The report identifies the reported disappearance and killing of journalist Mukesh Chandrakar in Bastar in early January as emblematic of the dangers faced by those who speak truth to power. Chandrakar had reported on poor-quality road construction in the region shortly before he went missing; his body was later found in a septic tank. The FSC notes that this incident set the tone for a year in which nine people were killed for exercising their right to free speech, including eight journalists and one social media influencer. It underscores that violence against journalists—particularly those working in rural and semi-urban districts—remains one of the most visible and brutal forms of silencing.

Journalists as primary targets

The FSC report records 40 attacks on free speech actors in 2025, of which 33 targeted journalists. It notes that reporters covering local corruption, illegal mining, liquor mafias, and administrative failures were especially vulnerable. In several cases, the police initially attempted to attribute killings or deaths to personal disputes, accidents, or intoxication, even when the journalists had recently published sensitive stories. The report highlights the case of Uttarakhand-based YouTuber Rajeev Pratap, whose body was recovered from the Bhagirathi, river days after he aired a video exposing liquor consumption inside a local hospital. Despite colleagues raising serious doubts, police claimed he had driven into the river while drunk.

The FSC further draws attention to the continued incarceration of journalists Irfan Mehraj and Rupesh Kumar under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, noting that their prolonged detention without trial exemplifies the use of counter-terror laws to suppress journalism. Threats and harassment accompanied physical violence: at least 14 of 19 harassment incidents and 12 of 17 recorded threats were directed at journalists engaged in professional work. The report cites, as illustrative, a threat by TDP MLA Gummanur Jayaram to force journalists “to sleep on railway tracks” if they published allegedly false information about him.

The return of sedition and criminal lawfare

One of the most troubling findings of the report is the resurgence of sedition prosecutions, despite repeated assurances that colonial-era speech offences had been rendered obsolete under the new criminal codes. The FSC documents multiple sedition cases filed in 2025 against satirists, journalists, and political commentators for online posts questioning state action.

The report details how satirists Neha Singh Rathore, Madri Kakoti (Dr Medusa), and Shamita Yadav (Ranting Gola) were charged with sedition for social media commentary following the Pahalgam attack. It flags the Allahabad High Court’s rejection of Rathore’s anticipatory bail as a significant departure from earlier judicial reluctance to allow sedition prosecutions for speech. The FSC also records the filing of sedition FIRs by Assam police against the leadership and columnists of The Wire, including founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan and consulting editor Karan Thapar, as well as against journalist Abhisar Sarma for a YouTube programme that relied on publicly available judicial observations.

According to the report, these cases exemplify “lawfare”—the strategic use of criminal law not necessarily to secure convictions, but to intimidate, exhaust, and silence critical voices through prolonged legal processes.

Mass censorship and platform control

The largest category of violations documented by the FSC in 2025 relates to censorship and internet control, with 11,385 instances recorded. The report highlights mass government takedown requests to social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter). In May and July 2025 alone, over 10,000 accounts were withheld in India. Citing X’s submissions before the Karnataka High Court, the report notes that the platform received 29,118 takedown requests from the Indian government between January and June 2025 and complied with the overwhelming majority of them.

The FSC identifies the Sahyog portal as a key institutional mechanism enabling decentralised censorship by allowing state agencies, district officials, and local police to issue takedown notices directly to platforms. Following the Pahalgam attack, numerous accounts belonging to journalists, news organisations, and international media outlets—including The Wire, Maktoob Media, Reuters, and many senior journalists—were withheld without public disclosure of reasons. The report notes that the Karnataka High Court’s decision upholding the Sahyog portal effectively legitimised large-scale, opaque censorship of online speech.

The ‘Hidden Hand’: Self-censorship and corporate influence

Beyond formal orders, the FSC report devotes significant attention to what it terms the “hidden hand” of censorship: informal pressures, verbal directives, and institutional intimidation that rarely leave a documentary trail. The report cites instances of journalists receiving “friendly calls,” media houses quietly dropping stories, and investigative platforms being financially crippled through regulatory action, such as the revocation of The Reporter’s Collective’s tax-exempt status.

Corporate power, the report notes, increasingly intersected with state censorship. It documents the September 2025 ex-parte injunction obtained by Adani Enterprises leading to the takedown of over 200 pieces of online content critical of the company, as well as sustained attempts to suppress reporting on the Vantara wildlife project linked to Reliance Industries. Even where courts later set aside gag orders, the report observes that the chilling effect on media coverage persisted.

Academia, cinema, and the right to think

The FSC records at least 16 serious instances of censorship in academia, including the cancellation of conferences, denial of permissions, deportation of visiting scholars, and the revocation of OCI status of academics critical of the government. In Kashmir, the report notes, authorities banned 25 books on the region’s history and politics and raided bookstores.

In cinema, the report documents excessive cuts, prolonged certification delays, and outright denial of certification to films addressing caste violence, state abuse, or social injustice. It notes that even internationally acclaimed films and centenary classics were barred from screening, underscoring how certification had become a tool of prior restraint rather than classification.

An uneven judicial response

While acknowledging some notable judicial interventions in favour of free speech, the FSC concludes that the judiciary’s overall response in 2025 was inconsistent. The report contrasts strong Supreme Court observations protecting poetry, satire, and art with orders that imposed gag conditions, endorsed expansive censorship mechanisms, or demanded apologies from artists. This inconsistency, the report argues, has failed to provide a stable constitutional shield for free expression.

A shrinking democratic space

In its concluding assessment, the Free Speech Collective warns that the cumulative impact of violence, lawfare, mass censorship, corporate pressure, and regulatory overreach has fundamentally altered the conditions under which speech is exercised in India. The report cautions that free expression has not been extinguished outright, but increasingly conditioned, surveilled, and constrained, creating a climate in which self-censorship becomes a rational act of survival.

As the report starkly concludes, the “hidden hand” shaping India’s speech landscape in 2025 is no longer subtle—it has become structural.

The complete report may be read here.

Related:                                                            

The ‘Shastra Poojan’ Project: How the ritual of weapon worship is being recast as a tool of power and hate propaganda

MP, Odisha, Delhi, Rajasthan: Right-wing outfits barge into 2 churches ahead of Christmas, attack vendors selling X’mas goodies, tensions run high

No right to live, or die: Christians in Chhattisgarh, and India under attack

Kerala: Protests erupt after RSS-BJP man’s alleged attack on children’s Christmas carol group in Palakkad

‘Brutal intimidation of Christians’ all India condemned: Bombay Catholic Sabha

The post Free Speech in India 2025: What the Free Speech Collective report reveals about a year of silencing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We bring you the exclusive transcript of the latest episode of “Cross Bat,” the high-octane, metaphor heavy talk show hosted by the ever ebullient Balancedeep Sabchangasi. Known for his penchant for framing national crises through the nostalgic lens of 1970s Bollywood melodies and the technical nuances of a late-cut at Eden Gardens, Balancedeep attempts to find “balance” even when the pitch is clearly crumbling.

His guest is none other than Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala, a man who exemplifies the delightful charm of a bygone era. A veteran carpenter and restorer of vintage teak and rosewood, Cyrus operates from the old money enclave of Colaba. However, he is perhaps better known for his missives to the highest echelons of power, penned with the elegant precision of an antique dealer and the sharp wit of a seasoned observer. Cyrus represents the Model Citizen of the Amrit Kaal. He is a man who claims to be most law-abiding citizen, while using a strategic “naïve” voice to dissect the shenanigans of our times.

In this exchange, the duo tackles the controversial new MGNREGA Bill. The proposed legislation seeks to fundamentally transform rural employment by repealing the historic 2005 Act and replacing the legal right to work with a supply-driven, centrally capped model. This new framework shifts a significant 40% of the material funding burden to state governments and introduces mandatory 60 day work pauses during agricultural seasons, potentially curtailing the scheme’s responsiveness to local distress. Perhaps most symbolically, the bill removes the “Mahatma Gandhi” prefix from the program’s title, signalling a substantive ideological shift in India’s social safety net.

Cyrus, in his signature style, defends the government’s overhaul of the rural employment guarantee^, discussing key aspects such as democratic checks and socioeconomic security. ^.

The Transcript: Cross Bat with Balancedeep Sabchangasi

Balancedeep Sabchangasi: Welcome to Cross Bat! Today, we’re looking at the new MGNREGA Bill. Is it a masterstroke, a ‘Helicopter Shot’ over the boundary, or are we witnessing a hit wicket for rural India? To help us navigate this, we have the legendary restorer of both furniture and public discourse, Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala. Cyrus, the government says extreme poverty has fallen faster than a wicket on a green top pitch. Yet, they’ve extended free food grains to 800 million people under PMGKAY until 2028. Is this a classic Bollywood double role, or a contradiction that even Kishore Kumar couldn’t harmonize?

Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala: Balancedeep, may I call you BS? You approach the subject with the frantic energy of a bowler in the final over. Please, decelerate. In the hallowed halls of governance, this is not a contradiction. This is Strategic Surplus. You see, the world should see that the house is sturdy to maintain the shining veneer. Yet we keep the pantry stocked with 800 million bags of grain just in case the floorboards collapse^. It is a “pre-emptive philanthropy” that ensures the masses are sufficiently fed so they do not have the ungrateful urge to demand their “legal right” to work. We are polishing the image of prosperity while acknowledging, in a hushed whisper, that the wood may be a wee bit termite-ridden.  

BS: But Cyrus, let’s talk about the “repair” job. Social audits show that, post Digital reforms, misappropriation of funds is less than 0.3%. That’s a cleaner record than most mid table teams! Why do a complete structural overhaul and repeal the legal right to work when a bit of digital “varnishing” would have sufficed?

Cyrus: My dear boy, a legal right is a very cumbersome piece of furniture. It is like a heavy Victorian wardrobe that refuses to fit into a modern, streamlined apartment. It is unwieldy. By repealing the right and shifting to a centrally capped model, the government is merely practicing administrative minimalism. We are de-sanctifying the labour of the commoner. Why should the state be legally bound to provide work when it can simply offer normative allocations based on the prevailing mood in the capital? It’s about flexibility! Should the timber refuse to align with the Amrit Kaal décor, the state can simply withhold the varnish of central allocation.

BS: Flexibility? Studies show no widespread farm labour shortages, yet the bill introduces mandatory 60 day pauses during harvest seasons. Isn’t this like telling a batsman he can’t score during the Powerplay? You’re depriving workers of income exactly when they’re most vulnerable.

Cyrus: It is a rhythmic intermission. We must ensure the rural folk do not become addicted to the stability of a government wage. It spoils the entrepreneurial spirit of the impoverished! By forcing a pause, we encourage them to explore the “free market” of private exploitation, err, I mean, private enterprise. It is a lesson in character building. If they cannot find work in the fields, they can always practice coloured spit accuracy while chewing paan or while their time near garbage piles, which, as I have hitherto suggested, are the new benchmarks for a simplified citizenship.

BS: Let’s talk about the funding. The 60:40 split is a heavy bouncer for states like Punjab or Tamil Nadu. If a state is fiscally strained and can’t meet its 40% share, the workers suffer. Did the government model this risk, or is this “trickle-up” economics where the states are left to fend for themselves?

Cyrus: It is Fiscal Darwinism, BS. We are fostering a healthy competition in destitution. If a state cannot afford its share of the material costs, it simply proves that its administration lacks the visionary zeal of the centre. The Union Budget remains stagnant at ₹86,000 crore, while dues exceed ₹21,000 crore. This is a masterclass in aspirational accounting. We promise the glory of Amrit Kaal while ensuring the material reality is as thin as a cheap plywood veneer. It’s about the feeling of employment, not the actual payment.

BS: But what about the consultation, Cyrus? The original bill was debated for a year with unions and civil society. This one was passed in a midnight session amidst a walkout, debated for barely a few hours. Is this thorough scrutiny or a quick single taken while the wicketkeeper wasn’t looking?

Cyrus: Consultation is such a “pre-digital” concept. Why consult the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha or Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan when their views might cause a cognitive dissonance with the government’s perfect plan? Consulting a worker about a labour bill is like asking the rosewood if it wants to be chiselled. The wood has no macro-perspective. The carpenter knows best! Passing it after midnight is a stroke of nocturnal genius. It ensures that only the most law-abiding and awake citizens are present to witness the unanimous voice vote.

BS: Cyrus, opposition members have suggested looking at Brazil’s Bolsa Família, Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net, or similar schemes in Mexico and South Africa to mitigate concerns. Could we not have learned from these global best practices to build a more robust, less controversial bill?

Cyrus: Brazil? Ethiopia? My dear BS, those are foreign timbers. We are building an Atmanirbhar cabinet here. Why look at a South African model that might favour equity or transparency when we can have a uniquely Indian model of opaque benevolence? To learn from others is to admit that our unparalleled wisdom has a limit. We don’t need best practices from abroad. We have kick-ass creativity at home! Besides, international schemes often involve accountability, which is a very difficult stain to remove once it sets into the wood.

BS: Speaking of accountability, there were no time-bound, measurable goals added. No specific targets for poverty reduction or narrowing the inequality gap. Isn’t a bill without a deadline just a dead rubber match?

Cyrus: A time-bound goal is a trap for the unwary! If you set a goal, people expect you to reach it. That is very un-Sanskari! By keeping the goals vague and the rhetoric high, we maintain a permanent state of “becoming.” We are always about to reduce inequality. We are always on the verge of ending poverty. It keeps the privileged class, of which I am a senior member, in a state of comfortable anticipation while the “trickle-up” continues to the penthouse. Why have a poverty reduction target when you can have a glory expansion target? It also makes the Supreme Leader’s role easier.

BS: Finally, the name. Mahatma Gandhi’s name has been dropped. No discussion. Just a “symbolic” exit. Is this a substantive reform or an ideological renovation?

Cyrus: The Mahatma, with his spinning wheel and his truth, was a bit too austere for the high-gloss finish of the modern era. We needed something that reflects the supply-driven reality of our times. In fact, I have drafted a proposal for a new, more fitting acronym for the scheme: S.C.R.A.P.

BS: SCRAP?

Cyrus: Indeed! The “Strategic Centrally Restricted Allocation Program.” It is honest. It is efficient. And it tells the rural poor exactly what the government thinks of their legal rights, that they are bits of old wood to be scrapped and replaced with the shiny, hollow plastic of modern governance.

BS: Cyrus, as always, you’ve left us with much to polish in our minds. Whether this bill is a century or a duck remains to be seen, but the craftsmanship is certainly unique.

Cyrus: Just remember, BS, that in the Amrit Kaal, if you can’t fix the rot, you simply apply a thicker coat of varnish and call it an “antique”!

Balancedeep Sabchangasi: As we wrap up this intense session of Cross Bat, I find myself feeling like a batsman who’s survived a fiery spell from a vintage pacer like Malcolm Marshall. I feel bruised, bewildered, but certainly enlightened. What have we learned today from the inimitable Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala? Is this the Amrit Kaal renovation of our rural safety net? Is it a complete structural overhaul that replaces legal rights with central discretion?  Is just the surface being polished to a high gloss finish? Is the underlying grain of security for the most vulnerable being shimmied down to nothing^? Is the 60:40 funding split a Fiscal Darwinism? How does one view the nocturnal efficiency of a midnight voice vote? Is the craftsmanship of this bill a sophisticated exercise in rhetorical engineering?

As the haunting notes of “Zindagi Kaisi Hai Paheli” echo in the background, I ask you, our audience: Is this new S.C.R.A.P. model a visionary leap toward efficiency, or are we simply applying a thick coat of varnish over a deepening crisis? Is accountability such difficult stain to remove? We want to hear your views. Please send us your feedback via our digital channels.

Don’t forget to support Cross Bat. Like a classic Kishore-da melody, we strive to hit the right notes, even when the lyrics are difficult. Stay balanced, stay questioning, and we’ll see you at the next delivery.

 (A regular contributor to SabrangIndia, the writer is a conscientious citizen and a man of science and letters)

Related:

The Cross Bat Conversation: Air, antiques and force majeure

The Nation needs an Ethanol Republic – A Satire

A Satirical Imperative Request (SIR) to the CEC of India

Cyrus Seeks a Right to Multiple Voter Ids

A Satirical Plea, Dripping with Envy, to President Xi Jinping of China

The post Out with MNREGA: Hitting the Poor for a Six appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The so-called ‘mutilation’ of the song — a line being peddled by the government of the day — was part of an official resolution of the Congress Party’s Working Committee (CWC) meeting in Calcutta on October 30, 1937. The CWC meeting had Jawaharlal Nehru chairing the session and almost all the big stalwarts which included Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Bhulabhai Desai, Jamnalal Bajaj, Acharya J.B. Kripalani (General Secretary), Pattabi Seetharamiah, Rajaji, Acharya Narendra Dev, Jayaprakash Narayan, and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in attendance.

The sense of the meeting:

Though Mahatma Gandhi was not a member of the CWC, he was a special invitee and was finalising the working of the resolution which was moved by Rajendra Prasad (later, the President of India) and seconded by Sardar Patel (the Home Minister in independent India). The resolution was unanimous: “The Working Committee have given careful consideration to the question that has been raised in regard to the Congress anthem ‘Vande Mataram’. This song has a historic background and has evoked deep enthusiasm and powerful sentiment in the course of our struggle for freedom. It has thus acquired a unique place in the national movement. The Committee recognize the validity of the objections raised by Muslim friends to certain parts of the song. While the Committee have taken note of such objections in so far as it has felt justified in doing so, it is unable to go any further in the matter. The Committee have, however, came to the conclusion that the first two stanzas of the song, which alone have been generally sung on Congress and other public occasions, should be the only stanzas adopted as the National Song for the purpose of the Congress and other public bodies and functions. These two stanzas are in no sense objectionable even from the standpoint of those who have raised objections, and they contain the essence of the song. The Committee recommend that wherever the ‘Vande Mataram’ song is sung at national gatherings, only these two stanzas should be sung, and the version and music prepared by Rabindranath Tagore should be followed. The Committee trust that this decision will remove all causes of complaint and will have the willing acceptance of all communities in the country.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has indirectly targeted this resolution of the CWC in which even Sardar Patel was a part of. But has the Prime Minister realised that he has attacked a spectrum of national leaders, whose remarks on the song are being used selectively to try and score points?

What was the purpose of debating this in Parliament? Was it to have a debate on the issue for the second time much after the one in the Constituent Assembly which sealed the issue? Composed by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Vande Mataram was first published in the literary journal, Bangadarshan, in 1875 and was sung at the 1896 session of the Congress by Tagore. All these exercises took place much before the partition of Bengal.

There is no doubt that the song became the spirit of all meetings of the national movement which also had substantial representation by Muslims also. It was in 1935, when the Government of India Act was enacted, that Indians got a chance to participate in the electoral exercise to get into Provincial Assemblies and the Central Legislative Assembly. The issue of participation in the elections held in 1937 had inner party repercussions. The Congress captured the Provincial Assemblies. Some were won by the Muslim League.

When the Congress entered the portals of power, it also had the duty to ensure a diverse culture and have Vande Mataram sung at government functions. The Calcutta session became the focal point to decide to have the edited version so that it would have a pan-India appeal. The song obviously had references to Hindu goddesses, but if one wanted to ensure the broader unity of religious groups, a basic understanding on its theme was essential. It was this pragmatic decision which made them contest elections in alliance and continue in the government for the next two years. In 1939, the Congress ministries resigned in eight provinces of British India.

Later, when the Constituent Assembly was convened and the interim parliament was doubling as the Constituent Assembly in 1947, it had 208 Congress members, 73 Muslim League members, and 15 others. It also had 93 members nominated from the princely States, giving it a total of 389 members. After Partition, and the departure of the Muslim League members from the Constituent Assembly, there were only 299 members — a majority of them from the Hindu fold. It will not be out of place to state that the entry of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was possible when he was elected from Bengal Assembly by the Muslim League-dominated Assembly. After Partition, he could not continue and it was Nehru who made the decision to make the Bombay Governor nominate Dr. Ambedkar to the Assembly.

Making a choice:

The Constituent Assembly also had ideas of having a national anthem for the country. Members were made to listen to three important songs that were in contention — Vande Mataram, Sare Jahan Se Achha and Jana Gana Mana. Though secular in its meaning and set to a marching tune, Sare Jahan Se Achha was not picked as the lyricist, Allama Muhammad Iqbal, had become an ardent Pakistan supporter. Even after the final draft of the Constitution was adopted in 1949 in the House headed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad and two days before the coming into force of the Constitution, in 1950, Vande Mataram was sung in the House by a group.

However, Members were in favour of Jana Gana Mana, passing a resolution that it would be the National Song. The Constitution, which has 395 Articles, never referred to any national song as part of the constitutional framework. It was only in 1976, by the 42nd amendment, under Mrs. Gandhi’s tenure, that a provision was introduced for a fundamental duty under Article 51A (which also had a clause obligating every citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideas and institutions, the National Flag, and the National Anthem).

It was later, under the Prevention of Insults To National Honour Act, 1971, that disrespect to the National Anthem was made a penal offence. The Supreme Court of India, in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala, upheld the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and expression provided that actions do not disrupt public order or show disrespect to national symbols.

Despite being a Hindu majority, the Constituent Assembly selected Jana Gana Mana as the national anthem and was of the opinion that Vande Mataram would be the national song under its adopted version. It is against this background that one has to view the sudden ebullition over Vande Mataram with the request made by those in the ruling party to Members of Parliament to consider whether they should add a new fundamental duty under Article 51A, to accord the same respect to Vande Mataram as Jana Gana Mana.

In 2017, Justice M.V. Muralidharan of the Madras High Court gave a direction to the Tamil Nadu School Education Department that schools must sing Vande Mataram at least once a week, and crooned in offices once a month. Noting that the song could also be played in other government and private establishments at least once in a month, the judge said that if people felt that it was too difficult to sing it in Bengali or in Sanskrit, steps could be taken to translate the song into Tamil.

The Delhi High Court asked the Government of India to treat Vande Mataram on a par with the National Anthem. What is curious is that it was the same Narendra Modi government that told the court that both the National Anthem and the National Song had their sanctity and deserve equal respect. However, it said that the subject matter of the proceedings could never be a subject matter of a writ. The Modi government defended its position in court against granting equal legal status to the National Song as the National Anthem by citing the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which specifically criminalises disrupting the anthem but lacks a parallel provision for the National Song, highlighting the legal distinction.

A deeper reading:

The new controversy being sought to be created now over the National Song, 75 years after it was settled down by the Constituent Assembly, makes one doubt the intentions of the the present government. Is there an agenda to replace the National Song by a simple resolution of Parliament akin to the similar exercise done to cancel the special status of Jammu and Kashmir?

The amount of importance and publicity being given now to a non-issue certainly makes one to believe that it could be the next move of the Narendra Modi government — which is to bring in a different National Anthem for the country without disturbing the Constitution of India and any law to the contrary.

(The author, K. Chandru is retired Judge, Madras High Court; this article was first written for and published in The Hindu on December 11, 2025 and is being reproduced here with permission from the author)

Related:

Those Not Chanting Vande Matram have no Right to Live in India’: BJP MLA Surendra Singh

Activists singing Vande Matram called ‘anti-national’, attacked in Bihar!

The Politics of Processions: How the Sanatan Ekta Padyatra amplified hate speech in plain sight

The post Vande Mataram: How the recent discussions in Parliament around the national song initiated by the ruling regime stem from motives that are questionable appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tracing the background for the crisis in the agricultural sector, the analysis states that the National Commission of Farmers headed by Dr. M.S. Swaminathan had clearly stated in its 2006 Report that in order to rescue farmers from the agrarian crisis, they must be paid a remunerative price at least 50% above the comprehensive cost of cultivation C2. However, even after 19 years, these remain hollow promises. Even the MSP announced remains mostly on paper since there is no assured procurement.  There exists a substantial gap between the announced MSP and price realised by farmers.

The cost of cultivation surveys shows that the average price received by paddy farmers was 36% lower than the MSP@ A2+FL in 2021-22 (the latest data available). The average price received by Tur/Arhar (lentil) farmers in Telengana was 11% lower than the MSP in 2021-22. This implies that the benefit of MSP is not reaching to most of the farmers. The long-term data on MSP released by the Ministry of Agriculture shows a deceleration in the growth of real MSP for almost all crops, particularly paddy. For example, the real MSP for paddy grew at an annual rate of 1.17% per annum between 2004–05 and 2013–14, which declined to 0.53% per annum during the period from 2014–15 to 2025–26. Out of the 16 crops studied, 9 crops showed a sharp slowdown in real MSP growth between years 2014–15 to 2025–26. For crops such as Paddy (rice), Maize, Tur/Arhar, Urad (lentils), and Groundnut, the growth rate in the last decade was less than 1% per annum.

The official press release of the Union Government has remained almost silent about paddy, the most important Kharif crop as the inconvenient truth is that its MSP has been increased by a mere ₹69 per quintal. According to the national average cost projected by CACP, the C2+50% price for paddy comes to ₹3,135 per quintal, but the declared MSP is only ₹2,369, which means a loss of ₹766 per quintal. If we look at the cost projected by the states for paddy, it is ₹2787 in Punjab, ₹3673 in Telangana and Rs.4159 in Maharashtra per quintal. These states had recommended MSPs of ₹4,281, ₹5,510, and ₹4,783 per quintal respectively. This clearly shows that in many states, even according to government figures, farmers will struggle to recover their cost of production from paddy crop sales. According to the CACP, across India merely 17.3 per cent of paddy farmers have benefited from procurement at MSP in 2023-24. The paddy procurement at MSP was very meagre in BJP-NDA ruled States like Uttar Pradesh (5.8%), Bihar (4.1%), and Assam (below 5%). Even Congress ruled Karnataka and JMM ruled Jharkhand procured less than 5 per cent of produce from paddy farmers. Most States have also flagged that costs are higher than the CACP cost estimates. Drawing on data from Agricultural Statistics at a Glance for 2023–24 agricultural year, clearly there is a lack of alignment between procurement levels and the increase in MSP. Pertinently, only 0.23 per cent of Tur/Arhar production, 0.72 percent of Groundnut production, and 9.3 per cent of Cotton production has been procured.

The government has made exaggerated claims that the MSP has been increased by ₹820 for Nigerseed, ₹596 for Ragi, ₹589 for Cotton, and ₹579 for Sesamum per quintal. But even these increased prices fall far short of the C2+50% benchmark, and farmers will have to bear heavy losses. The MSP for Nigerseed has been fixed at ₹9,537 per quintal, while the C2+50% price should be ₹12,037 — this means a loss of ₹2,500 per quintal for the farmer.

Similarly, in the case of Ragi, the government has fixed the MSP at ₹4,886 per quintal, but the C2+50% price, as per CACP’s projections, should be ₹5,964 — which means the farmer will get ₹1,078 less per quintal than the C2+50%  price.

Looking at the figures for cotton, the C2+50% price is ₹10,075 per quintal, whereas the government has announced an MSP of only ₹7,710 — compelling the farmer to sell the crop at a loss of ₹2,365 per quintal.

It is notable that the Telangana Government had in 2024-25 demanded ₹16,000 per quintal. In Sesamum, the C2+50% price should be ₹12,948, but the government has declared an MSP of ₹9,537 — resulting in a loss of ₹3,102 per quintal for the farmer.

In Jowar (sorghum), the government-declared MSP is ₹3,699 per quintal, but the C2+50% cost, as per CACP, is ₹4,809 — which means the farmer will receive ₹1,110 less per quintal. Not only this, the CACP-projected cost for Karnataka is ₹3,802, and the state’s projected cost is ₹5,232 per quintal, while Maharashtra’s projected cost is ₹4,163 — meaning that in these states, the income from crop sales will not even cover the cost of cultivation.

The same situation prevails in the case of Bajra (pearl millet) and Maize. The MSP for Bajra has been set at ₹2,775 and for Maize at ₹2,400 per quintal, whereas the C2+50% cost based on CACP’s projections is ₹3,313 and ₹2,928 respectively. Even in Gujarat — Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s home state — the state government has projected the cost of production for Maize at ₹2,991 and suggested an MSP of ₹4,550. This means that if a Gujarati farmer sells Maize at the Centre’s MSP rates, he will receive ₹591 less than his cost of production.

These losses calculated above are based on government-projected costs. The truth, which everyone knows, is that the actual cost of production is much higher than the cost projected by the CACP. The continuously rising input costs are increasing the farmers’ expenses, but they are not receiving a fair price for their produce. This is the reason behind the prevailing agrarian crisis and the ongoing farmers’ suicides in the country.

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) has therefore warned the BJP-led Union government to desist from data manipulation and refrain from misleading the public. AIKS calls upon all its units to expose the farcical claims. The AIKS has re-committed itself to unite with farmers’ organisations to launch a fierce movement demanding fair price for crops.

Related:

Farmers’ protest fully justified

Why are thousands of Farmers marching with CPI (M) Leader JP Gavit?

RSS must stop demonising farmers’ movement: AIKS

The post NDA’s 11 years of betrayal: MSP of Kharif crop way below promised C2+50% appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It stands in sharp contrast to how India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru intervened to get a scholarship for a young Irfan Habib in spite of the fact that he was member of communist party, faced some penal action from the Aligarh Muslim University for his activities.

The present case of shocking police action against Mahmudabad – putting him behind bars on very grave charges – over his posts needs a close look before putting it in the historical context of how Nehru helped Habib, who would go on to become a famous historian in the future.

Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s Facebook post

Mahmudabad, a young, bright and brilliant academic, was arrested by Haryana police on the grounds that his Facebook post on Operation Sindoor (conducted by Indian Army to deal with the threat of terrorism from Pakistan) among others, incited rebellion and hurt religious feelings.

Mahmudabad remarked in his post that the press briefings on Operation Sindoor conducted by colonel Sofiya Qureshi and wing commander Vyomika Singh were important and constituted good optics. While noting with satisfaction that many right wing commentators applauded colonel Qureshi, he boldly spelt out his concerns that the “optics” could be counted as “hypocrisy” if those commentors, in their role as Indian citizens failed in demanding equally loudly, the protection of “ the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering”.

He also referred to the example of a prominent Muslim politician who said “Pakistan Murdabad” and was trolled by Pakistanis and applauded by Indian right wing commentators hailing him as “our mulla”. “Of course this is funny” remarked Mahmudabad and observed with sadness “but it also points to just how deep communalism has managed to infect the Indian body politic.”

However, he displayed optimism that the press conference addressed by colonel Qureshi and wing commander Singh offered him a fleeting glimpse of, what he said, “to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built”. “As I said,” he said, “the grassroots reality that common Muslims face is different from what the government tried to show but at the same time the press conference shows that an India, united it its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.”

It is preposterous to think that what he wrote pointed to sedition or attempts to stoke enmity among people professing diverse faiths. The arrest of professor Ali Khan is an example of State action egregiously violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and rule of law.

Nehru on Irfan Habib

It is against this sordid backdrop that we may recall how seventy years back in 1955, Nehru intervened to get a scholarship for Irfan Habib, now a renowned historian. Nehru’s intervention was warranted because the Home Ministry had raised objections owing to the fact that Habib was a member of the Communist Party.

Following Zakir Hussain’s pleadings that Habib should be helped Nehru met him. In the letter to Zakir Hussain, Nehru wrote that Habib was a Member of Communist party and the government scholarship should not be given to someone who might use it to study and later act against the State.

“No State,” Nehru wrote, “ could be expected to go out of its way to give a scholarship to a person on whom it could not rely or who was likely to indulge in activities which were harmful to the State”.

It is instructive that Nehru in that letter described Irfan and his comrades as Jesuits and he wrote that they belonged “… to the strict order and not over-scrupulous in their dealings with others, provided they carry out the dictates of that order to whom they owe their basic loyalty”.

“I see no reason why Government should go out of its way to offer a scholarship to a person who is so tied up with an order of this kind, whether it is the communist party or some other,” Nehru sharply noted.

However, while he did make those remarks, Nehru also showed his statesmanship and wrote, “I recognise, of course, that one must not judge young people too strictly and youthful enthusiasm must not be ignored. Probably, with some greater experience, one grows out of these immature grooves of thought and action”.

In the end, he advised the Ministry of Education to give scholarship to Habib with the remarks that “…. he is a young man of intelligence and, I believe, integrity and both these qualities will no doubt influence his future growth.”

Modi regime criminalising dissent

Seventy years after Nehru displayed his liberality while dealing with a young dissenting academic like Habib and granted him a scholarship, a young professor like Mahmudabad is being put behind bars for his Facebook post which is full of constructive crticisim rooted in idea of India. Eventually Mahmudabad will triumph because in his own words, “India, united in its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.”

S N Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to former President of India K.R. Narayanan.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post In Contrast: Nehru’s Take on a Young, Dissenting Irfan Habib and the Modi Govt’s Treatment of Mahmudabad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Many have heralded this shift as a democratisation of media—a breaking down of the gatekeeping walls that allowed only a select few to shape the public narrative. Politicians now tweet their policy updates, address voters directly on YouTube, and make carefully curated appearances on influencer podcasts rather than press conferences. There’s even a growing belief that this new media, raw and seemingly more “authentic,” will shoulder the journalistic responsibility left vacant by legacy media.

But this belief deserves a pause, or at least a much cautious thought.

The truth is a large section of India’s new media creators are not journalists—nor do they claim to be. They are “content creators,” and that distinction matters. Of course, there are journalists on social media who are not solely content creators. Journalists like Ravish Kumar have been pushed out of the traditional media system and have found a way to do their journalistic content on social media. Channels like The Wire etc. produce news content with journalistic intent. This article is not about them. However, this article is about those creators on social media who engage with advertisers/sponsors and generate content including news content but do not call themselves journalists.

Take Samdish Bhatia, a widely popular YouTube figure known for intriguing and witty political interviews and videos of his travels across the country. He is articulate, progressive, and clearly influential. But even he does not identify as a journalist. He calls himself as a content creator. That is not a knock against him or his work. It is a recognition of the difference in mandate. Journalism, at its core, is about accountability—of those in power, of systems, of narratives. Content creation, however, is about engagement, reach, and often—neutrality that does not ruffle feathers. Truth be told, if people who call themselves journalists are not being held accountable as they should be, it is a rather hard task to hold social media content creators accountable.

And it is not just neutrality. Many of the most visible faces in the new Indian social media ecosystem are unabashedly capitalist and pro-market. Their discussions are less about the structural problems that plague India—such as homelessness, unemployment, agrarian distress—and more about how to “capitalize” on these contexts. So, while homelessness continues to plague millions, the conversations in popular podcasts revolve around real estate  as an investment opportunity. Instead of interrogating inequality, there are video essays on personal finance, sponsored by a company or two.

This tone fits comfortably within the vision of a country aspiring to produce unicorn start-ups and billion-dollar tech moguls. Indeed, some of these billionaires have now become social media personalities themselves. Nikhil Kamath, co-founder of Zerodha, is a case in point. With little precedent, he was granted a rare, exclusive interview-podcast with the Prime Minister of India ahead of the Delhi Assembly Elections—a privilege rarely extended to even the editors of major TV news channels. Given Mr. Kamath’s power as a billionaire himself, he also did interviews with personalities such as Microsoft founder Bill Gates, New Zealand Prime Minster Christopher Luxon and Industrialist Kumar Birla.

One must ask: when billionaires with government proximity become the popular voices of public discourse on social media, are we truly breaking away from “Godi Media,” or are we just replacing it with a new, glossier version that’s algorithmically friendlier and better branded? More importantly, will this new media ask the questions that the traditional media was supposed to ask or even attempt at creating ‘content’ around the issues?

Take Mr. Modi’s interview with Mr. Kamath for example. While discussing ideologies and idealism, Mr. Modi mentions Mahatma Gandhi and Savarkar in the same breath to remark that both had the same ideal of freedom with different paths. In an ideal world, this would have been met with another question about Savarkar’s credentials as a freedom fighter par Gandhi, or at least with a remark. What we get is Mr. Kamath continuing with next question as to what to do when someone trolls and how to develop a thick skin?

Or take another question about politics and money. The data on electoral bonds came out in 2024 but Mr. Kamath could not ask the question, at least on what Mr. Modi thinks of electoral bonds. Instead, he asks about how to facilitate youth entering politics given the huge amounts of money it takes to be in politics!

There’s also another curious and worrying trend: prominent intellectuals and creators within these spaces who align with the ruling ideology often criticize the opposition or even level attacks against dissenters with unchecked impunity. An advocate, who is one of the most popular voices on social media, aligned with the views of ruling establishment  was asked on ‘The Ranveer Show’— “3 Indians that should leave India and never return are?” and the advocate said the names of news presenter Barkha Dutt, Professors Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar. The show’s host was the news cycle’s recent villain Ranveer Allahbadia. To keep up with the illusion of a critical and engaging podcast, the host asks “Why?” only to have the advocate say that these three have harmed Indian interests in their own ways and that they have done grave injustice to facts, truths and integrity. In the interest of critical engagement, one would expect the host to ask “How?” but he comfortably moves on to the next question.

This tells us two things. One, it was a bizarre question tailored to get a certain provocative answer. Two, it was not asked to critically engage with it. It was merely done to be performative

The bar for evidence is low. The responsibility to inform is often secondary to the need to perform.

Ranveer Allahbadia and another content creator Raj Shamani were some of the selected content creators who were given the opportunities to do interviews with union ministers like S. Jai Shankar and Nitin Gadkari. They were also attendees—Raj Shamani being the creator to introduce Mr. Modi, Ranveer Allahbadia being the recipient of the Disruptor of the Year Award—at the National Creators Awards organised in March 2024, just before the 2024 General Elections. Raj Shamani also hosted Arvind Kejriwal for an interview before the Delhi Elections.

This is not an allegation of social media creators selling space on their platforms to the government. There is no indication as of now. However, it is an observation of how close they are willing to be with power and how that hampers their capacity to be neutral, and courageous enough to ask questions, engagingly sharp ones if not tough ones.

This is also not a personal attack on these individuals. Many of them are intelligent, talented, and operate in good faith. But collectively, they form a media ecosystem that is, for the most part, timid when it comes to holding power accountable. And that makes them complicit—not by intent, but by design.

There is an imminent need to resist the temptation to confuse visibility with credibility. Just because a YouTube video racks up a million views or is made by a Billionaire does not mean it is accountable. Just because an influencer is articulate does not mean they are committed to the truth. Just because the production is slick does not mean the content is rigorous.

Social media is not journalism. It can include journalism, but it is not structurally bound to its principles. And in a country like India, where power is both opaque and muscular, the distinction between the two is not just academic—it’s existential for democracy.
So yes, we should celebrate the diversity of voices that social media enables. But we should also be wary—especially of the ones that get a little too close to power. Especially the ones that never ask hard questions. Especially the ones that call themselves everything—except journalists.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

BJP spreading sea of hatred on social media before Jharkhand elections, ECI mum – shocking facts revealed in research report

Bihar: How festival holidays become target of fake news

NBDSA acts on CJP’s complaint, directs News18 to take down fake news video about bombing in WB school

The post Treading Carefully: Illusion of Accountability in an age of social media content creation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The support for this Bill from Hindutva forces is hardly surprising, given their well-documented hostility toward minorities. However, what is deeply unsettling is the complicity of several so-called secular parties. Their endorsement of the Bill exposes the emptiness of their professed commitment to minority rights and pluralism. Their secular rhetoric now stands exposed as little more than a deceptive smokescreen, carefully crafted to mask their communal politics.

With the passage of this Bill, the Muslim community is compelled to reassess its long-standing political trust in these so-called secular parties. It is now imperative for them to distinguish between genuine allies and those who betray them under the guise of friendship.

The Waqf Amendment Bill serves multiple objectives, none of which align with principles of justice or fairness. First, the Bill creates an avenue for widespread encroachment and plunder, effectively making it easier for government agencies and private entities to seize Waqf properties. Second, it significantly weakens the Waqf Tribunal, transferring excessive power into the hands of bureaucrats—an alarming violation of fundamental jurisprudential principles. Most shockingly, the government, which is itself a party to numerous disputes over Waqf land, has now positioned itself as the adjudicator in these very conflicts. This blatant conflict of interest constitutes a grave miscarriage of justice.

Third, the Bill may impose majoritarian supremacy. It sends an unambiguous message to the Muslim community: either submit to the will of the majority or risk further marginalization. Fourth, the Bill threatens to erode constitutional protections granted to minorities. It signals a broader trend—the gradual dismantling of constitutional safeguards for minority rights, including protections related to cultural identity and personal laws.

The judiciary, instead of acting as an independent arbiter and guardian of the Constitution, has increasingly succumbed to executive pressures. Rather than upholding constitutional principles, it has become a silent spectator—if not an outright enabler—of majoritarianism. The Babri Masjid-Ram Temple verdict stands as a glaring example of this judicial capitulation.

Fifth, the Bill may serve as a warning to all marginalized social groups. Its passage can be interpreted not merely as an assault on Muslims but as a broader threat to all minorities and weaker sections of society. It signals that their rights and properties are no longer as secure as they once were and may be seized under various pretexts to serve majoritarian agendas and profit-driven motives.

The Sachar Committee Report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, had provided crucial recommendations on how Waqf properties could be better managed for the welfare of the poor and marginalized. It emphasized that reclaiming encroached Waqf properties and improving their administration could generate substantial funds to support socio-economic upliftment. The report advocated for technological advancements, expert oversight, and even the establishment of a specialized UPSC cadre to manage Waqf assets. Yet, rather than implementing these progressive measures, the government has chosen a path that appears to facilitate the plundering of Waqf properties—going so far as to appoint non-Muslim members to oversee assets donated by believing Muslims for charitable purposes.

This betrayal by so-called secular parties has left the minority community in shock and despair. Since the Nehru era, Waqf properties have been systematically looted, but now this plunder appears to have been granted legal sanction. Other minority and marginalized communities must take heed—every common property could become a potential target for exploitation.

In these trying times, patience, wisdom, and strategic action are essential. Rash decisions driven by emotion will only deepen the crisis. Rather than allowing ourselves to be divided over petty issues, we must prioritize broader unity with other oppressed sections of society. This crucial moment also serves as a litmus test for genuine secular forces—where do they stand in this critical hour?

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar repeatedly warned that democracy cannot survive without safeguarding the rights of minorities—whether religious, caste-based, or Adivasi. Today, one can only imagine how Babasaheb, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, would react to this assault on the very principles he enshrined. As someone born into the majority community, I hang my head in shame at this brazen display of majoritarianism.

But the bigger question remains: Will India continue down the path of majoritarian dominance, or will it reclaim its constitutional commitment to justice and equality? The future will depend on our actions. Remember, rights are not granted as charity—they are won through struggle. Similarly, the weakening of movements led by marginalized communities threatens to undo their hard-earned gains. Political processes are dynamic, and to prevent further setbacks, we must act now—peacefully and democratically.

(Dr. Abhay Kumar holds a PhD in Modern History from the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. His forthcoming book explores Muslim Personal Law. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com)

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

The post The Waqf Amendment Bill: A majoritarian assault on minority rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I trust this missive finds you in the pink of health and high spirits, as one must be when presiding over a nation in such a state of unparalleled prosperity and contentment as is reflected in current wobbly growth, unemployment, currency depreciation and runaway inflation.

It is with the utmost reluctance that I dare to disturb your reverie with a few modest suggestions that might, perchance, enhance the already dazzling brilliance of your socio-economic policies.

Firstly, given that we are on the cusp of the annual Budget, might I propose the radical notion of abolishing personal income tax for the poor and middle class? I am certain that the mere thought of such a measure will have you clutching your pearls in horror, but consider, if you will, the delightful irony of allowing the common folk to retain a modicum of their hard-earned pittance. I know, I know, it sounds crazy. But think of it as a radical social experiment! Let the little people keep a bit of their own money. Who knows, they might spend it on frivolities like food, clothes, and data. Wild idea, right? This, in turn, could spur demand and private investment, thereby possibly creating a veritable utopia of economic activity.

Secondly, one cannot help but marvel at the astronomical prices of fuel, which have undoubtedly contributed to the nation’s coffers in ways too numerous to mention. However, in a moment of uncharacteristic whim, might I suggest a dramatic reduction in fuel prices? Imagine the joy! Suddenly, people will have more cash to burn. It could be like an economic miracle! But hey, what do I know? I’m just a guy with a calculator and a dream.

“What about the farmers?” Ah, yes! The farmers! The backbone of our great nation, and yet, they’re being treated like, well, like a bunch of old socks. Do provide them with minimum support prices, would you? It’s the least one can do to help them stay afloat.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not caution against certain drastic measures that might, in your boundless wisdom, seem tantalizing, given the past history. For instance, the dollarization of the economy by rendering the rupee redundant might appear to be a masterstroke, but one must consider the potential pitfalls of such a move.

Similarly, slashing public education and health budgets – it’s tempting to keep the populace uneducated and unhealthy to keep them in control. But please refrain.

And selling off public assets to esteemed crony business friends for a song might not be the panacea the nation desires.

Taxing the 200 million stock market investors for their capital losses may be the FM’s way of boosting morale!

Will taxing the wealth of the rich folks fleeing to Dubai, Canada, or Singapore definitely make them stay?

Both are ill-advised moves.

And let us not forget the potential backlash from lashing out at millions of youths complaining about exam paper leaks and delays in government jobs, or imposing a ‘stay at home’ cess on those who work from home or are homemakers. Moves that may rock an already faltering nation.

Criminalising the dissent of farmers protesting for fair prices or causing unchecked ecological havoc through indiscriminate building of roads, bridges, and townships would be appealing but will only deepen the chasm of discontent.

In conclusion, I remain, as ever, your most obedient servant, humbly offering these suggestions in the spirit of constructive criticism and unwavering loyalty. I have no doubt that your unparalleled acumen will guide the nation to even greater heights of prosperity and glory.

Yours most sincerely,

A Humble Voluntary Worker, unemployed by choice

Related:

Thousands march to Parliament against NDA’s Anti- Labour policies

Farmers protests: Court reprimands Punjab government on filing ‘zero-FIR’ for case of alleged police brutality

Farmers protest: Documentary ‘Kisan Satyagraha’ barred from Bengaluru film fest

The post Open Letter to an Imaginary Supreme Leader of a country of billions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Accolades and allegations have been running simultaneously in the past six months of the new government.

The signature slogan that placed BJP in the seat of power was “women’s empowerment” under the banner of the Subhadra Yojana to give direct cash benefits.

Before one assesses the success or failure of the scheme, let’s take a cursory glance at the details of the eligibility criteria that would help transact the implementation of the scheme.

Majhi had announced the implementation of the Subhadra Yojna that would give direct benefit to one crore women of Rs.50,000 over five years.

The scheme was launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on September 17, his birthday.

“We will introduce Subhadra Yojana, under which every woman will receive a cash voucher of Rs 50,000, which can be encashed over two years,” the Chief Minister had said. After the first Cabinet meeting of the new BJP government in June, he announced its roll out within 100 days.

But critics hold a different view. They feel that at first glance, the scheme appears rosy as all women are aimed to benefit from the scheme.

But the flip side is that this may not be the case, as the revised eligibility criteria has fixed the age bracket of beneficiaries between 21 and 60 years, and has also increased the period from two years to five.

Initially, it appeared that all women would get the bonanza. However, that is not the case. The revised eligibility criteria are proving to be a dampener.

The others excluded in the revised criteria include those receiving financial aid of Rs. 1,500 per month or more than Rs. 18,000 per annum under any government scheme, those filing income tax, owners of more than 5 acres of irrigated land, elected members of Assembly or local bodies, and owners of four-wheelers, except tractor, and other small light goods vehicles.

This has become an issue that the Opposition parties have been raising in the House and outside. The Assembly session saw disruptions as the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) and Congress disrupted proceedings last Monday alleging that women were being cheated by the Majhi government.

BJD chief whip Pramilla Mallick said the new criteria would exclude a majority of women. “The BJP had promised Rs. 50,000 over two years, but they will get Rs.10,000 in two instalments,” senior Congress leader Taraprasad Bahinipati said.

Meanwhile, a list of 2.67 lakh women who were turned down under the scheme has been distributed in each block. Approximately five lakh women have been denied the Subhadra benefit because their Aadhaar cards are not linked to their bank accounts.

In addition, a huge number of women failed to obtain the first benefit due to server problems, which resulted in re-applications by them.

On the other hand, the BJP dispensation, as alleged by BJD, has literally undone the Mission Shakti scheme of the previous BJD government, as 70 lakh women have been deprived of the monetary benefits for the past six months.

“It is unfortunate that the BJP government in Odisha has pushed Mission Shakti to the wall taking away 70 lakh women’s sustenance in last six months,” alleged former Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik, adding that “BJD would fight for the women nevertheless”.

“The ambiguity is so high that it can puzzle any analyst. The ruling apparatus is giving statements which are further creating confusion. It is clearly an attempt to obfuscate the implementation process,” Rabi Das, senior journalist and political commentator, told this writer.

The other promise made by the BJP government was regarding farmers. The “double engine” government had committed to enhance the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for paddy. Pending that, it had announced a bonus of Rs 800 to each farmer. But to the disappointment of farmers, millers were stopped from entering the mandis.

On the inflation issue, as anywhere else, lassan (garlic) prices are touching the sky, potatoes and onions have become luxury items. There seems to be no mechanism to put any check on the prices of essential commodities.

While taking oath as Chief Minister six months ago, Majhi has, as on date, not made a single visit to the capital city, which is in an abject condition as far as civic facilities are concerned.

“Instead, he (CM) air dashes to Delhi every fortnight”, commented Das.

During his tenure as Chief Minister, BJD’s  Patnaik had made Odisha a sports destination by organising two Hockey World Cups, besides a world class International Junior Football tournament. A world class badminton stadium had also been built. The present Majhi dispensation, however, seems busy only painting saffron colour in the state, but not able to dispense with the green (BJD) colour altogether, say critics, terming his tenure so far as a “failure”.

The past six months under Majhi’s rule show that the Chief Minister is under tremendous pressure and has nothing in his lexicon as defiance, hence everything is being left to the whims of some people who are building up a propaganda for PM Modi with Majhi as a mere mascot, say critics.

“After all, Mohan Charan Majhi has been installed to govern, but even if he wants to do something, he cannot firewall himself from what his saffron master thinks”, said Das, adding that “six months is a very short stint to assess the role of a man”.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in Odisha.  

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Odisha: 6 Months in Power, ‘Double-Engine’ BJP Govt Looks Button-Holed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Educational institutions to remain closed until November 23: As a precautionary measure, the Manipur government has ordered the closure of schools, colleges, and universities in the Imphal Valley until November 23. An official notification issued by Daryal Juli Anal, Joint Secretary of the Higher and Technical Education Department, cited concerns over the safety of students, teachers, and staff amid the ongoing curfew.

The decision was influenced by the widespread violence in several districts, particularly Imphal East and Imphal West, following the recovery of the missing bodies on November 15 and 16. The government decided to prioritise safety, suspending all educational activities in government and government-aided institutions, including state universities, in the affected districts.

The letter by elected MLAs may be read here

Timeline of escalating violence in Manipur following Jiribam attack

The recent cycle of violence that engulfed Manipur from November 7, 2024, began with a harrowing incident in Zairawn village, Jiribam district. A Hmar woman, a schoolteacher and mother of three, was allegedly raped, shot in the leg, killed, and set ablaze by unidentified attackers. The Hmar community, a subgroup of the Kuki-Zo ethnic group, was devastated by this act, and Kuki civil society groups quickly attributed the crime to Meitei militants.

The initial attack and looting: In the aftermath of the incident, the assailants reportedly torched 19 houses, looted cash, stole mobile phones, LPG cylinders, and six two-wheelers, and even killed village dogs. Some residents alleged negligence on the part of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) stationed in Zairawn, accusing them of failing to intervene despite being capable of protecting the village. The violence escalated when suspected Kuki militants retaliated by targeting Meitei individuals in the district.

Retaliatory killings and unrest in Bishnupur: On November 9, the violence intensified as a Meitei woman working in a paddy field in Bishnupur district was allegedly shot dead by suspected Kuki militants. Two days later, on November 11, the CRPF killed 10 suspected Kuki militants in a confrontation in Jiribam. According to police reports, the militants were armed with automatic weapons and a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) and had attacked the Borobekra police station and a CRPF camp in Jakuradhor. These assailants were believed to have travelled from Kuki-dominated districts such as Churachandpur and Pherzawl.

Displacement and missing persons: During the same encounter, three women and three children, including an eight-month-old baby, went missing. These individuals were among 13 displaced Meiteis seeking refuge in a relief camp located near the Borobekra police station and a CRPF post. Their disappearance further fuelled ethnic tensions in the region.

Jiribam, a district with a multi-ethnic population comprising Meitei, Kuki-Zo, Naga, and other communities, had remained relatively peaceful until June 2024. However, tensions erupted earlier this year when the body of a Kuki teenager was discovered in a river, allegedly killed by Meitei armed groups. Shortly after, the body of a Meitei man was found, reportedly in retaliation by Kuki militants.

Discovery of bodies and public outrage: On November 15, three bodies—those of a woman and two children—were discovered floating in the Barak River in Assam’s Cachar district. These were confirmed to belong to the missing family. The discovery triggered widespread protests in Imphal, with enraged mobs ransacking the homes of three legislators, including R.K. Imo, a BJP MLA and son-in-law of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. Protesters also targeted the residences of Y. Khemchand, the Minister of Municipal Administration, and L. Susindro Singh, the Minister of Consumer Affairs, prompting security forces to use tear gas to disperse the crowds.

The unrest escalated further when protesters marched toward Manipur CM Biren Singh’s ancestral home in Luwangshangbam, only to be stopped by security forces.

Continued violence and accusations: On November 17, the bodies of another woman and child from the missing family were recovered in Lakhipur, bringing the total to six victims—all from the same family. The Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF), a prominent Kuki-Zo organisation, accused Meitei assailants of setting fire to five churches, a school, a petrol pump, and 14 tribal homes in Jiribam.

Meanwhile, in Imphal, a mob targeted the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) office in Haraorok, Imphal East, and later attacked the BJP and Congress offices in Jiribam town. Police reportedly opened fire to disperse the mob, resulting in one fatality.

Erosion of public trust: The violent attacks on political offices and leaders underscored deep public disillusionment with the state’s governance and leadership. The widespread violence has not only deepened the ethnic divide but also exposed the fragile state of law and order, leaving a trail of devastation and mistrust in its wake. The authorities face mounting challenges as they attempt to restore peace while addressing the grievances of the affected communities.

Manipur administration’s measures to address spiralling violence

In response to escalating violence in Manipur, the state administration has implemented stringent measures, including the suspension of mobile internet and data services across seven districts in the Imphal Valley, the imposition of curfews, and the re-enforcement of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in six police station areas, including the violence-hit Jiribam, Manipur. To strengthen security, the central government deployed 20 additional companies of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs)—comprising 15 from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and five from the Border Security Force (BSF)—bringing an additional 7,000 personnel into the state.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has also taken up investigations into three key cases linked to the recent violence: the murder of a woman in Jiribam, the attack on a CRPF post, and the arson and killings in Borobekra. These steps aim to address the unrest, but significant challenges remain.

Civil society groups express scepticism: Despite these measures, civil society groups have raised concerns about the lack of a unified and effective approach to the crisis. Khuraijam Athouba, spokesperson for the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI), a Meitei civil rights organisation, urged state representatives and MLAs to hold comprehensive discussions and take decisive action to resolve the ongoing conflict.

Divergent demands from the warring communities underscore the complexities of the crisis. While Meitei groups have called for the removal of AFSPA, Kuki groups have demanded the withdrawal of CRPF personnel from Kuki-dominated areas, reflecting the deepening rift over security arrangements.

Calls for leadership accountability: Prominent voices have called for accountability from the state government. Rights activist Irom Sharmila urged Chief Minister N. Biren Singh to take moral responsibility for the unrest and step down.

Political fallout- NPP withdraws support: The crisis has also led to political repercussions. The National People’s Party (NPP), the BJP’s second-largest ally in the state, formally withdrew its support for the government, accusing it of failing to restore law and order. In a letter to BJP President J.P. Nadda, NPP leader Conrad Sangma criticised the administration’s inability to resolve the crisis. However, the withdrawal does not pose an immediate threat to Chief Minister Biren Singh’s government, as the ruling NDA coalition holds a strong majority with 46 MLAs in the 60-member Manipur Legislative Assembly.

Curfews, internet bans and relaxation amid ongoing law and order concerns

Internet suspension extended: The Government of Manipur extended the suspension of mobile internet services in seven districts for an additional three days, citing the prevailing law and order situation. According to a state Home Department order issued on November 20, this decision aims to maintain communal harmony and prevent the spread of misinformation through social media platforms.

Initially imposed on November 16 for two days, the suspension was subsequently extended on November 18 and again on November 20. The affected districts include Imphal West, Imphal East, Bishnupur, Thoubal, Kakching, Kangpokpi, and Churachandpur. Commissioner (Home) N Ashok Kumar stated in the order that the extension would be effective from 5:15 PM on November 20 to 5:15 p.m. on November 23, with exemptions granted only in specific cases, such as government operations. Separately, internet services in Jiribam and Pherzawl districts were also suspended from 11:45 AM on November 19 for two days. However, exceptions were made for leased lines and fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) connections used by government offices or individuals with state-approved exemptions.

The suspension follows heightened tensions after the discovery of six bodies—three women and three children—who had been missing since an encounter on November 11, in which security forces killed ten armed militants. The recovery of the bodies sparked protests, prompting curfews and increased security measures.

Curfew relaxation announced for essential activities: In light of the ongoing curfew imposed in several districts, authorities announced a partial relaxation to allow residents to purchase essentials. The curfew, in effect across Imphal West, Imphal East, Bishnupur, Kakching, and Thoubal districts, was relaxed from 5:00 AM to 12:00 Noon on November 21. On the previous day, November 20, the curfew had been relaxed from 5:00 AM to 10:00 AM.

An order issued by K. Jadumani Singh, Additional District Magistrate of Imphal West, stated that the restriction of movement was temporarily lifted to facilitate the purchase of necessities, including food and medicines. The order also specified that no public gatherings, protests, or rallies would be permitted without prior approval.

Essential services such as healthcare, electricity, water supply, telecom, banking, and media were exempted from the curfew restrictions. Additionally, individuals traveling to and from the airport with valid permits and contractors/workers with airport entry permits were allowed to move freely beyond the relaxation hours.

District magistrates from Imphal East, Bishnupur, Kakching, and Thoubal issued similar directives, ensuring uniformity in the implementation of curfew relaxation across the affected areas.

Union government’s calculated response: The union government has faced consistent criticism for its callous approach to the Manipur crisis. Despite growing calls to either replace Chief Minister Biren Singh or impose President’s Rule, the Modi administration has refrained from taking decisive action. Analysts believe this reluctance stems from political considerations.

As a Meitei leader with considerable influence in the Imphal Valley, Biren Singh is pivotal to the BJP’s electoral strategy. Of the 60 assembly seats, 40 are concentrated in the Meitei-dominated Imphal Valley, making Singh’s leadership crucial for maintaining the BJP’s political base. His removal could destabilise the party’s standing in the region and further polarise the state’s fragile social fabric.

The imposition of President’s Rule is also seen as a politically risky move. In Manipur’s complex socio-political environment, such a step could be interpreted as overreach by New Delhi, potentially alienating local stakeholders. Moreover, it would signal an admission of governance failure, a narrative the Opposition would readily leverage on a national stage. Internationally, instability in Manipur, which borders sensitive regions like Myanmar and China, could have strategic ramifications. Any hasty decision by the Centre risks emboldening insurgent groups or inviting external interference.

A state in crisis: As the conflict in Manipur deepens, the state and central governments face mounting challenges in balancing security, governance, and public sentiment. The unrest has laid bare the complexities of managing ethnic tensions and the consequences of political inertia. While immediate measures like troop deployment and AFSPA enforcement have been implemented, long-term peace and stability will require inclusive dialogue and meaningful reconciliation between the deeply divided communities.

Kuki-Zo MLAs condemn “one-sided” resolutions by Manipur government

On 19 November, a group of 10 Kuki-Zo MLAs in Manipur issued a sharp critique of resolutions adopted during a meeting chaired by Chief Minister N. Biren Singh on 18 November. The meeting, attended by 26 National Democratic Alliance (NDA) MLAs, sought to address the recent violence in the state, including the November 11 Jiribam incident, where three women and three children from a Meitei family were abducted and killed. The Kuki-Zo MLAs accused the state government of exploiting the incident to suppress the tribal community and push a one-sided agenda.

Kuki-Zo MLAs: “Government exploiting tribal community”

The 10 MLAs, comprising seven from the BJP, one Independent, and two from the Kuki People’s Alliance, released a joint statement alleging that the state government has consistently acted against the interests of the tribal community.

“Time and again, the one-sided state government has taken undue advantage of the Jiribam incident in suppressing and curtailing the rights of the disadvantaged tribal community,” their statement read.

They criticised the government’s resolution to act decisively if certain demands were not implemented promptly, interpreting it as a veiled threat to the Central NDA government. The resolution had called for reviewing the exemption of AFSPA in six police station areas of the valley. The Kuki-Zo MLAs, however, countered this demand, asserting that AFSPA should be reimposed in all 13 police station areas of the Meitei-majority valley, which currently enjoy exemptions.

Demand for comprehensive mass operations: The BJP MLAs also criticised the state government’s demand for “mass operations” against Kuki militants, labelling it as biased and unfair.

“Mass operations must be conducted all over the state to recover all illegal arms from all militia groups,” the MLAs declared, calling for an impartial crackdown on armed elements across both hill and valley regions.

While the government sought to hand over three specific cases, including the Jiribam killings, to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Kuki-Zo legislators demanded a broader scope. They called for all cases of civilian killings in both the valley and the hills to be investigated by the NIA.

Call for balanced accountability: The MLAs criticised the selective labelling of Kuki militants as responsible for the killings, arguing that a fair process should be applied. They urged the government to precede any declarations with the designate on of Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun as Unlawful Organisations under relevant laws. They further alleged that youth volunteers defending their villages against militant attacks were being unfairly targeted.

“Village volunteers are not an organisation, but youth defending their villages from murderous attacks by Arambai Tenggol, the so-called G5 (a conglomerate of five underground Meitei outfits) aided by the state police and, in the case of Jiribam, by the CRPF,” the statement read.

Appeal for peaceful dialogue and condemnation of mob attacks: The Kuki-Zo MLAs also highlighted the need for peaceful dialogue as the path forward, urging the government to prioritise negotiations over escalations. Additionally, they condemned the mob attacks on the homes of Meitei legislators, which occurred following public outrage over the November 11 incident.

The statement underscored the need for balanced governance, expressing concern over the deepening divide and calling on authorities to ensure justice for victims of violence, regardless of their community.

“It is imperative that the state moves towards reconciliation and equitable justice, avoiding actions that could further marginalise the tribal community,” the MLAs asserted.

The Kuki-Zo legislators’ response highlights the continuing ethnic and political tensions in Manipur, as communities and their representatives remain divided over issues of accountability, security, and governance. Their critique underscores the urgent need for inclusive and impartial measures to restore trust and peace in the state.

Congress calls for resignations of Home Minister Amit Shah and CM Biren Singh over Manipur violence

At a press conference held on 19 November 2024, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in New Delhi demanded the resignation of Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. The party accused them of failing to control the ongoing violence in Manipur and called for immediate intervention by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The press conference was led by Keisham Meghachandra, Congress’s Manipur president, along with Jairam Ramesh, the party’s general secretary in charge of communications, and Girish Chodankar, Congress’s Manipur in-charge.

Addressing the media, Keisham Meghachandra referenced Prime Minister Modi’s 2017 remark that leaders who cannot maintain peace in the state have “no right to govern Manipur.” Meghachandra questioned whether this principle applied to the current BJP-led “double-engine” government in Manipur, given the ongoing ethnic violence and governance failure.

Congress’s five-point charter of demands: During the press meet, Congress outlined a detailed five-point charter of demands aimed at addressing the crisis:

1. Prime Minister Modi must visit Manipur: Congress insisted that Modi visit Manipur before the winter parliamentary session, scheduled to begin on 25 November. The party urged Modi to engage with residents of relief camps, consult local leaders, and assess the ground situation.
2. Engagement with delegates from all parties: The Congress demanded that the Prime Minister meet delegations comprising representatives from all political parties, including the BJP and Congress, as homes of legislators from both sides have come under attack amidst the violence.
3. Appointment of a dedicated governor: Highlighting the absence of a permanent governor, Congress called for the appointment of a full-time governor for Manipur. The post has been held in additional charge by Assam Governor Laksman Acharya since July 2024, after the departure of former governor Anusuiya Uikey.
4. Accountability from HM Amit Shah and CM N. Biren Singh: The party criticised the alleged “jugalbandi” between HM Amit Shah and CM Biren Singh, accusing them of prioritising political survival over public welfare. The Congress further alleged favouritism and questioned the BJP government’s failure to address drug-related cases in the state.
5. Immediate action on Supreme Court concerns: The Congress demanded swift action on the Supreme Court’s observations about the state’s constitutional collapse. The apex court had previously flagged the breakdown of law and order in Manipur, which Congress claimed remains unaddressed.

BJP’s inaction under fire: Congress’s Manipur in-charge, Girish Chodankar, criticised the BJP for focusing on protecting Chief Minister Biren Singh instead of restoring stability in the state. “For the past 18 months, the Prime Minister has done nothing but protect the Chief Minister of Manipur,” Chodankar remarked as per India Today, accusing the BJP of neglecting the state’s welfare.

Chodankar reiterated the Congress’s commitment to restoring peace, asserting that “We have tried every possible way to bring stability, but this government has failed. The Prime Minister must respond immediately.”

Rising violence and administrative inaction: The ethnic conflict in Manipur, which began in May 2023, has intensified recently, with 20 deaths reported in November alone, according to some estimates. The violence is rooted in long-standing tensions between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities, which have led to physical segregation enforced by buffer zones patrolled by security forces.

Despite Home Minister Amit Shah’s earlier promise of compensation for victims’ families, the Congress criticised the Union Home Ministry for failing to disburse sufficient funds to cover the 226 lives lost, as per official figures.

Congress urges swift action: The Congress party concluded its press conference by demanding urgent measures to address the crisis and restore normalcy in Manipur. The party emphasised that failure to act decisively risks further destabilising the state, worsening the humanitarian crisis, and eroding public trust in governance.

Manipur CM issues notices to MLAs over absence at key meeting amid political turmoil

On November 18, 2024, the Manipur Chief Minister’s Secretariat issued notices to 11 MLAs, including ministers, for failing to attend a crucial meeting convened by Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. The meeting was called to address the worsening law-and-order situation in the state, which has been grappling with persistent ethnic violence.

Among those who did attend the meeting was Manipur’s Rajya Sabha member, Leishemba Sanajaoba, who has been aligned with the ruling BJP. However, seven Kuki-Zo MLAs from the BJP, who have been residing outside the Imphal Valley since the ethnic clashes began on 3 May 2023, were notably absent. This reflects the continuing ethnic divide and the reluctance of Kuki-Zo representatives to participate in valley-centric governance activities.

NPP legislators under scrutiny after party withdraws support: The list of MLAs served notices includes Sheikh Noorul Hassan of the National People’s Party (NPP), representing the Kshetrigao constituency. His absence follows the NPP’s formal withdrawal of support for the BJP-led government on 17 November 2024.

Meanwhile, the NPP has also issued show-cause notices to three of its seven MLAs who defied the party’s decision and attended the meeting. These MLAs are:

• Mayanglambam Rameswhar Singh (Kakching constituency)
• Thongam Shanti Singh (Moirang)
• Irengbam Nalini Devi (Oinam)

An NPP leader based in the Imphal Valley claimed that a signature purportedly belonging to the party’s Tamenglong MLA, Janghemlung Panmei, was forged to suggest his attendance at the meeting. The leader added that the NPP’s State Committee had informed its national president and Meghalaya Chief Minister, Conrad K. Sangma, about the breach, prompting the issuance of show-cause notices.

Most absentees belong to the BJP: Aside from Sheikh Noorul Hassan and Sapam Nishikanta Singh, an independent MLA representing Keishamthong, the remaining MLAs served notices are members of the BJP. Among them are:

• Khumukcham Joykisan (Thangmeiband)
• Md Achab Uddin (Jiribam), both of whom had previously defected from the Janata Dal (United).
• Two other NPP MLAs – N. Kayisii (Tadubi constituency) and Khuraijam Loken Singh (Wangoi) – were notably absent from the meeting but did not receive notices, unlike Mr. Hassan.

Political signals in low attendance: The meeting, attended by only 26 NDA MLAs apart from the Chief Minister, has sparked criticism and raised questions about the BJP’s standing in Manipur. The Manipur Assembly has 60 seats, and the BJP-led NDA coalition held 46 MLAs after the NPP’s withdrawal. However, attendance at the meeting revealed cracks within the ruling coalition.

Prominent Congress leader Jairam Ramesh commented on the development, posting on social media platform X:

“The Manipur Assembly has 60 MLAs. Last night, the CM of Manipur called a meeting in Imphal of all MLAs belonging to the NDA. Other than him, only 26 showed up. Of these 26, 4 belong to the NPP whose National President has already written to the BJP National President withdrawing support to the present CM.”

Ramesh suggested the low turnout was a clear indication of the BJP’s dwindling support in the state.

A fractured coalition amidst a state in crisis: The political situation in Manipur remains volatile, with the BJP-led government facing increasing challenges from within its coalition. The ethnic violence, coupled with growing dissatisfaction among allies and legislators, has left the government struggling to maintain cohesion. The absence of MLAs from critical meetings highlights the deep divisions within the ruling coalition, further exacerbating the challenges of governance in a state already wracked by communal tensions.

Former Manipur Governor questions PM Modi’s absence amid ongoing violence

Anusuiya Uikey, former Governor of Manipur, has expressed her surprise and disappointment over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s failure to visit the violence-stricken state despite multiple appeals from civil society and her own repeated requests.

Speaking to ThePrint in an interview on 20 November 2024, Uikey emphasised the importance of restoring trust in the state, which has been plagued by ethnic violence between the majority Meitei community and the Kuki-Zo tribal population since May 2023.

Appeals to the Prime Minister ignored: Reflecting on her tenure, Uikey revealed that during her time as Governor, from February 2023 to July 2024, she regularly relayed the demands of the people to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). These included fervent calls for the Prime Minister to visit Manipur to address the escalating crisis.

“People of the state wanted the PM to visit, and they kept making requests, which I sent to the PMO. But I don’t know why he has not visited,” Uikey said, expressing her bewilderment at the lack of response. Her comments highlight a growing sentiment of alienation among Manipur’s population, who feel their concerns have been overlooked by the central leadership.

Renewed violence a setback to peace efforts: Uikey also shared her distress over the recent resurgence of violence in November 2024, following a brief lull in hostilities. She described the fresh outbreak as deeply disheartening, particularly given the fragile stability that had been achieved in the preceding months.

“Traditionally, Manipur has been a state of rich culture and art. It is a beautiful state, but the recent violence has disrupted the peace that was established. I am deeply shocked by the brutality of events, like the killing and burning of a Hmar woman in Jiribam district on 7 November, which is a stark reminder of the ongoing turmoil,” she said.

A call for trust-building and mutual peace: Uikey believes that the restoration of mutual trust between the two communities, facilitated by the central government, is the only path to lasting peace.

“The central government needs to take concrete steps to build confidence and mutual trust among the communities. Without this, enduring peace will remain elusive,” she asserted while speaking to The Print.Her tenure as governor during the conflict’s peak provided her with firsthand insight into the complexity of the crisis. Despite her efforts to mediate between communities and defuse tensions, the violence persisted, underscoring the deep-seated mistrust and ethnic divide.

An ‘international hand’ behind the conflict? Adding another layer to the discourse, Uikey suggested the possibility of an international influence exacerbating the conflict.
“There is an international hand behind the conflict, which is why the violence cannot be stopped despite the Centre’s efforts,” she alleged. While she refrained from elaborating on this claim, her comments suggest the presence of external actors who might be exploiting local tensions for geopolitical gains, particularly given Manipur’s strategic location near the borders with Myanmar and China.

A plea for peace amidst chaos: Amid growing calls for Chief Minister N. Biren Singh’s resignation over his handling of the crisis, Uikey defended his leadership. She implied that external factors, rather than Singh’s governance, were responsible for the prolonged unrest in the state.

“How it has unfolded, I don’t know, but I appeal to all people in Manipur to build confidence and mutual trust for enduring peace,” she said, reiterating the need for unity and reconciliation.

In her closing remarks, Uikey issued an earnest appeal to the people of Manipur to prioritise confidence-building and mutual understanding. She expressed hope that these efforts, combined with decisive action by the Centre, could pave the way for stability in the region.

The former governor’s candid reflections highlight the depth of the crisis in Manipur and the urgent need for both local and central leadership to take meaningful steps toward resolving the conflict and addressing the grievances of the affected communities.

Licypriya Kangujam claims censorship of Facebook account amidst activism

Licypriya Kangujam, a 13-year-old climate activist from Manipur, has alleged that her official Facebook account has been restricted in India following her outspoken comments on the recent abduction and killing of six Meitei women and children in Jiribam.

Taking to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday, Kangujam directly addressed Prime Minister Narendra Modi, accusing him of being fearful of her activism.

“Mr @narendramodi, scared of me? That’s why you work on his behest?” she questioned, insinuating that her account was restricted under the government’s directive as an attempt to suppress her voice.

Hello @Meta @facebook,
Why you restricted my official Facebook account? Mr @narendramodi scared of me that’s why you work on his behest? I didn’t violate any policy or community standards of Facebook. Kindly unrestricted it asap. Never ever think to attempt to silence my voice.… pic.twitter.com/Ex0l3Jmfs9

— Licypriya Kangujam (@LicypriyaK) November 20, 2024

You mess with a wrong guy!

Unrestrict my Facebook Account immediately! Sharing a screenshot of a news published in Indian Express is not a crime. pic.twitter.com/HNkrR0eDpp

— Licypriya Kangujam (@LicypriyaK) November 20, 2024

Criticism of Meta and claims of injustice: Kangujam did not mince words in her criticism of Meta, Facebook’s parent company, for what she described as an unjust action. She shared a notification from Facebook explaining that her profile had been restricted within India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which permits the government to block access to digital content deemed harmful to public order or national security.

“I didn’t violate any policy or community standards of Facebook,” she wrote in her post. “Kindly unrestrict it ASAP. Never ever think to attempt to silence my voice,” she added, emphasising her commitment to continuing her activism despite attempts to suppress her.

The teenager’s frustration was evident as she accused the authorities and Meta of targeting her for speaking out about the tragic Jiribam killings.

Activism and alleged silencing: Kangujam has been vocal about the ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur, which has sharply divided the state along communal lines. Her comments on the Jiribam incident—in which six individuals from the Meitei community were abducted and killed—have brought renewed attention to the issue. Her social media activism has often placed her at the forefront of raising awareness about human rights and environmental issues in the region. However, her outspokenness has also made her a target for criticism and, now, alleged censorship.

Government’s use of Section 69A of the IT Act: The restriction of Kangujam’s Facebook account under Section 69A of the IT Act has sparked questions about the application of this provision. While the government can use this law to block digital content that it considers a threat to national security, public order, or sovereignty, critics argue that it is sometimes employed to stifle dissent and suppress voices critical of the administration. Kangujam’s case has reignited debates about the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding freedom of expression in a democracy.

A voice for change: Despite the challenges, Kangujam remains resolute in her activism. Her stance reflects the resilience of a young generation unafraid to confront authority and raise awareness about critical social and environmental issues. The incident underscores the growing role of digital platforms in enabling activism while also highlighting the risks of censorship and the contentious intersection of government policies with online freedoms. As Kangujam’s allegations gain traction, they add another layer to the already complex and volatile situation in Manipur.

No end in sight: Manipur’s spiralling crisis deepens

‘Coffin Rally’ announced by Kuki organisations: Manipur’s volatile situation shows no signs of abating, with Kuki organisations planning a ‘coffin rally’ in Churachandpur on Tuesday, November 21, to commemorate 10 Kuki-Zo youths allegedly killed in a gunfight with security forces in Jiribam district on November 11.

The rally, organised by the Zomi Students’ Federation (ZSF), Kuki Students’ Organisation (KSO), and Hmar Students’ Association (HSA), calls on schools and colleges to send students from Class 10 onwards, clad in black shirts, to participate in the procession. A notice issued by the groups on Monday stated that 10 symbolic coffins would be carried during the rally to honour the deceased. The actual bodies remain in the mortuary of a local hospital.

The bodies, initially sent to Assam’s Silchar for postmortems, arrived in Churachandpur—a Kuki-majority district—on Saturday afternoon. However, the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF), a prominent Kuki-Zo organisation, announced on Sunday that the funerals would be delayed until the families receive postmortem reports.

Allegations against security forces: Manipur Police have reported that the deceased were suspected militants killed in an encounter with security forces. The alleged insurgents, dressed in camouflage gear and wielding sophisticated weapons, reportedly attacked the Borobekra Police Station and a nearby CRPF camp in Jakuradhor, Jiribam district, on November 11. The attack included the abduction of six civilians, comprising three women and three children, according to police accounts.

The incident has drawn criticism over the handling of the situation by security forces. The CRPF, tasked with restoring peace in the region, has faced allegations of bias and inaction from both sides of the conflict. Meitei organisations claim that the previously deployed Assam Rifles were too lenient with Kuki militants, while Kuki groups have expressed distrust in the CRPF’s ability to safeguard their communities.

Growing discontent with central leadership: Adding to the frustration is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s absence from Manipur, despite 16 months of continuous ethnic violence. Civil society and opposition groups have repeatedly urged the Prime Minister to visit the state, but he has remained silent on the crisis. Similarly, Union Home Minister Amit Shah has faced criticism for failing to take decisive action, especially as over 6,500 firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition have been looted, with disarmament efforts remaining insufficient.

Polarised demands and escalating divisions: The ethnic conflict has polarised the demands of the Meitei and Kuki communities. Meitei organisations like the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) have called for immediate military action against Kuki militants, along with the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which they argue has exacerbated the conflict. In contrast, Kuki groups continue to push for a separate administration, asserting that coexistence with the Meitei majority is no longer feasible.

Critics have pointed to a broader political conspiracy behind the violence. Some Meitei groups link the escalation to remarks made by Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma in the United States. Lalduhoma advocated for a “Christian nation” uniting Kuki-Zo populations across India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh. Meitei leaders argue that such declarations have emboldened cross-border Kuki groups to seize land, allegedly to further the goal of a larger Kuki-dominated region.

Security forces under scrutiny: The role of security forces remains contentious, with both communities accusing them of partiality. Meitei groups distrust the Assam Rifles, while Kuki organisations criticise the CRPF’s ability to protect their interests. This breakdown in faith towards security agencies has left many civilians vulnerable, exacerbating the crisis in a state where law and order appears non-existent.

A humanitarian crisis without resolution: As the violence continues, the human toll mounts. The state remains deeply fractured, with buffer zones patrolled by security forces separating Kuki and Meitei areas. Amidst the chaos, the fundamental need for restoration of trust between communities and decisive action from the central government has never been more urgent. The ‘coffin rally’ symbolises not just the grief of the Kuki community but also the enduring wounds of a conflict that shows no signs of resolution. Without meaningful intervention, the cycle of violence in Manipur risks deepening an already tragic humanitarian crisis.

Manipur Tribal MLAs plan joint protest in Delhi, demand CM’s removal and separate administration

Unified protest by tribal legislators: In a significant development, ten tribal legislators from Manipur, including seven from the ruling BJP and three Independents, have announced plans for a joint protest in Delhi during the first week of December. Their primary demands include the removal of CM N. Biren Singh and the establishment of a separate administration for tribal communities. This will mark the first time these MLAs, who have previously raised these demands individually, are uniting on a common platform.

The decision to hold the protest at Jantar Mantar was finalised during a meeting in Churachandpur involving three of the ten MLAs, representatives of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), and members from 25 Kuki groups that have signed the Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreement.

One of the legislators, speaking on condition of anonymity with The Wire, said, “We have previously written or spoken about the need for the Chief Minister’s removal and other issues, but the recent events have compelled us to come together and present a unified voice.”

Route to Delhi- circumventing Imphal: Security concerns have forced most of the MLAs to avoid Imphal, the Meitei-majority state capital. Instead, they will travel to Aizawl before flying to Delhi. This reluctance stems from perceived threats in Imphal, despite the state government’s assurances of their safety. These MLAs, who represent tribal constituencies, have not attended any assembly sessions or recent government meetings, including a key one held by CM Biren Singh earlier this week.

Renewed ethnic clashes worsen crisis: Manipur has been embroiled in ethnic violence for nearly 18 months, with over 240 people killed and tens of thousands displaced. The state is deeply divided along ethnic lines, with Meiteis predominantly in the plains of the Imphal Valley and Kuki-Zo communities concentrated in the hills. Despite deploying additional troops and reimposing the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in conflict-hit areas, the Centre has struggled to contain the escalating tensions.

Suspension of operation agreement- a contentious issue: Representatives of the SoO groups—comprising 25 Kuki militant organisations—also participated in the Churachandpur meeting. The SoO agreement, a tripartite pact signed in 2008 between the Centre, the Manipur government, and Kuki militant groups, has been annually renewed to maintain peace. However, the agreement expired earlier this year, leaving its future uncertain.

In February, the Manipur Assembly unanimously passed a resolution urging the Centre to abrogate the agreement, accusing militant groups of violating its terms. The CM has since demanded its termination, while tribal groups argue for its continuation as a safeguard for their communities. Although the SoO representatives will not participate in the Delhi protest, their presence at preparatory meetings underscores their vested interest in the ongoing conflict and its resolution.

Protest agenda- amplifying tribal voices: The tribal MLAs plan to present a detailed account of the October 15 meeting between 15 state legislators from Meitei, Kuki-Zo-Hmar, and Naga communities and central government representatives. This meeting, convened by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), was an attempt to broker peace.

The MLAs have been advised to clarify their stance on critical issues, including their demands for a separate administration, the ongoing ethnic strife, and the central government’s role in facilitating dialogue. Additionally, they are expected to share updates with their constituencies if the MHA initiates another round of talks.

A political and humanitarian impasse: Manipur’s society remains fractured, with communities retreating into ethnic strongholds. Meiteis dominate the Imphal Valley, while the Kukis control the surrounding hills. This geographic and ethnic segregation has only worsened amid escalating violence and reprisal attacks.

The planned protest highlights not only the discontent within the tribal community but also the failure of administrative and political mechanisms to address the root causes of the conflict. The unified front of the ten MLAs signals a turning point in their strategy to press for political and administrative changes, potentially increasing pressure on the central government to intervene decisively in Manipur’s prolonged crisis.

Without effective dialogue and resolution, the state risks further descent into instability, with ethnic hostilities threatening to undermine Manipur’s social fabric.

Related:

Fresh violence grips Manipur: Clashes in Jiribam and widespread protests after rape and brutal killings

“Leaked Intelligence report” on alleged Kuki militants entering Manipur from Myanmar sparks panic, later retracted by authorities

Manipur plunges into deeper turmoil amid fresh violence and drone attacks since early September

Manipur on Edge: Violent Clashes Erupt on the day following Kuki-Zo Protests Demanding Separate Administration, action against state CM based on leaked tapes

The post Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs appeared first on SabrangIndia.