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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary (media), PUCL Delhi

Related:

CJP files four complaints over hate speeches at gatherings across Maharashtra

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

Nazia Elahi Khan faces multiple FIRs over alleged hate speech

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

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

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

From campus slogans to allegations of Maoist links

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

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

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

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

Reading books is not evidence of criminal association

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

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

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

Custody cannot continue on suspicion alone

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

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

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

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

Keeping him behind bars would not be just

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

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

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

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

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence the forums have demanded:

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

The protest, organised at the call of the Sachetana Nagarik Manch, brought together political leaders, environmentalists, human-rights activists, journalists, lawyers, social workers and representatives of various people’s organisations.

Demand for Release of Movement Leaders

One of the major demands raised at the protest was the immediate and unconditional release of Lad Sikaka, president of the Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti; Lingaraj Azad, national president of the Samajwadi Jan Parishad; and Hiramal Nayak, leader of the Maa Mati Mali Suraksha Manch.

The protesters alleged that people involved in movements to protect land, forests, water and other natural resources were being targeted through arrests and criminal cases. They described the alleged action as repression of democratic people’s movements.

Focus on Gram Sabha Rights

The protesters demanded recognition of the constitutional rights of Gram Sabhas in Fifth Schedule areas, particularly in matters concerning land, forests and mineral resources.

They also opposed what they described as a restrictive interpretation of Gram Sabha powers by the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs. The protesters said local communities should have a meaningful role in decisions affecting their land, livelihoods and natural resources.

Opposition to MMDR Amendment

The gathering also expressed opposition to the reported 2026 amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

According to the protesters, the amendment could have implications for the state’s taxation rights and control over mineral-bearing areas. They further alleged that provisions facilitating the export of minerals could encourage greater extraction of Odisha’s mineral resources.

The protesters demanded withdrawal of the amendment and called for greater protection of the rights of mineral-rich communities.

NHPC Communication Raises Concern

The protesters also raised concerns over a communication involving the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC).

They alleged that the communication sought to limit the authority of Gram Sabhas in matters concerning the transfer of land and forests. The protesters argued that any weakening of Gram Sabha powers could affect the rights of tribal and forest-dependent communities.

‘Not Just an Environmental Issue’

Speakers at the demonstration said the ongoing struggles over land, forests and water should not be viewed merely as environmental campaigns.

According to the organisers, the issues are closely connected with the livelihoods of thousands of people, the rights of tribal communities dependent on natural resources and the interests of future generations.

They said protection of natural resources and community rights required wider public participation and democratic mobilisation.

Appeal to Opposition Parties

The organisers appealed to opposition parties in Odisha to raise their voice against what they described as unconstitutional and anti-tribal policies concerning the rights of Gram Sabhas and local communities.

They also called for a broader people’s movement to oppose policies that, according to them, could facilitate large-scale exploitation of the state’s natural resources.

Activists, Journalists and Political Leaders Attend

Several prominent political and social figures, activists, journalists, environmentalists, human-rights campaigners and representatives of various civil society organisations participated in the demonstration.

Those present included senior journalist Rabi Das; senior Congress leader Niranjan Patnaik; noted environmentalist Prafulla Samantara; human-rights activist Bishwapriya Kanungo; researcher Anil Dhir; environmental activist and member of the Organisation for Protection of Democratic Rights, Srimant Mohanty; writer Ranjana Padhi; Narendra Mohanty of the Anti-False-Cases Campaign; Professor Birendra Nayak; Debi Pusti; poet Lenin Kumar; human-rights activist Pramodini Pradhan; Baghambhar Patnaik; Rakesh Kanungo; trade-union leader Mahendra Parida; Pradipta Nayak; senior journalist Sudhir Pattnaik; Rajesh Mahapatra; political leaders Bhajaman Behera, Bansidhar Parida and Siddharth Routray; columnist Rangacharan Pradhan; transgender leader Meghana Sahu; Deb Prasad Ray of the Lohia Academy; members of the Basti Suraksha Manch, along with Narayan Lenka; documentary filmmaker Debaranjan; Dandapani Mohanty of the Jan Adhikar Manch; social activist Siddharth Kar; Kisan Patnaik; Sharat Pal; Sasmita Jena; Malay Tripathy; Akanksha; advocate Gyan Ranjan; Bijay Panda; Subhasis; Rashmi Ranjan Jena; Khirod Rout; Pratima Das; Sharmistha Nath; spokesperson for the people’s movement Prashant Paikaray; tribal leader Chamburu Soren; people’s movement leader Batakrishna Swain; Surendra Tapsu; Rumita Kundu; Debi Prasanna Rath; Mohan Naidu; Bichitra Biswal; Gourachandra Tripathy of the Dandakaranya Suraksha Manch; Laxmi Reddy; Soni Nayak; Shubhashree Pradhan, Swagatika; and RTI activist Prakash Kumar Samant Singhar.

More than a hundred activists, representatives of various organisations and concerned citizens also participated in the demonstration.

Prakash Kumar Samantsinghar (Email: educarexpert@gmail.com) is a Human Rights Defender and RTI activist based in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. He works on the resettlement and rehabilitation of slum dwellers, land and housing rights, environment & climate change, issues affecting SC, ST, and minority communities, and promoting transparency in government welfare programmes.

Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org

The post Mass Protest in Bhubaneswar Against Mining-Linked State Repression appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One of the first conventions was a gathering of over 3,000 women in Dahanu taluka, Thane-Palghar district. Mariam Dhawale, Prachi Hativlekar, Lahani Dauda, and Sunita Shingda addressed and guided the attendees. Similar conventions will be organised across all other talukas of the district, followed by all districts in the state.

When the Janwadi Mahila Sanghatana announced its state-wide decision during this gathering to lead a massive march of thousands of such excluded women to the Mantralaya in Mumbai on November 3, 2026, the thousands of women present welcomed it with resounding slogans.

From the Thane-Palghar district alone, 3,000 excluded ‘Ladli Behna’ beneficiaries from the Dahanu tehsil expressed their strong protest at this arbitrary exclusion and vowed to join the protest march under the AIDWA banner, said the organisation.

The AIDWA in Maharashtra is conducting a state-wide campaign for the nearly 1 crore women who were arbitrarily excluded recently from the BJP Chief Minister’s ‘Ladli Behna Scheme’, by giving flimsy reasons.

It may be recalled that before the 2024 Maharashtra state assembly elections, the BJP-led state government had begun the ‘Ladli Behana Scheme’ of giving Rs 1,500 per month to nearly 2.63 crore women in the state, clearly with a view to induce their votes. After winning the election, the BJP-led regime started a so-called ‘verification’ drive, after which it arbitrarily excluded nearly 1 crore beneficiary women from the Scheme in July 2026 and stopped giving them the amount, leaving only 1.66 crore, many of whom are also not getting their amounts regularly.

That is the rationale behind the AIDWA campaign which started by filling up thousands of forms of the excluded women, and holding large women’s gatherings across Maharashtra from September 20, 2026, onwards.

AIDWA national vice president Mariam Dhawale, state general secretary and national joint secretary Prachi Hatiwlekar, district president and state vice president Lahani Dauda, and district secretary and CEC member Sunita Shingda addressed the gathering. Similar gatherings will be held in all other talukas of the district till September 27 and then in all districts of the state.

At this large Dahanu gathering, the AIDWA leadership announced its decision to organise a massive Struggle March to Mantralaya in Mumbai, bringing together thousands of women from across Maharashtra who have been excluded from the Scheme. This announcement was greeted by thousands of women present with resounding slogans and great support.

Earlier, in July this year, Indian Express reported that the BJP-led Maharashtra State government has sent a list of 25 lakh probable beneficiaries for Income Tax verification. The reason: the deletion of over 92 lakh beneficiaries from the Ladki Bahin scheme — nearly 38 per cent of those enrolled — proved deeply embarrassing for the Maharashtra government and drew sharp political attacks.

As part of a “stricter verification process” before rolling out its flagship farm loan waiver scheme, the first list of around 25 lakh probable beneficiaries under the Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar Loan Waiver Scheme has been sent to the Income Tax Department for verification before it is made public. Farmers who are income taxpayers will be excluded before the final list is published.

Unlike Ladki Bahin, where benefits were released before eligibility checks were completed, farmers shortlisted for the loan waiver will also have to verify details uploaded by banks before the final beneficiary list is notified. The actual waiver process is now expected to begin only by end of July.

Related:

AIDWA Calls for Fight Against Increasing Gender-Based Violence

AIDWA Writes to Parliamentary Panel, Seeks More Time for Views on Personal Law Reforms

Scrap the move to raise the age of marriage of girls to 21: AIDWA

The post Struggle for re-inclusion of lakhs of women ‘deceptively excluded by govt’, march to Mumbai: AIDWA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Sept 16, 2026, a young woman reporter Kavita Bishnoi was reportedly threatened by an angry mob of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) supporters in the Delhi University campus. It was election eve and several reporters were covering the students’ union elections.

Ms Bishnoi has courageously put out a video recounting how a goon came right up to her, yanked at her stole and accused her of being a leftist since her ajrakh scarf had a red border, states the DUJ.

She denied the accusation as did some of her colleagues. She was later accosted again, with two girls demanding to check her mobile phone. She reports that none of the reporters present who saw the mob of over a hundred people armed with sticks and stones were allowed to take photos or videos.

Quoting from Ms Bishnoi’s video, the DUJ statement says that police present on the spot were passive spectators while anyone who dared take pictures were attacked and had their cameras broken. She says that only the fact that she was female saved her from being beaten up.

DUJ regrets the escalation of violence in the city’s once peaceful universities and demands that Delhi police maintain law and order without bias and without infringing on the right of peaceful democratic protest.

Every reporter’s right to freely cover events without undue pressure and every student’s right to vote peacefully must be protected.

The statement has been issued by DUJ president, Sujata Madhok, its vice-president S.K,Pande and general secretary, DUJ, A.M. Jigeesh.

Related:

Attack on journalists in Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha condemned: DUJ

Whither Freedom: The Chhatisgarh attack on journalists

Attack on journalist Nikhil Wagle: Despite evidence, CP, Pune Amitesh Kumar denies attempt to murder charge (S 307)

The post Reporter attacked on DU Campus, DUJ condemns assault appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It’s worth asking because the answer may say less about literature than it does about the way we have learned to read caste. We have, as readers and viewers, built a fairly narrow set of terms under which we are willing to engage with caste at all, and sorrow fits neatly inside those terms. Anger doesn’t.

Sadness is an easier thing to host. A Dalit character suffers, we feel for them, we close the book or leave the theatre a little shaken -quietly proud of ourselves, even, for having felt something at all. It’s a tidy transaction. The pain stays over there, on the page or the screen. We stay over here, safely watching.

But anger doesn’t play by those rules. “Look what was done to me” is a sentence we can pity from a comfortable distance. “You were part of the world that let this happen” is different. It doesn’t ask for our sympathy. It asks what we will do with our discomfort.

Beyond this literary pattern, it played out in real life in July 2016, in a small town called Una in Gujarat. Four Dalit men were skinning a dead cow, their traditional, caste-assigned occupation, when a group of self-declared cow vigilantes accused them of killing it. The men were stripped, tied to a car, and beaten in public with sticks and iron rods while onlookers filmed it. The video spread within hours.

It wasn’t the usual cycle of outrage, sympathy, silence. Thousands of Dalits marched across Gujarat. Tens of thousands eventually joined what came to be called the Dalit Asmita Yatra, the Dalit Pride March. And at the end of it, they didn’t ask to be pitied. They pledged: they would stop removing dead cattle from upper-caste villages altogether. Let the carcasses lie where they fell if no one else would touch them.

That was a refusal. And refusal is harder to watch because it changes the position of the person watching. An entire social order had quietly depended on their silence and that silence had run out.

The instinct to prefer sorrow over refusal has a longer history.

In the 1870s, Jyotirao Phule’s Gulamgiri was asking why a system of oppression had been built in the first place. Later, Dalit writers and theorists would continue to challenge the expectation that Dalit lives should appear on the page primarily through suffering.

The same discomfort appears in the Marathi film Fandry. Jabya, the protagonist, spends the story being humiliated, and the audience is given every reason to feel for him. Then, in the final shot, he picks up a stone and throws it straight at the camera- straight at the viewer. He is no longer simply someone to pity; he is someone looking back. It is harder to sit with than anything that came before it.

That moment matters because the viewer can no longer remain comfortably outside the scene. The stone crosses the invisible distance between the character and the audience.

None of this makes Dalit anger the “right” emotion, any more than suffering ever was. The ask is simple: let people be whatever they actually are, on the page and off it. Let them suffer if that’s true. Let them refuse, the way Una refused, if that’s true too. Nobody should have to stay pitiable to be taken seriously.

Maybe that’s the real thing being asked of all of us: not compassion, which is easy to hand out and feel good about, but the willingness to face Dalit anger without demanding that it make us comfortable. Some voices were never meant to comfort us. They were meant to make us listen.

(The author is a postgraduate student of English Literature with interests in Dalit studies, South Asian Literature, media, cultural identity and representation based in Bengaluru.)

Related:

Thirty years on, justice remains elusive for Dalits in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana

Dalit Justice Demanded: CJP exposes 30 brutal anti-Dalits atrocities, urges NCSC to confront nationwide caste violence under Article 338

No to Dalits who are Christian, Muslim, how the AP HC limits its understanding of caste and faith

The post Outside the World, Outside the Page: Why We Are More Receptive to Dalit Suffering than Dalit Anger appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Stating that they are deeply dismayed at the recent reports of large scale, state driven deforestation due to diversion of forestlands for developmental projects, the open letter cites a July 2026, reply of the Minister of State for Environment, Forest and Climate Change in response to a Parliament question. Further, the communication states that, in the five years from 2014–15 to 2018–19, a total of 74,705.68 ha of forestland was approved for diversion. In the next five-year period from 2019–20 to 2023–24, this increased, by nearly 29 per cent, to 96,112.90 hectares. If the current pace continues, forest land diversion during the next five years is likely to exceed 110,000 hectares. Besides, the increase in deforestation is most evident in the ecologically sensitive Himalayan and North Eastern states, in Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, etc. And many other proposals are in the offing, the most appalling of them being the cutting down of nearly a million trees, over 13000 hectares of rainforest in Great Nicobar Island.

The communication also emphasises that, the compensatory afforestation that is expected to be undertaken for the diversion of these forest areas is either not undertaken or if undertaken is almost never successful. The proposals are also, often, ludicrous, e.g. taking up compensatory afforestation for the rainforests of Great Nicobar in dry Haryana, 4500 km away.

Within this alarming trend, of particular concern is the fact that lands within National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. I.e. Protected Areas (PAs) along with their Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) are also being diverted at an alarming pace. Proposals to divert lands inside PAs require the approval of the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife (SC-NBWL), a statutory body   tasked with promotion, conservation and development of wildlife and their habitats. However, it is seen that 97% of the diversion proposals placed before the SC-NBWL since 2014 have been cleared.  In just four meetings held in 2024 and 2025, as much as 5824 ha of land inside PAs and ESZs have been cleared for non-forest use with as many as 100 plus proposals getting cleared in almost every meeting.  The diversions permitted were for industrial parks, quarrying, mobile towers, tunnels, oil refineries, railway lines, synthetic organic chemical manufacturing unit, petrochemical park, temples, helipads, mining, hotels, apartment complexes, oil drilling, etc. – entities which in no way benefit wildlife and their habitats. More worryingly, an increasing trend of diversions is noted in Protected Area clearances with every passing year: from 91 projects within Protected Areas granted clearance in 2019, the number steadily increased to 378 in 2024 and 312 in 2025.  PAs make up only 5.4% of the geographic area of the country and the headwaters of many rivers originate in these PAs, providing water and ecological security to the country.  Fragmentation of forests and wildlife habitat drastically reduces the ability of these areas to perform their vital role as a green lung for the country.

How did this happen

The implementation of infrastructure development, mining, etc. through diversion of forests and Protected Areas, has been possible due to the weakening of environment and conservation laws by the government as well as through judicial rulings.  For instance, the Forest Conservation Amendment Act 2023, has   redefined forests in a way that leaves out huge tracts of forested land from legal protection and allows easy diversion of such lands.

Projects which have gone ahead without obtaining the mandatory forest clearances as required under law are being regularised on payment of nominal fines, or by the ridiculous requirement that the violator undertake three to five times penal compensatory afforestation. This is totally antithetical to environmental jurisprudence which directs that EIAs should be done prior to commencement of the project and the diversion of forest and other lands, and not as a fait accompli after the project has started.   After the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 was amended and the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam or the Forest Conservation Amendment Act came into being in 2023, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change  has, in just two years (2024–25 and 2025–26), already approved the diversion, for non-forestry purposes, approximately 22562 ha of forestland per year , as compared to an average of 19223 hectares per year during the five year period 2019 – 24, and 14941 hectares  per year for the preceding  five year period.

The letter also contends that, the SC-NBWL, which is constituted of mainly top government officials, unfortunately, “seems to have no hesitation in approving almost all the diversion proposals placed before it.  It is particularly condemnable that in the past decade more than 30 wildlife sanctuaries and National Parks have been de-notified or drastically reduced in area to enable easy diversions of their land for “developmental” projects.  This includes the Megapode Wildlife Sanctuary as well as the Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary in Great Nicobar, despite the latter being India’s most important and the northern Indian Ocean’s largest nesting site for endangered giant leatherback turtles.”

The recent Supreme Court ruling in July 2026 stating that post-facto environmental clearances (ECs) are legally acceptable if they are authorised by a post-facto valid statutory notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, does nothing to improve matters, permitting the central government to regularise violations under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.  The Court effectively replaces the ’precautionary principle’ (preventing harm) while dealing with India’s environment with a “pollute and pay” model.  Entrepreneurs can construct big-ticket projects without taking any of the mandatory prior clearances, present the government with a fait accompli and simply pay compensation to stay operational.

Every day brings a new, foolhardy proposal to reduce forested and wildlife protected areas. One such is the recent proposal of the Assam Government to reduce the Eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) of the iconic Kaziranga National Park from 10 Kms to 1 km and allow brick kilns, stone crushers, hotels, commercial warehouses, etc., to operate much closer to the park boundary. It does not apparently matter that the rhinoceros population will be severely and adversely affected. Another such proposal is the use of 12.6 hectares of the Delhi Ridge for the President’s Bodyguard parade ground, which, if implemented, will further fragment the already degraded ridge in Delhi which serves as a green lung for the metropolis.

Do highways mean growth?

The recent push for “development” arises from a misguided understanding that roads, infrastructure, mines, etc. will ensure the growth of the country. There is no realisation that an unpolluted environment together with extensive forest cover and thriving wildlife is even more important for human well-being. Recently issued environmental, forest and wildlife laws, rules and office orders along with “development friendly” judicial rulings have weakened the earlier strong environmental and conservation approach of the country.

The over 700 signatories state that while they acknowledge that infrastructure development projects are necessary for the country, but they should not come at the cost of ecological security. This can only imperil the country as evident from the massive landslides, mudslides, alarming AQI’s, heat waves, deluges, floods, and other environmental calamities occurring across the country. Such a prioritisation is against all aspects of the “precautionary principle” and “intergeneration equity” enunciated by the Supreme Court, as well as being in contravention of Articles 48 A and 51 A of the Constitution and most importantly of Article 21, the Right to Life.

Finally, the communication urges both the government and the judiciary to prioritise the ecological security of our country and the health and life of its citizens over the false narrative of more roads, more buildings, more townships, more mines, more industries, and more destruction of the natural world that is currently seen as progress.

Constitutional Conduct Group (77 signatories as below)

Related

Swaraj India decries MoEFCC’s Forest Conservation Rules 2022 notification

Environmentalist demand withdrawal of changes to Biological Diversity Act

Palghar Adivasis decry ecologically-dangerous infrastructural projects

AIUFWP’s 2nd National Conference begins in New Delhi

The post Prioritise ecological security of country over “false narrative” of “highway development”: CCG to Govt & Courts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The advise offered by Dhirendra Krishna Shastri (Parchiwale baba, whom Prime Minister Modi calls his younger brother) in this regard, evoked reactions in fish and meat-eating West Bengal. The state is on the eve of celebrating its biggest festival, Durga Puja. The BJP swept to power in in West Bengal in early-mid 2026. Even before this, the visibility of BJP’s political assertion in the state has been accompanied by promotion of Lord Ram (over Maa Kaali/Durga). This is a move which had previously yielded rich electoral dividends for it in North India, also affecting the electoral scenario in India as a whole.

As the BJP government settled in to ‘governance’ in the state, the season for the annual Durga Puja came. And the party in power invited Shastri of Bageshwar Dham as its passport to vegetarianism. This was a testing tactic, a well-honed technique tried by the far right sangh parivar, to test its schemes before an all-out imposition.  He visited West Bengal for a ‘Hanuman Katha’ in Howrah’s Liluah. He advised the people to keep non-vegetarian food away from Durga idols during the Puja. Similar advice was already proffered by the RSS affiliate, the Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP). This triggered a storm among Bengali Hindus, including those calling themselves “Hindu nationalists”. There were statements and protests from prominent Bengalis that Shastri should not teach them how to celebrate Durga Puja and what to eat and what not.

The reaction was due to the fact that fish in particular but goat-meat too, during the Durga festival are almost mandatory to the menu. Many of them underlined that fish is very crucial to Bengali culture and the broad umbrella of Hindu religion has many tendencies where non-vegetarian food is part of the ritual. Many from former Tripura Governor Tathagata Roy to journalists and content creators, people from a diverse section, including those who described themselves as “Bengali Hindu nationalists”, retaliated. “Don’t tell a Bengali how to celebrate Durga Puja,” Kolkata-based content creator Shreyasi Biswas Banerjee wrote on Facebook. In the video (link attached), Biswas underlined that an “outsider” was prescribing rules for a festival embedded in Bengal’s distinct religious and culinary traditions. A few people even tore down posters of Shastri.

Suvendu Adhikari who had earlier received Shastri with great warmth thereafter attended a ceremony at a Durga temple and was seen consuming ‘Fish Prasad.’ A clear mitigatory gesture! Many right-wing sympathisers and detractors even stated that the core value of fish in Bengali culture.

India is a country full of diversities in all matters, food, clothing, language and religion. Hindus also have many sects and many diverse food habits. We have Kashmiri Pandits for whom Mutton dishes are as an inalienable part of their culture. The food habits are decided by multiple factors, geographical location being an important part of that. In Coastal areas, sea food is an important part of their diet.

However, the ruling regime has persisted this vegetarian imposition.

In the recently held BRICS meeting, in the Gala dinner (mid-September 2026), only vegetarian food was served. Indecently Xi Jing Ping skipped this dinner, whatever be his reasons! While serving only vegetarian food for international guests was criticised by the opposition parties, Kiran Rijiju, the minister and loyal handyman of the most powerful in the government, defended it by saying that the guests appreciated the menu.

The Uttar Pradesh (UP) Government (its chief minister is Yogi Adityanath) recently published a map of important food items of all districts of UP. In this culinary map, the much loved and savoured Lucknow’s Tunde kabab was missing!! Only vegetarian items were presented, as if UP consumes only the vegetarian food.

In yet another incident 14 Muslims were put behind the bars (some months ago) for having chicken biryani at their private Iftar party on a boat ride in Ganga River. Interestingly some Hindus who consumed liquor during another private boat ride were left un-policed.

Despite knowing the fact that nearly 70% of Indians are non-vegetarians, vegetarianism is being promoted by the BJP Governments, and at some places successfully. In Gujarat where BJP has been in power for the past three decades, non-vegetarian joints have been selectively invisibilised. Many people go to the restaurants near Gujarat border and satisfy their craving for non-vegetarian food.

This remains a dilemma for the majoritarian BJP: a balancing act between Indian’s prevalent food habits and their agenda of imposing vegetarianism. At every possible chance they and their cohorts try to push forward vegetarianism. Somehow BJP associates’ non-vegetarianism with Muslims (and Christians) in particular, never mind what history tells us about the food habits of early India. This bypassing of non-vegetarian food, an essential part of Indian food habits, irrespective of religion of the people is facing this dilemma. They get away with this aggressive vegetarianism in places like in Gujarat, however in WB, they are facing an opposition.

Human society has evolved through various stages, and food habits have always been very diverse. The aim of RSS-BJP and their political-cultural supporters remains to glorify vegetarianism purely for ideological reasons. There may be some other reasons for promoting Veganism or vegetarianism, but respect for people’s food habits is the starting point for a democratic society.

How much does this regime believe in democracy is free for all to see.

Related:

Non veg food ‘ban’: Student group plans protest at Delhi’s Hansraj College

Most Indians Non Vegetarian; Men More Than Women, South & East Most

Can majoritarian societal pressure re-write the rulebook? The illegality behind forced non-veg shutdowns during festivals

The post Politics through a forced imposition of food habits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Paper leaks are often treated as an examination problem. For the students involved, it becomes a much bigger problem. A cancelled examination can mean starting preparation again, spending more money, travelling again and waiting months for another opportunity. For candidates close to the age limit, a delay can even affect their eligibility for another attempt.

The scale of the problem has been visible in some of India’s biggest examinations. The NEET UG 2024 controversy brought the issue into the national spotlight. The Central Bureau of Investigation investigated allegations surrounding the leakage of the examination paper in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. The controversy also raised questions about grace marks, examination centres and the overall conduct of the examination.

Government recruitment examinations have faced similar controversies. In 2024, allegations of a question paper leak affected the Bihar Public Service Commission’s teacher recruitment examination, with the commission cancelling the examination for candidates at one centre in Patna. Such cases show how a problem at one point in the examination system can affect thousands of young people waiting for a fair chance.

Think about an aspirant who has spent two years preparing for a government examination. They may have left a job, joined a coaching programme, borrowed money for preparation or moved to another city. On the morning of the examination, they are ready to finally see the result of that effort. Later, news breaks that the paper was leaked and the examination may have to be cancelled. For the authorities, it becomes an investigation. For the student, it can feel like another year has disappeared.

There is also a financial cost that rarely gets enough attention. Application fees, coaching, books, online courses, accommodation, travel and repeated preparation all add up. Not every aspirant comes from a family that can comfortably afford another attempt. A student from a financially weaker background may have to choose between preparing again and finding work to support the family.

Then comes the question of trust. The basic idea behind a competitive examination is simple: candidates should receive the same paper under the same conditions and compete on their preparation. If some candidates get access to the paper beforehand, that basic understanding of fairness breaks down. Students begin wondering whether hard work is enough or whether connections and money matter more.

This is especially serious in India because government jobs remain highly sought after by young people. They offer stability, regular income and social security at a time when many private sector jobs can be uncertain. A limited number of vacancies can attract a huge number of applicants. When an examination is cancelled or delayed, the competition does not disappear. It simply becomes another round of waiting for the same young people.

The responsibility for protecting an examination cannot be placed on students. They have already done their part by studying and appearing for the test. Examination agencies need stronger security systems, careful handling of question papers, better monitoring and quick action when irregularities are reported. Investigations also need to reach the people responsible instead of leaving students to carry the consequences.

There also needs to be greater transparency after a suspected leak. Students deserve to know what happened, why an examination was cancelled and when the next examination will take place. Recruitment calendars should be as predictable as possible, especially when thousands of young people plan their lives around them.

A paper leak may look like a few pages reaching the wrong hands. For a student, the loss can be much larger. It can mean lost time, lost money, another year of preparation and another period of uncertainty.

India often speaks about merit and equal opportunity. Those words only have meaning when the system protects the people who earn their place through honest effort. Young people preparing for examinations are not asking for an easier competition. They are asking for a fair one.

The exam leak crisis is therefore more than a problem of examination security. It is a youth issue. Every leaked paper raises the same question: when the system fails, who pays the price? Too often, it is the student who studied honestly.

 (Jyotiraditya Singh is a Youth Leader and Social Activist associated with Youth Forum India. He writes on youth, education, employment and public policy issues, with a focus on giving young people a stronger voice in public conversations.)

The post The youth caught in the exam leak crisis appeared first on SabrangIndia.