerment of the Muslim communities.

Academics, theologians and other knowledge elites have been shallow in their interventions. They have not voiced the concerns and apprehensions they discuss privately about the implications of the proposed Bill. The Muslim community needs to see through this politics, not only of the politicians but also of their own knowledge elites. Why aren’t these academics helping legislators and the community understand the issue in a holistic manner?

The real threat posed by the Bill is to the elites within the Muslim community. The proposed Bill challenges the exclusive Muslim representation in Waqf Boards as mandated by Section/clause 14 of the Waqf Act of 1995. This section, which deals with the social composition of Board Executives, is being questioned in the new Bill. The provision for Muslim-exclusive privileges in Waqf representation is being removed, which is a significant point of concern, alarm and contention. Another alarming concern is the proposal to do away with the enabling provisions enshrined in section 40 of the Waqf Act, 1995. It gives powers to the Board to acquire, issue notices or hold an enquiry into the ownership of the property that it has reasons to believe belongs to the Waqf.

Proposed reforms

While the proposed Bill has its deep flaws, the lack of detailed articulation by its opponents hinders constructive debate. Historically, state intervention has sometimes yielded positive results, as seen in the Mohsin Waqf of Hooghly, where the British colonial state established the Mohsin Hooghly College in 1836, going beyond the original terms of the original Waqf. The Waqf Bill of 2024 should explicitly incorporate such progressive steps. Parliament should legislate to ensure Waqf Boards take similar rewarding actions.

Muslim communities must abandon their collective hypocrisy. For instance, the practices, such as Instant Triple Talaq (ITT), are un-Quranic yet they stubbornly refuse to reform themselves as much as they resist the state intervention. Despite, Ali Miyan Nadvi’s assurance to the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the AIMPLB refuses to provide for maintenance to divorced Muslim women. They keep opposing the Supreme Court verdicts in this regard.  Likewise, adoption of a child is not prohibited by Quran (it only prohibits concealing the biological paternity of the child adopted) and custody is absolutely valid as was the case with Zayd the adopted son of the Prophet Muhammad, yet, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) refuses to reform it. Their stubbornness is immensely supported by most of the academics of the modern institutions such as the AMU and JMI. Political leaders like Akhilesh Yadav, Asaduddin Owaisi, and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) must take a clear stand on this issue.

Some Tentative Recommendations for the Waqf Bill 2024

1. Creation of a Waqf Tribunal: Establish a tribunal consisting of judges of the rank of High Court judges as the exclusive body for resolving Waqf cases, with the Supreme Court as the appellate authority.
2. Enhanced Land Survey: A Land Survey Commissioner should be comprised of at least three officers in each Board.
3. Mandatory Gender and Caste Representation: The Waqf Board’s composition should be diversified and this should be made mandatory (with Muslims of all castes and women as members).
4. Digital Transparency: Waqf assets, deeds, and real estate records should be digitized and made publicly accessible online for transparency and vigilance.
5. Promotion of Charitable Activities: The Bill should mandate that Waqf properties be used aggressively for establishing modern educational and research institutions, especially quality residential schools under Article 30 of the Constitution.
6. Strict Penalties for Mismanagement: Penalties for those who grab, usurp or mismanage Waqf properties should not be diluted. Rigorous imprisonment should be enforced.
7. Memorialization of Waqf Creators: Waqf creators (Waqif) should be remembered in a befitting manner, be honored, and their deeds digitized and made publicly available.
8. Defined Roles for Mutawallis: The roles of Mutawallis (Waqf administrators) should be clearly defined, with fixed tenures of 3-5 years. Eligibility criteria should be established for their appointment.
9. Accountability Mechanisms: A robust check and balance mechanism should be implemented for both Mutawallis and Waqf Boards.
10. Mandatory annual auditing, and the income of the Waqf Boards should be made available for public vigilance.

Hope, the stakeholders would listen to the above words!

(The author is a Professor of History, Aligarh Muslim University)

The post The Waqf Bill 2024: An Open Letter to the Joint Committee of Parliament, the Opposition, and India’s Muslim Communities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

To traverse that road map, the RSS and its founders adopted a twin strategy from the beginning. The Hindu Mahasabha was dedicated to develop its footprints and the RSS to penetrate different sections of society by building a cadre based organisation. This twin strategy continued from the days of Hindu Mahasabha through Jana Sangh and consolidated in the BJP era.

There is something to be learnt by all those who wanted to transform India built on a constitutional secular democratic republic to a people’s democracy (Marxists). To first and foremost is, to preserve constitutional democracy. This requires setting out goals with clarity, identifying ‘enemies’, chalking out a strategy to weed out those that harm society, and lay the foundation of achieving respective goals.

On all these fronts the RSS has travelled a long way and its implications and consequences are before us to see. I am not going to recount all those here except emphasising only one aspect. A political tactical line is not the patented right of the Left or Communist Parties. Any party that aspires to rule any country will ultimately will evolve its own tactics which includes accepting a united front as a tactic whenever such a force is weak.

The RSS has fought hard to come out of the woods and stay relevant within an Indian political context at a time when free India was being built on the basis of the universal values inscribed in Preamble of the Constitution.

The historiography of the RSS will be enriched if one critically looks into the role that this exclusivist organization played during Partition, more particularly in western and eastern parts of India, the two regions affected tragically by a sudden change in demography.

In the immediate aftermath of Independence and Gandhi’s assassination by one of its followers (January 30, 1948), the RSS went into political oblivion. Since then, it has worked patiently among the masses defusing its ideology in the name of being a ‘cultural and charitable organisation’ and at the same time, resorted to united front tactics with the then Congress and constituent partners of the Samyukta Vidhayak Dal.

Despite such occasional encounters with positions of power, the RSS felt that mass politics required far more pragmatic approach and transformed its political arm Jan Sangh into the re-incarnated, BJP. Even then, instead of coming up with its own original ideological road map as prescribed by Golwalkar, the RSS guided the BJP to traverse the path of Gandhian socialism and what not. Despite this, it could not achieve effective pace in political growth and relevance. It therefore came out open in the public, again, with a twin strategy.

The first strategy was focused on framing a debate on the lines of pseudo secularism primarily aimed at undermining one of the key pillars of the basic structure of the Constitution. Coupled with this, the second strategy was to publicly own up to the RSS’ core agenda of militarising Hindus and Hinduising society, and, in fact, building a new kind of civil society around this twin strategy. Demonising constitutionalists and free thinkers and transforming ‘Maryada Purushottam Ram into warrior on alien or alienated sections of society’ both were pivotal in the RSS spectacular rise to power.

The RSS, therefore, never faltered in identifying its enemies, nor resorted to a nuanced approach while dealing with them. In this journey, the RSS clearly held Communists in India to be among its prime enemies.

This was academically acknowledged by the Left in general and the CPI (M) in particular, decades ago. In a document released within in the lead up to the 2019 general elections, titled, In Defense of constitution and democracy, the party stated, “It is for this reason, and also for an alternate policies in the economic sphere promoted and practiced by CPI (M) led state governments, that the BJP Modi led Hindutva platform has openly declared the left and the CPI (M) in particular as its main ideological foe.”

Based on the road chalked out in In Defense of constitution and democracy, the CPI (M) in its Central Committee meeting held in December 2018 concluded, “The Political Resolution has pointed out that our line is not of equidistance between the BJP and the Congress. Hence in states where the main contest will be between the BJP and the Congress, such as Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and others) we should fight just one or two seats and campaign generally for the defeat of the BJP.” The resolution also called on the cadre to “contribute towards maximizing the pooling of anti-BJP votes based on our political line”.

Subsequently, while analysing the 2019 general election results, the Central Committee was not hesitant in cautioning the Congress party when it said, “The Congress party failed to put in place, on the ground, the unity of opposition secular parties when it was campaigning for in the run-up to the elections. In Uttar Pradesh, the Congress contested independently.”

The review further observed in “Overarching Hindutva Identity that “The BJP-RSS orchestrated an overarching Hindu identity during the campaign which cut across, to some extent, the social and ethnic divides amongst the people.  This was accompanied by micro-level social engineering to successfully combat the dominant caste based social alliances which were forged in some states. The BJP identified the non-dominant castes and individual tribal communities for targeted messaging and propaganda. This was accompanied by physically contacting voters by the RSS and its network, consolidating the BJP’s outreach.” This was observed in documents from the 2019 October Central Committee meeting.

Further the CPI (M) also observed that “The BJP is aggressively working to establish a unitary State structure in India. This is required for them to advance the RSS’s fascist agenda of converting the secular democratic Republic into its ideological political project of `Hindu Rashtra’ (This should appropriately be read as “Hindutva Rashtra”)”.

The document identified four key challenges,

“a) The BJP has won this decisive victory on the basis of unprecedented money power and full support of the international and domestic corporates.  The trajectory of anti-people economic reforms favouring the big business and the rich are bound to intensify by imposing greater miseries on the vast majority of the people.  The Party will take the lead in rallying the maximum sections of the people in struggles against such economic assaults.

“b) The consolidation of the Hindutva communal polarisation will lead to greater attacks on the rights of the religious and linguistic minorities, worsening their security concerns and livelihood.  The safeguarding and strengthening of secularism, as enshrined in our Constitution, will be taken up by the Party drawing in the broadest sections in these struggles.

“c) The penetration of the RSS in all Constitutional authorities that happened during the last five years is bound to further intensify.  This will lead to undermining such Constitutional authorities in order to facilitate the transformation of the Constitutional Republic into the ideological project of the RSS, “Hindutva Rashtra”.  The defence and strengthening of all Constitutional authorities will be championed by the CPI (M) along with all other forces willing to join these struggles. 

“d) The focus of the BJP’s victory was based on the need to establish a `security’ state in India, the infringement upon the rights of individuals specifically the right to dissent will sharpen.  Already ominous indications are evident. The assaults by private armies under one pretext or the other against Dalits and religious minorities will intensify. The rights of working people and religious, linguistic minorities will come under attack leading up to witch-hunting.  The CPI (M) will take the lead in mobilizing the broadest segment of our people who cherish democratic rights and civil liberties to meet these challenges squarely.”

Further, the party also discussed at its Central Committee meeting in January 2020, the intensified challenges from the RSS and stated that,

“The situation in Kashmir continues to remain far from normal even after five months. Apart from the merciless denial of elementary human and democratic rights of the people, the situation has devastated the J&K economy, imposing further misery on the people. All these measures are clearly aimed at consolidating Hindutva communal polarisation and seeking to replace the secular democratic Indian Constitution with the RSS fascist agenda of “Hindu Rashtra”.

It is on this understanding that the CPI (M) adopted its Tasks on Cultural Front document in August 2020 wherein it identified the twin dangers being faced by the country.

The Tasks on Cultural Front clearly stated, “Both neo-liberalism and communalism, domestically, thus seek the homogenisation of public tastes.   The former is to strengthen its cultural hegemony and to reap super profits. The latter, in addition to this, is to pave the way for the establishment of a rabidly intolerant fascist State – the RSS vision of `Hindu Rashtra’.

The RSS’ slogan of “one country, one people, one culture” can acquire a real status and meaning only through such homogenisation, negating the very fundamental foundations of India’s rich cultural diversity.  Further, both neo-liberalism and communalism seek to divert the attention of the people away from day-to-day problems and importantly weaken their struggle against the existing exploitative order.”

The Party also warned secular and democratic forces that the BJP, utilised the period of the pandemic and the consequent disruption of normal life and activities due to lockdown restrictions etc. to advance the core RSS agenda of converting India into their conception of a rabidly intolerant fascist `Hindutva Rashtra’.

The CPI (M) acknowledged that the establishment of such a `New India’ is not a product of this Modi government alone. It has a history of nearly a century – from the founding of the RSS in 1925, Savarkar’s theses on Hindutva and its ideological construct and the RSS’ organisational structure –all with the goal of a fascist `Hindu Rashtra’ by Golwalkar in 1939.

Armed with this understanding, the Party went in to preparations for its 23^rd Congress at Kannur, at which the Political Resolution in the opening chapter itself assessed that, “The period since the 22nd Congress has seen the further consolidation of the BJP, which being in government is aggressively pursuing the Hindutva communal agenda of the fascist RSS. It has mounted a multi-pronged attack through the pursuit of rabid neo-liberal reforms strengthening the communal-corporate nexus, looting of national assets, promoting crony capitalism, legalising political corruption and imposing full-fledged authoritarianism.”

While observing the qualitative change in the political landscape off the country, the Political Resolution also stated, “Para 2.2: Since then, there has been the intensification of the above right wing offensive. However, with the return of the Modi government with a larger number of seats and vote share began the aggressive furthering of the Hindutva communal agenda of the fascist RSS. What is unfolding, particularly, in the post 2019 period, is on the lines laid down in the CPI-M Party Programme:

“The Bharatiya Janata Party is a reactionary party with a divisive and communal platform, the reactionary content of which is based on hatred against other religions, intolerance and ultra-nationalist chauvinism. The BJP is no ordinary bourgeois party as the fascist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh guides and dominates it. When the BJP is in power, the RSS gets access to the instruments of State power and the State machinery. The Hindutva ideology promotes revivalism and rejects the composite culture of India with the objective of establishing a Hindu Rashtra.” (Para 7.14)

“The threat to the secular foundations has become menacing with the rise of the communal and fascist RSS-led combine and its assuming power at the Centre. Systematic efforts are on to communalise the institutions of the State, the administration, the educational system and the media. The growth of majority communalism will strengthen the forces of minority communalism and endanger national unity. The support of sections of the big bourgeoisie for the BJP and its communal platform is fraught with serious consequences for democracy and secularism in the country.” (Para: 5.7)

“Party should fight against all forms of intrusion of religion in the economic, political and administrative life of the nation and uphold secular and democratic values in culture, education and society. The danger of fascist trends gaining ground, based on religious communalism must be firmly fought at all levels.” (Para: 5.8)

Political Resolution of CPI(M)’s Kannur (23rd) Congress also identified the emerging class contradictions in India in the aftermath of the farmers united struggle that forced a retreat by BJP government as follows: “Para 2.123: Class Implications- New class conflicts have emerged during the course of this struggle, between the big bourgeoisie in collaboration with international finance capital and the entire peasantry, including sections of the rich peasants.

“Para 2.124: Secondly, conflicts amongst the ruling class partners are also emerging between the big bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and the non-big bourgeoisie, particularly those belonging to the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSME) sector, on the other.

“Para 2.125: Thirdly, BJP’s drive to establish its complete political hegemony in the country by destroying the federal structure of our Constitution and, in its place, erect a unitary State structure is creating conflicts between the Central government and elected state governments. Some regional parties, who head state governments, who were supporters of the BJP in Parliament and those who vacillated and remained largely neutral in their support to the BJP in Parliament, are being forced by this hegemonic drive of the BJP to come out in opposition, particularly during this kisan struggle.

“Para 2.126: The emergence of such conflicts amongst the ruling class partners creates possibilities that must be utilised by the exploited classes, particularly the working class, poor peasantry and agricultural labour, to intensify the class battles against the bourgeois-landlord order.”

“Para 2.127: Such possibilities for advancing the class struggle have emerged with the growing coordination between the working class trade union movement, the peasantry and the agricultural labour. Such developments began much earlier and since 2018 made significant advances through joint movements of these sections. This growing unity in struggles must be strengthened further in the coming period.”

It is in this backdrop, coupled with a solid ideological footing and absorbing the international experiences in fighting fascism, that it was decided to implement the Party’s 23^rd Congress directions and the CPI-M worked towards formation of INDIA block which played a crucial role in halting the roller coaster ride of the BJP to Parliament.

The CPI (M) has a programmatic understanding which clearly states that the BJP is ideologically guided by the RSS which has fascist characteristics.

In Telugu there is a saying. You can’t sow rice and reap wheat. Thus the ideological mentoring of RSS which sows fascist tendencies cannot result in any other outcome except that of transforming the country into a fascist Hindu Rashtra, armed with a militant Hindutva ideology.

This is what the understanding with which former General Secretary, CPI (M), Sitaram Yechury led the Party and this is the background in which the present Polit Bureau coordinator, Prakash Karat, acknowledged and hailed the contribution of Sitaram Yechury in expanding the Party’s understanding of the RSS and its fascist efforts to transform our constitutional secular democratic republic into fascist Hindu Rashtra. Whether in strength or in weakness, the RSS has never wavered in naming its enemies with determination.

Today, at this crucial hour, the question before the Party which is organizing its 24^th Congress at Madurai is whether it will further strengthen the ideological contribution of Sitaram Yechury or whether it steps back and wavers in naming the principle class enemy, which is the BJP guided by the fascist RSS.

Will the CPI-M lose ground, step back and retreat into its self-created binary confusion? The formulation on whether to give primacy to struggles against globalisation or to struggle or to strive and struggle to protect the constitutional secular democratic republic (and thereafter) to transform it into people’s democratic republic?

That is the crucial poser that presses for an answer.

(The author, Y Venugopal Reddy, is cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad and had contributed a series of articles in the run up to 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) at Hyderabad)

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

Part 1, 2 and 3 can be read here

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 1

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 2

Evolution of the Left [CPI (M)] approach towards Hindutva politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 3

Related:

Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India

CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces

Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today

The post Ram saved RSS-BJP from the brink, will Sitaram rescue the CPI (M)? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These sites remained covered, beneath cloth and tarpaulin, as if their existence had to be hidden.

These sites were mosques, scattered across various parts of Uttar Pradesh. The idea, Uttar Pradesh police officials confidently put forth, was that this way, Hindu processionists could celebrate Holi freely and “any law and order situation can be avoided”, cops told journalists. Chief minister Adityanath was less coy. Speaking on an ANI podcast, he likened Holi processions attempting to throw colours at mosques to Muharram processions casting a “shadow” over temples.

As a result, nearly 200 mosques were engulfed entirely with tarpaulin sheets, invisibilising them for the convenience of Hindu revellers.

For a while, we have seen how Hindu festivals have become playgrounds for Hindutva groups to stoke tensions and violence.

But what happened in Uttar Pradesh on Holi is a new piece of the Hindutva playbook that has slowly been emerging in various spots like Hyderabad, on Ram Navami – the idea that mosques and Muslim localities are, essentially, obstructions in the way of Hindus to celebrate their festivals or take out processions.

These obstructions, since they cannot be done away with entirely, can at least temporarily be erased, made non-existent and invisibilised using tarpaulin sheets.

That the state agrees and encourages the covering of mosques is worrisome for multiple reasons: by doing so, the state is unwittingly admitting to the dangerously high level of radicalisation in the populace, so high that the mere sight of a mosque can unbalance their mental faculties and cause them to attack it.

The state, in covering the mosques, is making another confession: that it is either unwilling (believably) to control such mobs or, worryingly for us, it is now longer possible to rein them in, even if the police want to. Which is why, it is easier to now appease them and hope that they aren’t annoyed or displeased with any Islamic sights, lest they are forced to riot.

History repeats….

Across different states, the processions are now a common form of communalism, a medium through which you can create small, local-level tensions and clashes between Hindus and Muslims.

Such localised communalism helps top political leaders escape accountability and also ensures that hate stays off the headlines, owing to its localised nature – most media outlets would describe these as “minor” clashes.

In 2023, a report titled ‘The Routes Of Wrath’, attempted to look at these seemingly localised clashes that occurred in 2022 and realised that they had occurred in 12 different states, on the occasions of Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti: Gujarat, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Goa, West Bengal, Karnataka, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh.

Like Holi this year, both these occasions also fell in the holy month of Ramzan in 2022.

Historically, riots during festivals are not uncommon.

One of the earliest such instances recorded in history is in Salem in 1882, where a series of “bloody riots” were ignited with the passing of a Hindu procession before a mosque. Combined with this was an insistence by Hindu revellers in these processions to play music, right in front of mosques, as a way to assert their supremacy and provoke.

The signs of such a music-driven communalism were visible over a century ago, when in 1893, when Bal Gangadhar Tilak reconfigured the Ganpati festival to become a vehicle of mass mobilisation. Songs that came to be associated with the festival later, were tracks with incendiary words, like “What boon has Allah conferred upon you, that you have become Mussalmans today? Do not be friendly to a religion which is alien, do not give up your religion and be fallen”. Such rhetoric was helped in no small part by Tilak’s assertions, according to a paper by Julian Lynch, an ethnomusicologist, that “called upon Hindus to boycott the Muharram festival that year” and instead, celebrate Ganpati with fervour.

For decades, festivals remained the vehicle of mass Hindu mobilisation, commonly leading to violence and tensions.

In 1921, Mahatma Gandhi was forced to mention these riots in his Young India article, reminding Hindus that it “is not a matter of vital importance for him to play music while passing a mosque,” and asked both communities to respect each other’s concerns.

…but with a difference

Even if we are tempted to believe that these riotous processions are simply a continuation of our country’s communal past, there are now significant departures in the way these events are organised and unfold now.

To begin with, our New India’s leaders use these occasions to actively create divisions, unlike Gandhi’s approach of trying to mediate and unify.

Adityanath, for instance, criticised Muslims for even expecting that their mosques won’t be covered in colour.

“Do Muslims not wear colourful clothes? Muslims wear more colourful clothes than Hindus. Then why do you have a problem with colours? These are double-standards…this can’t be accepted,” Adityanath said. The host of the ANI podcast did not bat an eyelid and moved on to her next question straight away.

In addition, the nature of the organisations backing such processions has changed immensely.

In Jharkhand, where Ram Navami is possibly the biggest public festival and sees anywhere between tens to hundreds of thousands of Hindus walking through the streets and typically end their procession at a temple, old-timers and police officials had told me how the festival had changed.

From being organised by various smaller Hindu groups, known as Akharas or mandals, in the recent years, Hindutva outfits like the Bajrang Dal started taking the lead role either by inserting their men into these mandals or pushing them away entirely.

Often, these processions, then, insist of changing the routes of these traditional marches by trying to take them through Muslim-dominated areas or localities which have major Muslim mosques, like it was the case in Kasganj in 2018, when Hindutva outfits insisted on a ‘Tiranga Yatra’ through Muslim localities and proceeded, even though the local administration denied them permission. The result was a series of violent clashes and the death of a 22-year-old Hindutva activist Chandan Gupta.

Like in Kasganj as well as in the case of the Bhagalpur riots of 1970 which left 74 dead, groups would insist on stopping these processions before mosques or Muslim homes and deliver hate speeches and slogans. However, now, this role has been outsourced to Hindutva pop (H-pop) music.

This music, with its incendiary lyrics, can often be worse than the most rabid of hate speeches—they contain overt calls for violence, threats against Muslims, calling them “Babur Ke Pillo”, containing claims of temples beneath mosques, declarations of India as an impending Hindu Rashtra.

Not too far from where I live, in Mumbai’s Malvani locality, this played out like a template:

On March 30, 2023, in Mumbai’s Malvani locality, a Ram Navami procession stopped before the Hazrat Ali Masjid. A song blared from loudspeakers:

“Main Hindu jagaane aaya hoon (I have come to awaken Hindus).”

The song had a call to arms: Hindus were ready to pick up swords to defend the motherland, it said.

Thousands of men joined in, chanting Jai Shri Ram at the Muslims watching from nearby buildings. One Muslim, provoked, hurled footwear at the procession. The response was swift – Hindus retaliated with stones and sticks. The police barely prevented a full-scale riot.

That night, the Malvani police filed an FIR. Only Muslims were named. The provocation – the music, the slogans – was not an offence. The reaction was.

This has become yet another hallmark of police action in today’s India: the provocation is never an offence, but those acting on that provocation are perpetually the offenders. Hindutva vigilantes have carefully cultivated this situation: some of them tell me how they have given instructions to their workers and members in such processions to keep their phone cameras rolling constantly, in search of “evidence” that Muslims disrupted the event.

Any time a Muslim falls for the provocation, like in Malvani, these carefully-edited videos are instantly released online to sway public opinion about fixing responsibility for these incidents, never mind the unrecorded provocations. The provocative songs, slogans and speeches, which vigilantes are otherwise very proud of, seldom makes it to these videos.

The procession has now acquired a distinct digital after-life, thanks to these videos. These processions live on, through these internet videos and, as a result, in public memory as “examples” of when Muslims attacked peaceful Hindu processions. These examples become the fodder for hate speeches that “warn” Hindus of such Muslims and threaten Muslims with dire consequences, like Maharashtra BJP minister Nitesh Rane has been trotting around and doing in the state, little concern for the 20 hate speech FIRs that he faces and the constitutional post he occupies as a minister.

Historically, such clashes and riots would result in high-level inquiry commissions being appointed in order to investigate the incident, fix accountability if the police action was biased or lacking, and derive learnings so that the incident isn’t repeated.

These commissions, from the Raghubar Dayal commission that looked into the 1967 Solapur riots, to the DP Dadon commission of inquiry that investigated the Bhiwandi, Jalgaon and Mahad riots of 1970, to a three-member commission investigating the Bhagalpur 1989 riots, all saw retired or serving Supreme Court or High Court justices seeking to ensure that the State was not seen as being inherently biased or partisan in imparting justice.

In today’s India, the state itself orchestrates these events. It permits provocation, ensures skewed police action, and follows up with bulldozers – demolishing Muslim homes after every riot, ignoring Supreme Court orders against such demolitions.

In this New India, what Uttar Pradesh does today, the remaining BJP-ruled states follow tomorrow. We should brace for more tarpaulin sheets.

Kunal Purohit is a journalist, documentary filmmaker, podcaster and the author of H-Pop: The Secretive World of Hindutva Popstars.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post In UP’s Mosque Coverings, a New Chapter From The Hindutva Playbook Unfolds appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yechury’s approach of boldly confronting contemporary political reality and strengthening the Party was persistent and he started working out an alternative political tactical line in the place of isolationist one.

Way back in 2016 itself the former general secretary of the party who still holds strings of the organisation in his own, unique way wrote an opinion piece in Indian Express concluding that, “The threat that is sweeping through India today is one of authoritarianism, not fascism, he argued. Nor are the conditions present for a fascist regime to be established, even though a ‘determined effort is being made to reorder society and polity on Hindutva lines”

This enables us to understand that immediately after taking over the reins of the Party at the 21^st Congress, against all odds, Yechury started working on this hypothesis, What is Hindu Rashtra, and his opinion piece in Asian Age on the 10^th anniversary of Babri demolition wherein he called the demolition the beginning of fascism in India. Accordingly in the Polit Bureau meeting that was held in October 2017 he proposed an alternative line which was shot down by a majority in the Polit Bureau, then.

With unwavering commitment, however, he pursued the same with the Central Committee that was held in January 2018 where the Draft Political Resolution was adopted. In that meeting he could persuade the central committee to follow the Party Constitution which permitted him to present an alternative political tactical line backed a by minority in the Central Committee. After the January Central Committee meeting, the Tripura election results were out where the Party got routed shockingly at the hands of BJP. This helped Yechury to firm up this commitment about the need for an alternative political tactical line.

Hence, by the time the party assembled itself for the 22^nd Congress to finalise the prospective Political Tactical Line (PTL), there was a buzz in the air that in that, at the conference Yechury, would be asked to resign as general secretary. Several leaders like P Madhu, the than Andhra Pradesh secretary of the Party openly campaigned advancing this sectarian line handed down by BV Raghavulu and others that the PTL has already been settled and the question before the 22^nd Congress was merely to elect a leader (probably like BV Raghavulu, in his opinion) to steel the Party along those lines. The present day secretary of the Andhra Pradesh CPI-M unit, V Srinivasa Rao also publicly told a gathering at Bhimavaram that if Sitaram Yechury was not willing to follow the principle of democratic centralism (which implied an agreement with the sectarian political tactical line backed by the majority in the Central Committee) he would have to step down as general secretary. These narrations are but the symptoms of the malaise. If one gets into details and narrates all part of the criticism(s) against Yechury such as being a ‘Congress agent’, the list will be unbelievably long!

To come back to the main thrust of this article, the draft political resolution then summed up the three years of BJP rule, “2.78 The BJP has consolidated its political position. Under the Modi Government, there has been an intensification of the neo-liberal capitalist exploitation of the people; the secular-democratic framework of the Constitution is being eroded with the pursuit of the Hindutva agenda; and the BJP-led government has bound India closer to the imperialist strategy of the United States. All this marks the onset of an authoritarian-communal regime.” It accordingly called for “2.81 The Party should step up its intervention to advance the struggles of various sections of the working people against the economic burdens being imposed upon them. Combining these struggles against the impact of the neo-liberal policies with the struggles against the communal agenda is the way to advance the struggle against the BJP-RSS combine. The struggles against the neo-liberal 40 policies, Hindutva communalism and authoritarianism, are all inextricably interlinked.”

Having said that much, the draft political resolution stopped at the gates, when it came to the question of dealing the elephant with the elephant in the room, the looming Congress question. This confusion is well articulated in the draft, “2.90: Our tactical approach should be to cooperate with the Congress and other secular opposition parties in parliament on agreed issues. Outside parliament, we should cooperate with all secular opposition forces for a broad mobilisation of people against the communal threat. We should foster joint actions of class and mass organisations, in such a manner that can draw in the masses following the Congress and other bourgeois parties.” This paragraph reads close to the para 2.89 wherein it states, “2.89 The Party will cooperate with INDIA bloc parties in Parliament and, on agreed issues outside Parliament. The Party will join hands with all secular democratic forces on issues of authoritarian onslaughts against democracy, the use of draconian laws to suppress dissent and the opposition to efforts to subvert the Constitution and the institutions of the State.”

If we read through these paragraphs carefully and analytically, one can decipher that Prakash Karat was sticking to his original understanding formulated way back in 2016, in the recent opinion piece in Indian Express. This is why those who are willing to fight against the fascist RSS and its political offshoot which acquired fascistic characteristics being in power are so worried.

The 22^nd Congress stands as one of the milestones in the long journey of Communist movement in India. This can only be compared to that of the one in 1964 where a threadbare discussion took place about characterising the Indian bourgeoisie state.

The open and fierce discourse witnessed then at the conference split vertically. The minority who backed the Yechury’s alternative tactical line inched ahead, day by day, with more and more delegates are realising what lay ahead for them. Some delegates among those who participated in the discussion –like the ones from Punjab– encountered Prakash Karat on the dais itself by asking him, “When would you agree with the fact that India is on the tenterhooks of fascism? After our cadre and Party passes through gas chambers?” Even after being stung by such penchant criticism, Prakash stick to his line by advocating and repeating his way of thinking, the line. To put it simply, a party that has come to power through Constitutional means cannot not undermine the same.

Against this, the minority resolution presented by the then General  Secretary, Sitaram Yechury, batted for all-out war against BJP and RSS by joining hands with all secular forces including the Congress. Amidst the heated debate, perhaps for the first time in the history of CPI (M), delegates demanded a secret ballot on the Political Resolution. The situation reached a head where it was clear that if, such a secret ballot was allowed, the majority line proposed by Prakash Karat and others, was set to be defeated. Realising the intensity and sense of the house, the majority came down to a kind a battered down position and accepted partially the tactical line advocated by Sitaram Yechury. They agreed that defeating the BJP and ousting the government from the Centre was key.

Given the importance of the line then adopted, and this interpretation (by the writer) is a means to help readers understand the CPI(M) through its own documents. I am, therefore giving below the full text of a significant portion from the CPI-M’s 22^nd Congress Party documents (on the political line):

“Political Line

2.116 (i) Given the experience of the nearly four years rule of the Modi Government it is imperative to defeat the BJP government in order to isolate the Hindutva communal forces and reverse the anti-people economic policies.

(ii) Thus, the main task is to defeat the BJP and its allies by rallying all the secular and democratic forces.

(iii) But this has to be done without having a political alliance with the Congress Party.

(iv) However, there can be an understanding with all secular opposition parties including the Congress in parliament on agreed issues. Outside parliament, we should cooperate with all secular opposition forces for a broad mobilization of people against communalism. We should foster joint actions of class and mass organisations, in such a manner that can draw in the masses following the Congress and other bourgeois parties.

(v) The Party will fight against the neo-liberal policies being pursued by the BJP government at the Centre and by the various state governments including those run by the regional parties. The Party will strive to develop united and sustained actions on the issues of people’s livelihood and against the onslaught of the economic policies.

(vi) Joint platforms for mass movements and united struggles at all levels must be built up. Resistance to the anti-people policies should be intensified. The united actions of the class and mass organisations must seek to draw in the masses following the bourgeois parties.

(vii) Given the serious challenge posed by the Hindutva forces both inside and outside the government it is essential to build platforms for the widest mobilisation of all secular and democratic forces. The emphasis should be on building unity of people to fight the communal forces at the grassroots. These are not to be seen as political or electoral alliances. Similarly, broad unity to fight against the authoritarian attacks on democratic rights should be forged.
(viii) The Party will give priority to developing and building the independent strength of the Party. It will work to broaden and strengthen Left unity.

(ix) All Left and democratic forces should be brought together on a concrete programme to conduct united struggles and joint movements through which the Left and democratic front can emerge. In states, the various Left and democratic forces should be rallied to form a platform around a concrete programme. At the national level, the Left and democratic alternative should be projected in our political campaigns and to rally all those forces who can find a place in the Left and democratic front.

(x) Appropriate electoral tactics to maximize the pooling of the anti-BJP votes should be adopted based on the above political line of the Party.

This understanding is further cemented by the CPI-M’s resolution on Election Tactics which was adopted in October 2018 in face of impending general elections 2019. The Party then agreed, “There cannot be an all India alliance to fight the BJP. We have to therefore work out state-wise election tactics based on the overall electoral tactical line. We should rally (the) secular and democratic forces in the different states so that the widest (possible) forces can be mobilised to defeat the BJP and its allies.” At the same time, it also emphatically stated that the Party should strive for understanding with non-Congress secular regional parties.

The formation of the Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) should and K Chandrasekhar Rao aiming to be key player in the post 2019 general election scenario, and Pinarayi Vijayan attending the public meeting on the occasion of BRS formation should be seen in the light of the above resolution. Finally the Federal Front fell flat in the face of the mounting BJP challenge and subsequently the BJP returned to power with enhanced strength.

Though Sitaram Yechury, given the historical background of regional parties, aware that the Federal Front was not going to materialise as such, much like a teacher guiding students based on their errors/mistakes, patiently waited for the consequences of the post 2019 general elections, the unraveling of the true face of BJP government and its parent organization the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), given the power strings it holds on the Union Government.

The tactical and organisational maneuver adopted by the CPI (M) in the post 2019 general elections scenario will be discussed in third part of this series.

(The author, Y Venugopal Reddy, is cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad and had contributed a series of articles in the run up to 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) at Hyderabad)

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

Read Part 1 here

Related:

Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India

CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces

Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today

The post Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 2 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

NEP 2020 and the three-language mandate

The NEP 2020 recommends that students learn three languages. According to the policy, at least two of these languages be indigenous to India, with the third language available for the student’s choice—often English or another language. This structure is meant to promote multilingualism while ensuring that regional languages are given due importance. Importantly, the policy emphasises that states and regions have the authority to decide on the specific languages taught, aiming to mitigate concerns about the compulsory imposition of Hindi.

Despite this intended flexibility, Tamil Nadu remains deeply sceptical. The state interprets the policy as a thinly veiled effort to introduce Hindi into its schools. Further complicating matters is the linkage between the three-language formula and eligibility for central funding schemes Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). In effect, states are pressured to adopt the formula to secure critical financial support for their education systems. For Tamil Nadu, this conditionality is unacceptable; it feels that the central government is compromising state autonomy by tying funding to policy implementation.

Historical roots of Tamil Nadu’s language policy

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to the three-language formula is not a new phenomenon. The state’s history is marked by a long-standing commitment to preserving Tamil as a central pillar of its cultural and educational identity. The roots of this resistance can be traced back to the early 20th century and have evolved through several pivotal moments: 

Early resistance (1930s–1960s)

In 1937, the Madras government, under C. Rajagopalachari, attempted to introduce Hindi as a compulsory subject. This move triggered widespread protests led by the Justice Party and influential Dravidian leaders, including Periyar. The protests were so intense that the policy was revoked in 1940. This early confrontation with Hindi imposition laid the groundwork for Tamil Nadu’s future educational policies.

The Kothari Commission and the 1968 National Policy on Education (NPE)

The Kothari Commission (1964–66) played a pivotal role in shaping India’s education reforms, recommending the adoption of a three-language formula. The 1968 NPE incorporated this formula by prescribing Hindi, English, and a modern Indian language (preferably a southern language in Hindi-speaking states; a regional language in non-Hindi speaking states). However, Tamil Nadu opted out, preferring to maintain a two-language system centred on Tamil and English.

Political consolidation and the two-language policy

Under the leadership of Chief Minister C. N. Annadurai, Tamil Nadu formalised its two-language policy. The state rejected the addition of Hindi, emphasising that Tamil and English sufficiently met the needs of its students. This stance was reinforced during subsequent anti-Hindi agitations, notably in 1965 when a move to replace English with Hindi as the sole official language sparked massive protests. Such historical events have deeply ingrained the belief that language policy should reflect regional identity rather than central imposition.

Understanding the legal context and rationale behind Tamil Nadu’s opposition

While education is now a concurrent subject, it was a state subject before the Emergency. Therefore, there is a degree of autonomy that states once enjoyed. When the Indira Gandhi government, during the Emergency, moved Education from the state list to the concurrent list, the reasoning was to have a uniform education policy for all of India with Union taking the responsibility of framing such uniform policy.

However, prior to this change in the Constitution, the opposition to three language policy was an equal fight—with Centre armed with Article 351 which directs the Union to work for the spread of Hindi while the States being armed with education being in the State List. This balance was tipped in favour of centre when education was moved to Concurrent List via 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.

The later governments did not put Education back in the State list—continuing the central control over the coveted education. This meant that the Union gave itself the way to implement its Article 351 directive at the cost of States’ power.  This enabled the Union to give directives from a position of legitimate authority. However, NEP is not a binding document, and it never has been. The Concurrent List’s character of giving the Centre made law primacy over a state made law does not arise here since NEP is not an act by the Parliament.

Despite NEP being non-binding, Centre using the 3-language formula to stall the funds naturally does not support the claims of it being bonafide.

TN’s reasoning in opposing the 3-language formula 

Tamil Nadu asserts that its education system is already successful, as recognised by the Central Government itself. Given this, the state questions the necessity of the three-language policy when its current two-language model has consistently produced strong educational outcomes.

Moreover, Tamil Nadu highlights the practical difficulties of implementing the NEP’s language requirements. The policy mandates two native languages and one foreign language in addition to English. Since Tamil Nadu already teaches Tamil and English, this leaves space for one more native language. The state argues that this requirement forces it to allocate resources for teaching an additional Indian language, which it sees as unnecessary.

The key concern is infrastructure. If a third language must be introduced, what resources exist to support various native languages? Tamil Nadu lacks the necessary infrastructure for most Indian languages, whereas the Centre has both the directive and the financial resources to promote Hindi. This makes Hindi the most easily implementable option, creating an indirect imposition.

Furthermore, Tamil Nadu sees the linking of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) funds to compliance with the three-language policy as coercion. If funding is conditioned on language policy today, the state fears that future schemes will also come with similar mandates—potentially requiring Hindi as the second native language, further eroding state autonomy in education.

Tamil Nadu’s Education Minister has publicly accused the Union government of using funding as a bargaining chip—effectively forcing the state into conforming to the three-language policy. This funding dispute is not merely a financial issue; it reflects a broader struggle over the balance of power between the Union and the states in India’s federal system.

Broader implications for federalism and education policy

At its core, the controversy surrounding the three-language formula speaks to larger questions about state autonomy and cooperative federalism in India. Education is a concurrent subject—meaning that both the central and state governments have the authority to shape policy. However, Tamil Nadu’s experience demonstrates that financial dependency on central funds can force states to adopt policies that conflict with their own priorities and cultural values.

Proponents of the three-language formula argue that multilingual education has cognitive benefits, such as improved memory, enhanced attention, and better problem-solving abilities. They also stress that a multilingual approach is essential for preserving India’s vast linguistic heritage. Nonetheless, a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate in a country as diverse as India. Instead, there should be a more flexible framework that allows states to design language policies that best suit their local contexts. 

Conclusion

The debate over the three-language formula in NEP 2020, and Tamil Nadu’s enduring opposition to it, is emblematic of a broader struggle over cultural identity, state autonomy, and federalism in India. Tamil Nadu’s historical resistance to Hindi imposition is rooted in a deep commitment to preserving its linguistic heritage and tailoring education to its unique social and cultural needs. The state’s successful two-language policy—centring on Tamil and English—has delivered strong educational outcomes without the added burden of a compulsory third language.

The fiscal dispute that has arisen from the central government’s decision to withhold crucial education funds only deepens the divide. By linking funding to compliance with NEP guidelines, the Centre appears to be leveraging its financial resources to enforce a uniform policy across a diverse nation. This tactic not only undermines state autonomy but also raises serious questions about the equitable distribution of resources in India’s federal system.

The ongoing standoff serves as a reminder that the success of India’s education system depends not only on policies like the NEP 2020 but also on a balanced approach that honours the linguistic and cultural plurality of the nation. Moving forward, a collaborative framework that genuinely incorporates state perspectives will be key to ensuring that educational reforms benefit all regions and strengthen the very fabric of India’s diverse society.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

Related:

Rejecting NEP embodies Tamil Nadu’s fight for federal autonomy

Indian federalism is a dialogue: SC

The post Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEP 2020’s three-language formula: a federal pushback against central imposition appeared first on SabrangIndia.