After videos that went viral of a violent lynching of a Muslim man, Makarand Muhammad of Astia village in Odisha’s Balasore district, three suspects were reportedly arrested for lynching the 33-year-old. Before that, a video of social media, of the victim being asked to chant a religious slogan and being assaulted had emerged the previous day, Wednesday, January 7. The victim, Sheikh Makarand Muhammad of Astia village, was reportedly a helper in a pickup van that was waylaid for ferrying cattle. He was attacked with sharp weapons and pipes, cops quoting the man’s brother said. The viral video, alleged to be that of the incident, shows the group assaulting Mohammed with pipes and forcing him to shout “Jai Shri Ram” and “Gau Mata Ki Jai”. Despite his compliance with this violent aggression, the mob did not stop the beating.

At the outset, The Telegraph and New Indian Express reported, a group of cow vigilantes tried to stop the van Mohammed was in. The pick-up van travelling from the Jayadeva Kasba side, overturned on the outskirts of a town. While the driver of the van escaped, Mohammed was caught by the mob, The Telegraph reported.

Later though the police took Mohammed to hospital, but on Thursday, he succumbed to injuries he had suffered during the attack.

The police have registered a case under a section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita that pertains to lynching by a group motivated by prejudice based on religion, race or caste. Mohammed’s brother. This is the second FIR in the case. Sk Jitendar Mahammad, had filed a police complaint and named five persons as suspects. In his statement, he alleged that five men had intercepted the van and assaulted his brother with deadly weapons. He further stated that although a police patrol vehicle reached the spot and shifted Mahammad to the Balasore District Headquarters Hospital, he died during treatment. Based on the second complaint, police booked five accused under Section 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to punishment for murder committed by a mob.

The Odisha police reportedly initially registered a first FIR based on a complaint related to the pickup van accident. According to this FIR, the vehicle, allegedly being driven rashly, lost balance and overturned on the roadside. It stated that by the time police reached the spot, the driver had already been shifted to a hospital and a cow was found at the site.

“The cow was seized and brought to the Maa Bharati Goshala, and the pickup vehicle was brought to the police station. The complainant submitted a written report for taking legal action against the owner and driver of the pickup van,” the first FIR noted.

Rabi Behera, the head of the Odisha Milk Farmers’ Association, was quoted as saying by The Telegraph that the activities of cow vigilantes had increased since the Bharatiya Janata Party government led by Mohan Majhi was elected to power in the state in June 2024. “The government must ensure stern action in such cases,” Behera said.

It is to be seen if any outcome comes of the final investigations, especially with relation to the mob violence and murder. Odisha has seen a spate of attacks on Dalits, Christians and Muslims over the past two years.

Related:

India tops among countries at risk of mass crimes, atrocities, US Holocaust Museum warns

Sharp spike in hate, minorities the target, hate is new normal: India Hate Lab Report 2025

Rituals of Fear, Politics of Hate: How AHP’s national network rewrote the boundaries of democracy and citizenship

The post Odisha: Man forced to chant religious slogan, lynched by cow vigilantes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Reports by Zee News and others state that these series of violent incidents against Muslim hawkers and workers in Bihar has caused deep fear and anger, with families saying that poor members of the community are being targeted on mere suspicion, abused in public, and attacked without protection. Fresh cases from Katihar, Saharsa and Madhubani show a pattern where daily wage earners and small vendors were beaten, robbed, shot, or killed, while their families are now struggling for justice.

According to media reports, in Katihar district, a young Muslim utensil seller was thrashed after being abused as “Bangladeshi” and also robbed of his hard-earned money. In Saharsa, a biscuit seller was shot after a robbery attempt. In Madhubani, a Muslim youth died after being beaten by a group of people, with his family alleging mob lynching, even as police claim it was a road accident.

The most grievous assault and murder case has come from Madhubani district, where Mohammad Qayoom, a young Muslim man from Haithiwali village, died after being beaten in Pattitol village under Bhairabsthan police station. According to his family and relatives, Qayoom and two friends had gone to buy gutkha from a shop on a motorbike. An argument broke out with the shopkeeper. Soon after, several people gathered and attacked Qayoom.

Police are reported to have taken him to hospital, where doctors declared him dead. While police have suggested it was a road accident, Qayoom’s family strongly rejects this claim. “This was not an accident. He was beaten by many people. His body had injury marks,” a grieving family member said. “Why is the truth being hidden?” Community members say the family fears that the case may be weakened if it is treated as an accident rather than a lynching.

Seen together all these hate crimes have raised serious questions about the security and safety of daily wage earners –hawkers and labourers –in BJP-ruled Bihar, many of whom depend on daily sales to survive.

While the Katihar incident took place on January 11 in the Pothia police station area and the victim, Akmal Rehman, a resident of Simaria Chowk under Korha police station, had gone to Chakla village in Sameli block to sell utensils.  According to victim, Rehman, who spoke to the media, two local youths stopped him, abused him, and accused him of being Bangladeshi. When women who were buying utensils objected, the attackers threatened them as well.

“They started abusing me and saying I was Bangladeshi. When the women spoke up, they got angry and hit me with sticks,” Rehman said from his hospital bed.

The assailants allegedly hit him on the head with a stick. After he fell unconscious, they took ₹12,000 from his shirt pocket and fled. Rehman was admitted to Korha Community Health Centre and is said to be in stable condition. While a written complaint has been submitted to Pothia police station and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. Police questioning of villagers and women buyers led to the identification of the accused as Chuiya Mandal, son of Patal Mandal, and another local resident of Chakla village.

Sub-Divisional Police Officer (Sadar-2) Ranjan Kumar Singh said, “At first look, this appears to be a robbery case. Villagers have told us that the accused are known for attacking hawkers. We are investigating and action will be taken.”

Relatives and family members, however, say the attack was also driven by hate and fear created around Muslim identity. “My son went to sell utensils, not to fight. Calling him Bangladeshi was an excuse to beat and loot him,” a relative said. In another disturbing case, criminals in Saharsa targeted a Muslim biscuit seller, Mohammad Mujahid. According to police and family sources, Mujahid was robbed and then shot by miscreants. He was rushed to hospital in a critical condition and remains under treatment. Doctors have confirmed that the bullet caused serious injury.

Several locals told media reporters that small Muslim vendors are easy targets because they carry cash and have no protection. The incident has created fear among other hawkers, many of whom have stopped working after dark. Police have said they are searching for the attackers, but no arrests have been announced so far.

Human rights activists and local residents say these incidents show how Muslim hawkers and workers are being treated as suspects instead of citizens under the newly elected administration. “Poor Muslims who sell utensils, biscuits, or small items are being attacked on suspicion alone. This is not law and order, this is failure,” said a local social worker in Katihar. Families of the victims have demanded fair investigation, strict action against the accused, and protection for hawkers who move village to village to earn a living.

As cases pile up, pressure is growing on the Bihar administration to act firmly and restore confidence among Muslim communities who say they feel unsafe even while doing honest work.

Related:

Bihar News: कटिहार में मुस्लिम फेरीवाले से मारपीट; मधुबनी में मॉब लिंचिंग,सहरसा में मारी गोली!

The post Bihar under BJP: Hate attacks against Muslims spiral, one dies appeared first on SabrangIndia.

India was never built on bulldozers. It was built on pluralism, dignity, and equal citizenship.

First, a medical college in Jammu was shut down because Muslim students got admission to MBBS on merit.

Now, a school in Baitul district of Madhya Pradesh has been bulldozed simply because it was built by a Muslim, ON HIS OWN LAND, WITH HIS OWN MONEY, to educate Dalit and Tribal… pic.twitter.com/X65w2Sa1SO

— Gaurav Pandhi (@GauravPandhi) January 15, 2026

Meanwhile the Indian Express  reported that a private school built to educate children from nursery to Class 8 in Madhya Pradesh’s Betul district became the target of a kind of prejudicial politics by the administration when, after rumours falsely branding it as an unauthorised madrasa led to its partial demolition, officials told the newspaper on January 14, Wednesday.

Abdul Naeem, a local resident who had reportedly poured nearly Rs 20 lakh of borrowed money and family savings into the construction, watched portions of his “educational dream” turn to rubble on the evening of January 13 as the dreaded JCB/earthmovers unilaterally brought down the walls and a front shed under administrative orders. No notice, no chance to explain was given to the private owner of the building on private land raising serious questions of the lawfulness or constitutionality of the perverse action.

Reports state that for several years, Naeem had envisioned a nursery-to-Class 8 school for children in Dhaba village and surrounding tribal hamlets, where families often send their children miles away for decent education. He persisted and thereafter secured commercial land diversion, obtained a panchayat NOC, and on December 30 filed his formal application with the School Education Department, submitting all requisite land documents.

“I had decided to construct the school on my private land so that my village can progress and some people can study. Senior officials claimed that we were doing wrong things here,” Naeem said. Even when construction was progressing smoothly when, just three days of viciously circulated rumours led to the brazen action, the demolition. The rumours circulating stated false that a madrasa was being built in the area. Even construction of a Madrasa is in no way a prohibited act!! An anguished Naeem said, “ “This is a village with only three Muslim families. How would a madrasa even function here? And the building wasn’t even complete — no classes, no students,” Naeem said.

Chronology

Last Sunday, January 11, the Gram Panchayat issued a notice ordering Naeem to demolish the structure himself, citing lack of permission. When he rushed to the panchayat office to submit a formal response, he says officials refused to accept his application and told him to return later. Without giving him any opportunity to be heard, two days later, on January 13, as Naeem and a group of concerned villagers travelled to the district collectorate to meet the Collector and seek clarity, the administration moved in. A JCB machine, flanked by heavy police presence, arrived at the site in Dhaba. By dusk, a portion of the school building and the front shed had been razed.

Despite being a public servant answerable to the rule of law and Constitution, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ajit Maravi defended the action, saying it followed a complaint from the gram panchayat alleging encroachment and rule violations. “A verification found that part of the construction fell under encroachment. Only the illegal portion has been removed, not the entire building,” Maravi said, adding that all mandatory permissions had not been obtained. Naeem strongly disputes this. “I had the panchayat NOC. I had applied for school approval. If there was any mistake in paperwork, I was ready to pay whatever fine the government demanded.”

The Video may be seen here

Related:

Sharp spike in hate, minorities the target, hate is new normal: India Hate Lab Report 2025

Rituals of Fear, Politics of Hate: How AHP’s national network rewrote the boundaries of democracy and citizenship

India tops among countries at risk of mass crimes, atrocities, US Holocaust Museum warns

The post Hate Crime: Abdul Naeem’s school built with private money on his land demolished by bulldozers in Madhya Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Resurrecting the outlook of Father Stan Swamy and Prof. G. N. Saibaba, Whither Human Rights in India is both a chronicle of resistance and a call to reshape the future of democracy and human dignity.

Reviews highlight it as imperative for understanding the struggles of minorities, the role of activist scholars (like contributors Harsh Mander, Teesta Setalvad), and the impact of laws like the UAPA on activists.

It is an illustrative and lucid anthology that provides a panoramic view and an unwavering critical analysis of the aggravating crisis in human rights in India, offering profound research on systemic failures and the ongoing fight for justice.

Principally, the book is a comprehensive exploration of how the devastation of human rights over the parts decade are not just a continuation of past patterns but symbolise a crucial departure or rupture, manifesting a new fascist paradigm which will make it an arduous task for future generation s to stand up against to restore past rights.

The essays trace the historical and ideological roots of India’s human rights evolution. They explore how colonial past and constitutional ideals grossly contradict current realities. Critiques analyse the rise of majoritarian politics, state violence, and impunity, especially against minorities.

The book scrutinizes the judiciary, hate speech, “bulldozer justice,” and development models. Features contributions from leading voices like Teesta Setalvad, Harsh Mander, Gautam Navlakha, and Kalpana Kannabiran.

The book addresses the persecution of activists (like the book’s editor, Anand Teltumbde under laws like the UAPA.

In a most illustrative and congeal manner the chapters of the book encompass the unprecedented destruction of human rights during the tyranny of BJP rule.

The first part includes seven papers that give a clear theoretical cognitive on vital spheres lie state violence, impunity, ‘Urban Naxal narrative, the hate speech epidemic persecution engineered by the constitutional executive, controversial supreme court rulings, growing inequality, and the superstructure of New India promoted by BJP, the Gujarat model and the ‘bulldozer justice.’

The second part features nine papers, documenting violations on minority communities like Muslims and Christians.

Introduction by Author

Teltumbde gives a most comprehensive introduction where he explores the evolution of human rights in India from the Colonial days of the British rule, linking it with the rise of British liberalism. He examined the contradictions of British imperialism with liberalism as well as the percolating of liberal ideas and catalysed social reforms that addressed oppressive practices. He chronicled the events that orchestrated the wave of human rights in the Freedom struggle and why World War 2 became a turning point in the global recognition of human rights, with creation of United Nations. Teltumbde has appraised the Indian Constitution of 1950 that secured important rights, praising India’s dedication to preserving human rights in that era.

Pertinent and positive that Tetumbde exposes the glaring loopholes in late prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s policies, who he described as fostering caste discrimination as well as inequality to engineer a largely undemocratic social order, promoting even Preventive Detention and toppling the elected government of Sheikh Abdula h in Kashmir and the Elected Communist party in Kerala.

Anand makes an intensive exploration of the gradual deterioration of human rights in periods like Indo-China War, Emergency, and events under the Congress regimes that were the precursor-sponsored rise of BJP neo-fascism was bitterly critical of the regimes of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, supressing workers and student movements. He scrutinized how the 1991 economic reforms although boosted private enterprise and consumer freedom, escalated economic equality, displaced large populations and marginalised the poor due to privatisation, and linked those aberrations with informalisation of labour and commercialisation of services like healthcare and education that engineered a new era of human rights violations.

Teltumbde recounted the Babri Masjid demolition orchestrating communal polarisation and widespread violence and the transition to the 202 Gujarat agenda, with the gruesome Godhra carnage. In the main Teltumbde navigated how in essence the state’s actions stood in stark contrast to the lofty ideals of the constitution.

Anand finally explored and evaluated the making and fabric of fascism in India under Narendra Modi He reflected the role played by the media. He elaborated how Modi regime viewed civil society as an enemy, mercilessly framing activists and dissenters as threats to national security. Teltumde chronicled events symbolising the multidimensional assault on human rights, like Pulwama action, Citizenship amendment act, abrogating article 370 in Kashmir, criminalising human rights organisations, extensive use of colonial era laws like UPA.etc.

In his conclusion of the introduction, he diagnoses a return to the ancient Brahmanical order, stripping al human rights. He expresses fear of the silence and indifference of the Indian public on Modi’s regime and relentless propaganda that conceal the truth.

Chapters in the Volume

Kalpana Kannabiran examines how state actions over seven decades have reinforced impunity and aggression.

Ajay Gudavarthy and G Vijay navigate targeting of activists as anti-Hindu and terrorist to supress resistance of civil society.

Mihir Desai explores the Supreme Court’s failures to safeguard constitutional rights over the lats decade.

Subbhas Gatade draws similarities of the bulldozing of Muslim homes with Israeli demolitions in Gaza.

Teesta Setalvad diagnoses the reactionary character of the ‘Gujarat Model’, evaluating it as facade to engineer corporate welfare and communal polarisation.

Gautam Navlakaha recollects life serving a sentence as an undertrial prisoner, revealing how special laws are designed to undermine the principle of innocence until proven guilty, denying bail to prisoners making them languish for years.

Harsh Mander touches on the escalation of hate speech, vilifying Muslims as traitors.

Aakar Patel explores the persecution of Muslims, tracing it to the ideological roots of the BJP, describing Modi’s regime as one mercilessly promoting nationalism.

Vineeth Srivastav characterises Modi’s regime as fascist, which fuses rhetoric nationalism, religious identity and anti-elitism to trigger Hindu nationalism. He lucidly analyses Fascist underpinnings exploring how the cult of Modi, the normalisation of Hindu nationalism, the mockery of constitutional values, the power of propaganda, the dominance of mob mentality, the revival of religious myths, as national narratives and ‘bulldozer justice’, are a testament to New India’s transformation into a fascist society. This new India’s characterised by a fascist revival of a mythic past as well as a dynamic relationship of the state, corporate interests and highly mediated cultural nationalism, bolstering ultra-nationalism with crony capitalism.

Anand Teltumbde investigates the organised erosion of Dalit rights, in the backdrop of the marinization of constitutional protection.

Vernon Gonzalves chronicles the systematic extinguishing of prisoners’ rights under Modi.

Lancy Lobo describes the Violence unleashed on Christians, with anti-conversion laws enforced to attack on Christians.

Irfan Engineer covers the escalating violence and discrimination of Muslims under Modi’s rule.

Mahruk Edenwala exposes the failure of child protection laws, particularly in aftermath of NRC.

Bittu KR analyses the restriction on rights of the LGBTQIA for living freely and equally.

(The author is a freelance journalist)

Related:

Ritwik Ghatak transcended realms unexplored to reinvent art of Indian revolutionary film making

“The Cell and the Soul: A Prison Memoir” by Anand Teltumbde stands as one of the most powerful indictments of Indian democracy

Iconoclast: Path breaking biography of BR Ambedkar projects his human essence

The post Imperative for Understanding Evolution of Human Rights Paradigm: Whither Human Rights in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A quick search of the 142-page judgement, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, finds these key words missing. Instead, the judgement expanded the contours of terrorism. Further, it created two categories of accused – leaders and followers. Researchers Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were designated as “architects” of the conspiracy and denied bail, whereas student activist Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed were granted bail under stringent censorial conditions. All of them have been in jail since 2020.

While freedom of speech and the right to political dissent are significant contextual elements in the judgment, the Supreme Court explicitly clarified that they are not the core legal issues determining the outcome of the bail applications.

Critics, however, argue that the top court’s judgment sets a dangerous precedent by classifying political dissent and protest speeches as acts of terrorism.

Conditional freedom that robs the right to speak

Supreme Court imposed strict conditions while granting bail to the Fatima, Rehman, Khan, Haider and Ahmed. Apart from the ₹2 lakh personal bond each with two local sureties of the like amount, the top court also gagged the five activists from speaking about any issue from any platform after their release.

Conditions also include that they are:

• Required to stay within the territorial limit of Delhi NCT for the pendency of the trial. Not allowed to leave the city without court’s permission. Any request for travel shall disclose reasons, which would then be considered by the trial court “strictly” on its “merits”
• Surrender passports if any. If there is no passport, then an affidavit to be filed to that effect. Furthermore, immigration authorities have been direction to prevent any exit from the country without the court’s permission
• Twice weekly check-ins at the Delhi Police Crime Branch police station. The police are then required to submit monthly attendance reports to court; Furnish full current address and all contact details with the investigating officer of the case. there must be a seven-day notice before any change to the same.
• Co-operate during the trial, appear at every date unless exempted by court and ensure they don’t act in any way to delay the same
• No witness tampering, or any contact with them at all – direct or indirect. Not allowed to participate in the activities of any group or organization linked to the subject matter of the present FIR/ final report
• Complete media gag
• Gag on attending any rallies – political or otherwise, physically or virtually till the conclusion of the trial
• Not allowed to distribute any posts, handbills, posters, fliers, banners
• “Maintain peace and good behavior.” Violation of this condition gives the police “liberty” to seek revocation of bail

UAPA comes a full circle

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs State (2026 INSC 2) represents a ‘coming to a full circle’ moment for the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The UAPA, which was originally meant to address “secessionist” activities, was later amended and rebranded as India’s anti-terror law.

Around 1962-63, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru envisioned UAPA to act as a deterrence against secessionist ideologies and preserve national integration. In the backdrop of the 1965 India-Pakistan war, UAPA was primarily intended to tackle the strong secessionist movement in Tamil Nadu which wanted to be a sovereign state. It was followed by a series of preventive detention laws and, when India signed and ratified all major United Nation counter-terrorism conventions after 9/11, the UAPA was specifically amended in 2004 to align with the country’s international obligations.

The law, in its current avatar, is so vast and vague, that even expressing disaffection towards the state or affection for another state, as in the case of the three Kashmiri youth who were jailed under sedition charges for allegedly cheering for Pakistan’s cricket team when it won the 2021 T20 World Cup, is liable for prosecution.

When protest becomes an act of terrorism

Can protest speeches, public meetings and WhatsApp group membership constitute conspiracy under Sections 16–18 of the UAPA at the bail stage?

According to the Supreme Court: Yes, they can. Even if the protests were peaceful assemblies.

The Supreme Court’s January 5 judgement essentially redefined terrorism. Even though the judgment recognized freedom of speech as a protected right, it stopped where an allegedly pre-planned conspiracy for systemic violence began. Ironically, cases against BJP politicians like Kapil Sharma, who made incendiary speeches on the eve of the breakout of violence in Delhi in 2020, continue at a snail’s pace,

Yet, the January 5 judgement read: “The factual record placed by the prosecution repeatedly returns to a distinction that is central to the case: the differentiation between a conventional dharna and a chakka jam. This is not treated as semantics. It is treated as strategy.”

“A dharna may be expressive; a chakka jam, as alleged, is disruptive by design. The prosecution case is that the sustained choking of arterial roads, replication of blockade sites, and the movement of crowds from minority clusters into mixed population areas were not accidental expressions of dissent, but calibrated acts meant to generate confrontation, overwhelm law enforcement, and create conditions for violence,” it added.

The top court said Delhi Police did not rely on a “single speech, a single meeting, or a single blockade” to oppose bail, rather it relied on “a course of conduct, spread over weeks, involving repeated meetings, formation of coordinating bodies, issuance of directions, and alleged preparations for escalation.”

“The Court cannot, at the bail stage, segregate this course of conduct into isolated benign fragments and assess each in abstraction,” the judgment read.

The Supreme Court reiterated that “dissent and protest occupy a protected space in a constitutional democracy,” however, that protection does not extend to a design that involves “systemic disruption, engineered confrontation, and preparatory steps towards violence”.

“At this stage, the Court must resist from committing two errors. The first is to criminalise speech merely because it is politically charged. The second is to immunize a continuing course of conduct merely because it contains language of non-violence,” the judgment read.

“In the application of such law, the Court does not proceed on identity, ideology, belief, or association. It proceeds on role, material, and the statutory threshold governing the exercise of jurisdiction,” the judgment read. “…[the judgment] neither endorses the prosecution case nor prejudges the guilt of any accused,” the court said adding that it applied the law as it stands, “recognising that individual liberty must be protected, but that it must also withstand the legitimate demands of national security and collective safety.”

“This balance is not a matter of preference rather it is a matter of constitutional duty,” the court added.

Selective application of law

While the Supreme Court’s judgment could be seen as a mixed bag of relief for some accused, in the denial of bail to Imam and Khalid, the top court selectively applied its own judgement and those of the high court on free speech or even bail under section 43d of the UAPA.

In cases like Vernon Gonzalves, Shoma Sen, Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, Sheikh Javed Iqbal, the top court granted bail due to prolonged incarceration despite the bar under section 43D of the UAPA act.

On free speech, the Supreme Court in its 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment said that dissenting discourse is not a crime. In its Balwant Singh judgment, the court emphasized that shouting stray slogans like “Khalistan Zindabad” were not a crime.

In fact, the Delhi High Court granted bail to student activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha—co-accused in the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case—and pulled up the Delhi Police for its “wanton use” of the UAPA.

In this case, the High Court clearly stated: “… in its anxiety to suppress dissent and in the morbid fear that matters may get out of hand, the State has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity’. If such blurring gains traction, democracy would be in peril.”

“… the intent and purport of the Parliament in enacting the UAPA, and more specifically in amending it in 2004 and 2008 to bring terrorist activity within its scope, was, and could only have had been, to deal with matters of profound impact on the ‘Defence of India’, nothing more and nothing less,” it added.

Process is the punishment

In the past decade, the State (or corporations) has often been accused of (mis)using the law to stifle dissent. In effect, making the process of law the punishment. Sedition (the old and new avatar), UAPA, defamation, Copyright Act are all being used against free speech.

The NewsClick founder editor Prabir Purkayastha was charged under the draconian UAPA for publishing “propaganda” reports on China that allegedly served to endanger the “sovereignty, unity and security of India.” He secured bail after seven months in custody after the Supreme Court held that his arrest was “invalid in the eyes of the law.”

Sedition, in its new avatar, has been used against climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, stand-up comic Kunal Kamra, satirists Madri Kakoti and Shamita Yadav better as Dr Medusa and Ranting Gola respectively, Bhojpuri singer Neha Singh Rathore, TV star and Big Boss winner Akhil Marar, a 20-year-old autorickshaw driver Sahil Khan and even Pushpa Sathidar, wife of the late actor Vira Sathidar, who was booked for merely reciting the acclaimed Faiz Ahmed Faiz poem ‘Hum Dekhenge’ at a meeting.in Nagpur in May 2025.

Even after sedition cases are dropped, the punishing process does not end, as the ordeal of Manipuri journalist Kishore Wangkhemcha, booked for speaking out about the struggles of leaders of Manipur or film maker Aisha Sultana, charged for criticising the Lakshadweep administrator, bears out..

Clearly, the price of dissent and critical thought is extremely high. And now, a Supreme Court order penalises peaceful protest and expression as acts of terror, effectively putting an undemocratic premium on the freedom to speak freely.

*About the Author: After an almost decade-long career as a photojournalist in Mumbai, Ritika now covers the Indian judiciary and hopes to simplify the law and decode the judiciary. Now based in Delhi, Ritika is a writer, part-time dreamer & full-time K-drama addict who escapes the city when she’s not bingeing on K-dramas.

Courtesy: Free Speech Collective

The post When Speech Becomes an Act of Terrorism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Clearly, after the widespread criticism and the sensitiveness of the issue given he upcoming local corporation elections (municipal corporation elections are on  Thursday January 15), on January 8, Yogesh Sabale, Senior Police Inspector of the Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar Police Station, called Deepak Pawar and who informed him that they were dropping the case and hence they did not need to appear in court! Since no formal intimation (or confirmation of the withdrawal of the misconceived case by the police has yet been received) Pawar raised the question: “…ahead of the elections, are you suggesting that I should not come to court on January 12 because the government does not want unnecessary trouble over the Marathi issue? However, does that mean the case has been withdrawn? On this point, Sabale could not give a definitive answer—nor could he!”

Pawar further writes, “For a grassroots activist, if within the span of ten days one is first ordered to appear in court and then requested not to appear, one can imagine the mix of happiness and astonishment this would cause. Over the past two or three decades, the decline of street-based movements has meant that even the police are unsure how to deal with people who come out onto the streets through lawful means—especially for causes like language and schools. Therefore, if those who ordered the registration of the case and instructed that charges be framed changed their minds within 24 hours, there may be reasons for this that we are not aware of. What are those reasons?”

Deepak Pawar, a renowned figure in Maharashtra also queries that,” If a case was to be registered, it should have been registered against Uddhav Thackeray, Sanjay Raut, Harshvardhan Sapkal, and Nitin Sardesai for the June 29 programme. Similarly, cases should have been registered against all leaders of political parties present at the December 18 programme. This clearly shows how convenient and selective the police’s process of registering cases is.”

The entire tale runs thus:

On January 7, a letter was published on social media in my (Deepak Pawar’s) name and in the name of Anand Bhandare. That letter concerned the case registered by the police in connection with the march we had organised on December 18, 2025—from Hutatma Smarak to the Municipal Corporation headquarters—to save Marathi schools, and about appearing before the Mazgaon court on Monday, January 12, for the framing of charges. The post highlighted that, in Maharashtra, carrying out a lawful agitation for Marathi schools has effectively been treated as a crime. After the text was published on social media, it was widely shared. Citizens’ reactions strongly condemned the government and the police in harsh terms.

नमस्कार,
७ जानेवारी रोजी समाजमाध्यमांवर मी आणि आनंद भंडारे यांच्या नावाने एक पत्र प्रसिद्ध केले होते. १८ डिसेंबर २०२५ रोजी हुतात्मा स्मारक ते महानगरपालिका मुख्यालय या दरम्यान मराठी शाळा वाचविण्यासाठी आम्ही आयोजित केलेल्या मार्चाबाबत पोलिसांनी दाखल केलेला गुन्हा आणि सोमवार, दिनांक… pic.twitter.com/hDqmJAZkJe

— Dr. Deepak Pawar दीपक पवार (@drdeepakpawar) January 11, 2026

Hello,

(Continued text of tweet)…Even if it is difficult for our voices to reach a government with a brute majority, there is a possibility that the police may still be somewhat sensitive to public criticism. Accordingly, the very next day I received a call from Yogesh Sabale, Senior Police Inspector of the Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar Police Station, who informed me that they were dropping the case. I asked him to convey this in writing, and by the end of the day I received a letter from him, which is attached here. Three days later, letters addressed to Anand Bhandare, Girish Samant, and Pranali Raut arrived. Notably, while Pranali Raut had never received a letter asking her to appear in court, she did receive a letter telling her that she need not appear in court.

If an agitation has taken place under my chairpersonship (Deepak Pawar), then at the very least, the names of everyone who participated in that agitation should have appeared in my letter. That did not happen. Not only that, but while we were initially instructed to appear in court on Monday, letters began arriving one after another—right up to Saturday night—saying that there was no need to appear. If the police are sending such letters via a police station’s WhatsApp, some basic questions arise: does each police station have an email ID, and if so, why is it not being used for this purpose—what exactly is it used for?

Yogesh Sabale, Senior Police Inspector of the Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar Police Station, spoke to me at length over the phone. The very system that officially exists to maintain law and order often ends up suppressing the rights of ordinary citizens. Officers like him work at the intermediate level within this system, and therefore their authority has limits. Perhaps their personal integrity and goodwill exceed their formal powers. That may be why he said to me (Deepak Pawar), “I request you not to appear in court on Monday.”

For a grassroots activist, if within the span of ten days one is first ordered to appear in court and then requested not to appear, one can imagine the mix of happiness and astonishment this would cause. Over the past two or three decades, the decline of street-based movements has meant that even the police are unsure how to deal with people who come out onto the streets through lawful means—especially for causes like language and schools. Therefore, if those who ordered the registration of the case and instructed that charges be framed changed their minds within 24 hours, there may be reasons for this that we are not aware of. What are those reasons?

The question I (Deepak Pawar ) put to Sabale was this: ahead of the elections, are you suggesting that I should not come to court on the 12th because the government does not want unnecessary trouble over the Marathi issue? But does that mean the case has been withdrawn? On this point, Sabale could not give a definitive answer—nor could he. He merely said that cases had been registered against workers of political parties. However, this claim does not hold water. I (Deepak Pawar) had already demonstrated this by citing the names of those against whom cases were, and were not, registered in connection with the June 29 programme protesting unjust government resolutions. If a case was to be registered, it should have been registered against Uddhav Thackeray, Sanjay Raut, Harshvardhan Sapkal, and Nitin Sardesai for the June 29 programme. Similarly, cases should have been registered against all leaders of political parties present at the December 18 programme. This clearly shows how convenient and selective the police’s process of registering cases is.”

At the point of writing this detailed post on social media, Pawar informs people of Maharashtra “all of us activists from the Marathi Abhyas Kendra are busy in Shirur with preparations for the 9th Marathi-loving Parents’ Conference.”

The letters sent by the police may be read here:

(The original tweet on X was in Marathi)

Related:

Mumbai’s Second Lifeline in ICU: Mumbaikars respond to call of “Save BEST”

BMC Polls: ECI claims superintendence on citizenship even as Foreigners (NRIS) enter Mumbai airport carrying Indian Voter IDs

Remove illegal and unstable hoardings, signboards & electric signages immediately: Mumbaikars to BMC

The post Academic, Deepak Pawar to Mumbai Police: Are frivolous cases against us –filed after a peaceful demonstration to save Marathi schools –being dropped because of the upcoming BMC polls? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The country, India, the world’s largest democracy, placed fourth out of 168 nations assessed for the likelihood of what researchers call intrastate mass killings. More significantly, India topped the list of countries facing such danger that are not already experiencing large-scale violence.

This is the December 2025 report Countries at Risk for Intrastate Mass Killing 2025-26, Statistical Risk Assessment Results, available here, from the museum’s Early Warning Project estimates India has a 7.5% chance of seeing deliberate mass violence against civilians before the end of 2026. The researchers define such violence as armed groups killing at least 1000 non-combatants within a year based on their group identity, which could include ethnicity, religion, politics or geography.

Three countries scored higher than India. Another South Asian neighbour, Myanmar, holds the top spot, followed by Chad and Sudan. However, the difference is that several high-ranking nations including Myanmar and Sudan are already dealing with ongoing mass killings, making India’s position particularly noteworthy as a potential new flashpoint.

Methodology: Researchers at the museum and Dartmouth College analysed decades of historical data to identify patterns. They look at which characteristics countries shared in the years before mass violence erupted, then search for similar warning signs today.

“Which countries today look most similar to countries that experienced mass killings in the past, in the year or two before those mass killings began?” the report asks.

The model examines more than 30 factors, from population size and economic indicators to measures of political freedom and armed conflict. Historically, roughly one or two countries experience new episodes of mass killing each year.

It was Lawrence Woocher, research director at the museum’s Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, wrote in the report’s foreword that the project aims to help officials and organisations decide where to focus resources for prevention. Pointing out that the Holocaust was preventable, Woocher wrote, “By heeding warning signs and taking early action, individuals and governments can save lives”.

The assessment looks only at future outbreaks, not whether existing violence might worsen. This approach helps fill what researchers see as a gap in prevention efforts, since ongoing crises often dominate attention.

Crucially, the researchers caution against viewing their findings as predictions. The statistical model identifies risk factors that historically appeared before mass violence, but these factors do not necessarily cause such events.

“Readers should keep in mind that our model is not causal,” the report states. “The variables identified as predicting higher or lower risk of mass killings in a country are not necessarily the factors that drive or trigger atrocities.”

For instance, a country’s large population, for instance, does not trigger violence. However, nations with bigger populations have historically been more likely to experience mass killings, making it a useful indicator when combined with other data.

The model relies on publicly available information from 2024, which means events from 2025 do not reflect in the current rankings. Data limitations also mean the assessment may not fully capture conditions in places where governments restrict access to observers. “This assessment is just one tool,” the report underlined. “It is meant to be a starting point for discussion and further research, not a definitive conclusion.”

Identifying the countries in the top tier, the report lays out specific concerns.

“For every country in the top 30, we recommend that policy makers consider whether they are devoting sufficient attention to addressing the risks of mass atrocities occurring within that country,” the authors recommended.

The report suggests several lines of inquiry. Are governments paying enough attention to the danger of systematic attacks on civilians? What specific triggers, whether elections, political upheaval or protests, could spark widespread violence?

The authors recommend that international bodies and national governments conduct their own detailed assessments of high-risk countries. Such reviews should examine what drives the risk, what scenarios seem plausible, and what existing strengths in a society need to be reinforced to prevent violence.

“Strategies and tools to address atrocity risks should, of course, be tailored to each country’s context,” the report noted.

The Early Warning Project has released annual assessments since 2014. In that time, mass atrocities have occurred in multiple countries, including genocide against the Rohingya in Burma and mass civilian deaths in South Sudan and Ethiopia. “Even in cases like these where warnings have been issued, they have simply not prompted enough early action,” Woocher stated.

Related:

Partitioned minds, a Saffron Fatwa & Denial of Fair Opportunity: Mata Vaishno Devi University, Jammu

Apologies from an ashamed Hindu

Muslim student set on fire in Bareilly outside exam centre, suffers 8% burns

The post India tops among countries at risk of mass crimes, atrocities, US Holocaust Museum warns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Farhad had reportedly just stepped out of the examination centre when the attack occurred at the college gate. Witnesses saw flames leap from his clothes as people nearby scrambled to put them out.

Fortuitously, another group of students and passers-by rushed to douse the fire with water and cloth. Some used water bottles. Others shouted for help. For a few minutes, the scene dissolved into panic.

Police said that Farhad sustained around 8% burn injuries. He was first taken to a private facility on Delhi Road and later shifted to the district hospital. His condition is said to be stable, officials said. Moradabad (city) SP Kumar Ranvijay Singh said, “It appears the attackers used a petrol-filled bottle. We’re collecting forensic samples to confirm. An FIR is being registered.” Predictably, none have been arrested yet.

Hindu College is one of Moradabad’s older educational institutions. Police have taken statements from witnesses and are analysing footage from nearby CCTV cameras. The bottle suspected to have been used in the attack has been sent for chemical analysis. Police identified suspects as students of the same college. Their names emerged during questioning of those present on campus.

Related:

Maharashtra Mob Violence: Muslim student and a fruit vendor, forced into chanting ‘Jai Sri Ram’

Muslim student denied exam for wearing beard in Ahmedabad: A disturbing reflection of rising intolerance

Terrorism’s Shadow: Rising hatred against Indian Muslims after Pahalgam terror attack

The post Muslim student set on fire in Bareilly outside exam centre, suffers 8% burns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The First Information Report of seven pages mentions offences under Sections 353 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Samhita and details a complaint lodged on December 18, 2025 over a reported Facebook post dated December 14, 2025. On perusal this post appeared unavailable for viewing. A resident of the United Kingdom and key consultant with the National Health Service (NHS) Dr Patil’s Videos and advise on public health issues especially at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic are remembered with affection and respect. The fact that before his arrest/detention no information as is required was provided to the British consulate since he is a citizen of that country has also raised eyebrows. The complainant, it is reported is one Nikhil Bhamare, member of the BJP Maharashtra’s Social Media cell who has faced cases for intemperate language posts on social media during the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi government (MVA) between 2019-2022.

The FIR may be read below.

Here are some of the social media posts strongly condemning the detention.

Dr. Sangram Patil, a British citizen of Indian origin and a proud son of Maharashtra, was arrested by the Mumbai Crime Branch at Mumbai’s Adani Airport early in the morning as he entered India, in connection with a case of engaging in “objectionable” social media conversations against the Modi government. His wife was also with him. It could not be ascertained whether anything was informed to the British legal authorities in this regard.

According to information received from sources:

Dr. Sangram Patil, a British citizen of Indian origin and a proud son of Maharashtra, was arrested by the Mumbai Crime Branch at Mumbai’s Adani Airport early in the morning as he entered India, in connection with a case of engaging… pic.twitter.com/94hCS0UFIG

— Raju Parulekar (@rajuparulekar) January 10, 2026

लंडनचे डॅा. संग्राम पाटील यांना मुंबई विमानतळावर पोलिसांनी
ताब्यात घेतलंय.
या बिनडोक कारवाईचा निषेध!#DevendraFadnavis

— nikhil wagle (@waglenikhil) January 10, 2026

Strongly condemn the arbitrary arrest of Dr. #SangramPatil at #Mumbai airport this morning!
A proud son of #Maharashtra, British citizen of #Indian origin, who fearlessly spoke truth is now targeted.

This is nothing but state-sponsored suppression of voice!… pic.twitter.com/wmpWFWox4k

— Dr. Jitendra Dehade (@jitendradehade) January 10, 2026

Some of Dr Sangram Patil’s social media posts may be seen here

April 2025

आपलं संविधान ,माझ संविधान.
धन्यवाद बाबासाहेब तुमच्या संविधानाने किमया केली. pic.twitter.com/mF9L6gLaWT

— Dr Sangram Gokulsingh Patil (@drsangrampatil) April 8, 2023

January 2025

“तुम्ही शूर विरांची संतान आहात ही गोष्ट काल्पनिक नव्हे, तर भीमा कोरेगांवला जाऊन बघा तुमच्या पूर्वजांची नावे तेथील विजयस्तंभावर कोरलेली आहेत. तो पुरावा आहे की, तुम्ही भेड बकरीची संतान नसून सिंहाचे छावे आहात.”
– डॉ. बाबासाहेब आंबेडकर
(दिनांक २५.१२.१९२७ महाडचे भाषण) pic.twitter.com/43Xs0g7YpU

— Dr Sangram Gokulsingh Patil (@drsangrampatil) January 1, 2026

December 30 2025

pic.twitter.com/pVs24PBu2x

— Dr Sangram Gokulsingh Patil (@drsangrampatil) December 30, 2025

Related:

लंडनहून मुंबईत परतातच डॉक्टर संग्राम पाटील यांना विमानतळावर पोलिसांनी घेतलं ताब्यात, सरोदेंनी व्यक्त केला संताप

The post Dr Sangram Patil detained by Mumbai Crime Branch, move sharply condemned appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaint arises from a speech delivered by Satam on December 6, 2025, during the public inauguration of a BJP office in Ward No. 47, Malad West, at a time when the Model Code of Conduct was in force owing to the ongoing Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) electoral process. The speech, widely circulated through video footage online, deploys familiar yet deeply dangerous communal tropes—branding Muslims as “jihadis,” accusing them of facilitating illegal immigration, and invoking conspiracy theories such as “vote jihad” and “land jihad.”

From political speech to communal vilification

CJP’s complaint makes it clear that the impugned speech goes far beyond permissible political criticism. Satam is seen alleging that “jihadis” have infiltrated the Goregaon Sports Club, accusing Muslims of aiding Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants in illegally acquiring land and identity documents, and suggesting that demographic changes driven by Muslim presence pose a threat to governance and society.

These remarks, delivered at a public political event and amplified through digital circulation, effectively criminalise an entire religious community, casting Muslim citizens as infiltrators, conspirators, and demographic threats. The language used is not incidental—it is part of a growing repertoire of coded hate speech, designed to mobilise voters through fear, suspicion, and hostility towards a minority community.

CJP has annexed the video footage of the speech as evidence, underscoring that these are not stray remarks but verifiable, deliberate public statements made in an electoral context.

Clear violations of the Model Code of Conduct

The complaint highlights that the Model Code of Conduct explicitly bars political actors from making appeals to communal feelings, aggravating differences between religious communities, or using unverified allegations that vitiate the electoral atmosphere. Satam’s remarks, CJP argues, strike at the very heart of these prohibitions.

By invoking Muslims as a collective threat and framing them as agents of demographic and electoral subversion, the speech seeks to polarise the electorate along religious lines—a practice the Election Commission has repeatedly condemned, including in cases involving indirect or “dog-whistle” appeals.

Statutory breaches under the Representation of the People Act

CJP further points out that the speech attracts multiple violations under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These include:

• Section 123(3), which prohibits appeals based on religion—violated here through indirect but unmistakable religious mobilisation
• Section 123(3A), which bars the promotion of hatred or enmity between communities
• Section 125, a penal provision that criminalises the promotion of enmity in connection with elections.

The complaint draws strength from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017), which unequivocally held that any direct or indirect appeal to religion corrodes the foundations of secular democracy.

An assault on constitutional values

Beyond electoral law, CJP situates the speech within the broader constitutional framework. The remarks, it argues, violate Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 21 (right to dignity), while abusing the protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a)—a right that does not extend to hate speech.

At stake is not merely legal compliance, but the constitutional promise of secularism, fraternity, and equal citizenship, values explicitly enshrined in the Preamble.

Why This Matters: Electoral integrity and minority rights

Malad West and its surrounding areas are religiously diverse. In such contexts, speeches that frame minorities as conspirators or infiltrators carry real consequences: voter intimidation, communal polarisation, and erosion of public trust in free and fair elections.

CJP warns that allowing such rhetoric to pass without consequence lowers the threshold of acceptable political discourse and emboldens further communal targeting—turning elections into arenas of fear rather than democratic choice.

CJP’s call for urgent action

In its prayer, CJP urges the Election Commission to take immediate cognisance of the complaint, initiate proceedings against Ameet Satam for MCC violations, issue a show-cause notice, impose appropriate sanctions, and direct law enforcement authorities to examine penal liability under the RPA. Importantly, CJP also calls for a general advisory to political parties, cautioning against the use of conspiracy-laden communal narratives like “vote jihad” and “land jihad.”

The complete complaint may be read here.

Related:

CJP flags serial inflammatory speeches by Kalicharan Maharaj, seeks urgent action over repeated calls for Muslim exclusion and vigilantism

NBDSA pulls up Times Now Navbharat for communal, agenda-driven broadcast on ‘Miya Bihu’; orders removal of inflammatory content

CJP files complaint with ECI against Arunachal Minister Ojing Tasing for threatening voters with denial of welfare schemes

CJP moves NCM against surge in Hate Speech at Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra

CJP files complaint over Malabar Hill incident involving Aadhaar checks and targeting of Muslim vendors

The post CJP approaches Election Commission over communal and hate-based speech by BJP Mumbai President appeared first on SabrangIndia.