In a memorandum submitted from its Ahmedabad office, the organisation cited media reports detailing incidents of arson, vandalism and damage across multiple locations in and around Dhandhuka. According to the complaint, shops and garages were damaged and set ablaze near Ranpur Circle and along Barwala Road, while vehicles were torched at Dholera tri-junction and Rudra Complex on Bagodara highway.

Incidents of stone pelting in residential areas such as Naseeb Society and attacks on establishments including Alpha Pan Parlour, Gajanan Restaurant and Ami Hotel were also reported. The memorandum further mentioned damage to transport offices, burning of trucks near Yakin Transport, and destruction at RMS Hospital premises. It also referred to alleged attempts to set fire to a cemetery and agricultural losses, including burning of garlic crops.

The MCC has urged authorities to act in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines on mob violence and lynching, particularly those laid down in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs Union of India, which mandate preventive, remedial and punitive measures by state authorities.

Mujahid Nafees, convenor of the MCC Gujarat, said there appeared to be “a specific group intent on disturbing peace and targeting properties belonging to Muslims,” and called for immediate intervention to restore law and order. He demanded a prompt assessment of damages by the revenue department and compensation for those affected, strict legal action against those involved in the violence, and action against individuals spreading inflammatory content on social media.

Dhandhuka, located in Ahmedabad district, has witnessed communal tensions in the past, including incidents that drew statewide attention and prompted heightened policing and surveillance. Authorities have not yet issued a detailed public statement on the latest developments, though local police are understood to have increased deployment in sensitive areas to prevent further escalation.

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Dhandhuka violence: Gujarat minority group seeks judicial action, cites targeted arson appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Further, the communication points out that in the past, the Ministry of Environment and Forests granted clearance in 2004 for the diversion of forestland in the Niyamgiri Hills to enable a corporate entity to mine bauxite for an alumina refinery located nearby, also on forestland. This decision was subsequently set right by the Supreme Court of India. It was only when the Supreme Court intervened and insisted in 2013 that the concerned Gram Sabhas needed to give their consent under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), that the matter was placed before the Gram Sabhas. At the time, all the 12 concerned Gram Sabhas categorically denied permission for the mining project, affirming their cultural and spiritual rights to the area.

Now, 13 years later, regrettably, less than 50 km away from Niyamgiri, in Sijimali in Rayagada district of Odisha, also in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, efforts have been made to again illegally acquire the forest lands by fraudulent means. In December 2025, MoEFCC accorded stage I forest diversion clearance, based on the 2023 gramsabha resolutions, which are claimed to be fraudulent, with a stipulation that the diversion was subject to FRA clearance, the letter states. The Stage 1 forest diversion clearance given was itself flawed as the prior mandatory site visit was not undertaken and due process was not followed. In December 2023, it was claimed that the concerned Gram Sabhas had passed ‘unanimous’ resolutions in favour of the mining activities to be taken up by Vedanta, the same group which had attempted to take up mining in the Niyamgiri hills.  Villagers of Sijimali have alleged that the resolutions were fraudulent, that a number of non-residents took part in the Gram Sabha meetings, that minors and deceased persons were shown to be present, that consent was obtained through fraud and manipulation. Media reports[1] also mention that the Gram Sabha meetings never took place and that the police brought in people from elsewhere and recorded photographs and videos. In February 2025, two Gram Panchayats filed a writ petition in the Odisha High Court to quash the 2023 Gram Sabha resolutions. The Court disposed of the matter in March 2025 directing the Centre to take note of the concerns.  Despite this order, and regardless of local protests, construction of a three km. long approach road was started, with the presence of armed police. This is the background of the clashes.

The CCG states that the collective is “distressed by the fact that despite knowing that the Forest Rights Act was applicable to the land on which the mining would be taken up, the State Government chose not to follow the precedent of the Niyamgiri judgement of the Supreme Court and ensure fair proceedings by seeking presence of a judicial officer at the meetings of the Gram Sabha.”

“Apart from the above, the principles of the 1997 Samatha judgement of the Supreme Court have also been violated.  In the matter of ‘transfer’ of tribal land to a ‘non-tribal person’, the court had held that without due consultation and benefit sharing, government land or forest land or tribal land cannot be transferred to private entities. It is amazing that the government, despite having the duty of protecting common property resources, seems to be bent upon handing these resources over to subserve private interests.  Such actions are also a clear violation of Article 39 of the Constitution which mandates the State to secure social and economic justice.

“The manner in which the Sijimali protests have been dealt with indicates complete violation of the spirit of the Niyamgiri judgement of the Supreme Court. It shows scant regard for the Forest Rights Act.  It creates serious doubts about the authenticity of the resolutions of Gram Sabha, indicating that free, prior and informed consent of the Gram Sabha had not been obtained. It shows the State’s inability or refusal to learn from past incidents of tribal unrest which have, in several cases, led to the loss of tribal lives.”

The CCG has also pointed out that these days when we have a Mission Karmayogi to systematise capacity building at all levels, it should have been a fairly easy step to incorporate such a landmark Supreme Court Judgements in the training curriculum of the concerned officials, so that future investment proposals are handled with due diligence, without requiring people to go all the way to approach the Supreme Court again. Similarly, it should have been a routine item of administration in these days of Information Technology, that the individual and community rights recognised under the Forest Rights Act are duly incorporated into revenue records and maps. All this brings us to the disturbing question of whether the new chapter referred to by Jaipal Singh Munda, of just and fair governance, is still a distant dream.”

On January 24, 1947, Jaipal Singh Munda, member of the Constituent Assembly, had stated, “The whole history of my (tribal) people is one of continuous exploitation and dispossession by the non-aboriginals of India… I take you all at your word that now we are going to start… a new chapter of independent India where there is equality of opportunity, where no one would be neglected.”

Invoking this now 79 years later, the letter urges India’s woman Adivasi President that “they are hopeful that you will be concerned about the injustice that is being done, and that you will get the government to comprehensively re-examine the authenticity of the December 2023 Gram Sabha resolutions.  Pending a detailed enquiry, the stage I forest diversion clearance should be suspended and the physical work of road construction to Sijimali mining area should be stopped. The cases of the tribal persons who have been booked under various criminal law sections need to be reviewed by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. All steps must be taken to see that the gains of the Forest Rights Act, both in terms of individual and community rights, are consolidated to secure better livelihoods for all tribals and other traditional forest dwellers.”

The signatories are:

[1]   Report in the Hindu. 3.1.2026 https://frontline.thehindu.com/environment/sijimali-bauxite-mining-gram-sabha-fraud/article70463304.ece

The post Police action in Odisha’s Rayagada district condemned, Adivasi rights paramount: CCG appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Beyond the ‘plum’ posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These 13 questions – sharp, insistent, and impossible to brush aside – cut through the carefully crafted and cunning narrative on women’s empowerment projected by Narendra Modi and his government. Shivasundar is not merely interrogating policy; he is challenging the very intent, timing, and political calculus behind this charade of a law

Through this Shivasundar exposes how the women’s reservation issue has been transformed from a long-awaited democratic reform into an electoral instrument — announced with fanfare, deferred with design, and deployed in moments of political convenience. Here are the questions. Read On.

Question #1

After amending Article 334A of the Constitution in 2023 with unanimous support of all parties and making women’s reservation a law, what was the need for another constitutional amendment?

Question #2

As demanded unanimously by opposition parties in 2023, why was 33% reservation not implemented within the existing 543 seats? Why were unnecessary conditions added—such as implementing it only after delimitation based on the 2026 census—making it impossible to enforce women’s reservation until 2034?

Question #3

Why was the Act, passed in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in 2023, approved by the President and gazetted, not notified until April 16, 2026?

Question #4

If the intention of bringing the 2026 constitutional amendment bill was to implement women’s reservation quickly, why were manipulative sub-conditions like delimitation based on the 2011 census included?

Question #5

Even knowing that adding highly controversial delimitation conditions would prevent securing a two-thirds majority in Parliament, why was this process initiated?

Question #6

Even now, why is your government unwilling to call a special session and introduce a simple amendment to provide 33% reservation within the existing 543 seats?

Question #7

In 2023, you introduced a women’s reservation bill that could not be implemented until 2034—just one year before elections.

Now, during ongoing elections in five states, despite clearly knowing the bill would fail (due to delimitation conditions), you deliberately introduced and ensured its defeat. You have also started a false and divisive campaign blaming opposition parties for this failure.

Was this bill introduced merely to defame the opposition?

Does this not mean you have consistently betrayed women’s reservation for petty electoral gains?

Question #8

Since 1996, proposals for women’s reservation have been repeatedly introduced in Parliament by Congress governments, United Front governments, your own Vajpayee government, and later the UPA government. One major reason as to why they were not passed was the objection that there was no sub-quota for OBCs within women’s reservation.

Why did even the Vajpayee government not attempt to implement women’s reservation with an OBC sub-quota, like other governments?

Why does the 2026 bill you introduced also not include an OBC sub-quota?

Question #9

One of the reasons why attempts between 1996–2014 failed was coalition governments. But in 2014 and 2019, the Modi government had a full majority. Why did you not use that to pass women’s reservation without delimitation conditions, as you did for EWS reservation for upper caste?

Instead,

a) In 2023, you ensured it could not be implemented until 2034

b) In 2026, you added malicious delimitation conditions and ensured the bill’s defeat

Does this not make the Modi government the most anti-women and opposed to women’s reservation?

Question #10

If the BJP truly has commitment to women’s empowerment, why not voluntarily give 33% tickets to women in Lok Sabha and Assembly elections without waiting for a law? Except for TMC, why does BJP—like most other parties—still limit women’s tickets to around 12–15%?

Question #11

After the bill’s defeat, Prime Minister Modi allegedly misused government machinery and, acting like a BJP leader, delivered hate-filled election speeches falsely branding opposition parties as anti-women. Since institutions like the Election Commission and Supreme Court are not acting against this, does this not further prove that the bill was introduced just to label opposition parties as anti-women and gain women’s votes?

Question #12

In yesterday’s speech, Prime Minister Modi called himself a protector of women.

But over the past 11 years, in cases like Manipur, Kathua, Unnao, harassment of women wrestlers, and honoring of Bilkis Bano case convicts by BJP leaders—why has he remained silent, even when BJP MPs and leaders themselves were accused of crimes against women? Why protect such perpetrators instead of speaking out?

Question #13

Modi compared the failure of women’s reservation to female foeticide. Female foeticide reduces the proportion of women in society compared to men.

In reality, why do states like Gujarat (long ruled by BJP), and Haryana and Uttar Pradesh (with strong BJP and Sangh influence), have among the lowest female-to-male ratios in the country?

Conversely, why do states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Telangana, and West Bengal—where BJP influence is relatively weaker—have higher female population ratios compared to “Hindi-Hindu” states?

Just asking.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Women’s Reservation – 13 Questions to Modi And His Associates in Government – Just Asking !! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Related:

Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death-Part 2-Pathbreaking Orders of the High Court

Decoding the Sathankulam Judgement on Custodial Death – Part 1 – Context of Torture in India

The post Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death:Part-3 Witnesses to be Celebrated & Honoured appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One of the statements reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This statement has been endorsed by:

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

Related:

Delimitation: Strengthening democracy or rigging the game?

What the 2026 delimitation process has in store for Indian Muslims

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

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

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

Courtesy: People’s Watch

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

High-Flying Service: The Decorated Career of Wing Cdr Akhtar

Wing Commander Akhtar, commissioned into the Indian Air Force on 15 December 2006, served the nation with distinction for 17 years. His career included key roles across the country—from training nearly 2,000 airmen at Air Force Station Tambaram to administrative leadership postings in Chandigarh and Allahabad. He also represented India internationally in a Young Officers’ Exchange Program with the Royal Thai Air Force.

He played a crucial role during the devastating 2018 Kerala floods, coordinating rescue and relief operations while serving at the Southern Air Command. After taking voluntary retirement (VRS) in July 2022 due to family commitments, Akhtar has been actively mentoring youth aspiring to join the armed forces and working with underprivileged students.

From Combat to Courtroom: A Veteran’s Fight for the Vote

According to Akhtar, his name was placed “under adjudication” during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR). However, before he could even be called for a hearing, his name was deleted in the second supplementary list released on March 28, 2026.

The Wing Commander (Retd) claims he followed all instructions issued by the Election Commission and remained in constant touch with the BLO at every step. “My name was there in the final list, so I had nothing to act on. But in the first supplementary list on March 23, it was marked ‘under adjudication’. I contacted my BLO, Mondal, but he did not tell me any procedure to follow and assured me that it would be restored automatically. Then on March 28, when my name was deleted in the second list, the BLO told me to hire a lawyer and approach the tribunal,” rued Akhtar.

What makes the case more puzzling is that:

Longevity: His name had been part of the electoral rolls since 2002.

Family Status: His family members’ names continue to remain on the list.

Lack of Due Process: No formal hearing or opportunity for clarification was provided.

The incident has sparked outrage among sections of civil society, with some questioning whether the deletion could be linked to the officer’s identity as a Muslim. “When a decorated officer with an impeccable service record is denied even a hearing, it naturally raises questions,” said Athar Firdausi, a rights activist.

Recently, Alt News, in its report “Bengal SIR: The Wall ECI Built Around Electoral Data and How We Broke Through It,” highlighted large-scale discrepancies, claiming that voters from communities less likely to support the BJP were disproportionately targeted for deletion or placed under doubt.

However, the Wing Commander is not the only alleged victim of the controversial SIR process. The list is long. eNewsroom has also reported that AGWB gazetted officer Reshma Shirin Iqbal’s name was deleted in a similar manner. Former Calcutta High Court judge Sahidullah Munshi’s name was also removed, and he publicly stated that the experience was not only humiliating but left him unsure of where to seek redress. It has also been reported that the names of the grandson and granddaughter-in-law of Indian Constitution illustrator Nandalal Bose were dropped.

Courtesy: https://enewsroom.in

The post No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Roy cited the case of Ripon Mollya, whose name was deleted despite his family’s long-standing voter registration in the constituency, and Jesmina Khatoon, whose name was purged following her marriage, even though both her parents and husband are registered voters. He noted that in Booth No. 56 of Swarupnagar Assembly Constituency, 13 names were deleted on February 28, followed by another 52 on March 23, with most belonging to legitimate citizens.

The letter accuses electoral officers of procedural failures, including ignoring Form 6 applications and petitions submitted to the District Election Officer and District Magistrate. Roy warned that “silly clerical typos” and departmental whims were being used to disenfranchise marginalized communities in border villages. He described the ongoing Special Intensive Revision as “chaotic” and “non-transparent,” turning what should be a citizen-friendly process into an instrument of harassment.

Calling the exercise of power a public trust, Roy demanded immediate restoration of the names of Ripon Mollya and Jesmina Khatoon, a time-bound inquiry into ignored applications, and directives to ensure marginalized populations are not excluded due to minor technicalities. “We look forward to your immediate intervention to end this ‘nightmare’ for these families and to uphold the sanctity of our democracy,” Roy wrote.

This complaint underscores growing concerns about electoral integrity and the protection of voting rights in sensitive border regions.

Courtesy: Counterview

The post Rights group files complaint over electoral roll purges in North 24 Parganas appeared first on SabrangIndia.