According to the Hindustan Times, Manesar walked out of Sewar (Sevar) Central Jail in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, on the evening of March 8, 2026, after the Rajasthan High Court granted him regular bail earlier that week. He had spent approximately two-and-a-half years in judicial custody after being arrested in September 2023 in connection with the deaths of the two cousins whose charred bodies were discovered in Haryana’s Bhiwani district in February 2023.

His release was marked by a conspicuous public welcome. As provided by Indian Express, wearing a bulletproof vest and escorted by police, Manesar travelled by road from Bharatpur to his native village in Gurugram district, Haryana, where supporters greeted him with garlands, drum beats, and celebratory slogans. A large gathering of supporters—including individuals identified as cow vigilantes—had also assembled outside the jail during his release, prompting authorities to deploy additional police personnel to maintain law and order.

Background: The February 2023 killings

The case traces back to the night of February 14–15, 2023, when cousins Junaid (35) and Nasir (27), residents of the Pahadi area in Rajasthan’s Bharatpur region, went missing.

A day later, their charred bodies were discovered inside a burnt vehicle in Loharu in Bhiwani. The killings were widely suspected to be linked to vigilante groups who patrol highways in the region under the pretext of preventing illegal cattle transport.

According to police investigations, the victims were intercepted by cow vigilantes who suspected them of transporting cattle. However, investigators said that when the vigilantes allegedly found no cattle in the vehicle, the two men were assaulted and later killed.

Senior police officials later stated that interrogation of some accused indicated that Junaid died first after being assaulted in Ferozepur Jhirka. Nasir was allegedly strangled in Bhiwani before the attackers attempted to destroy evidence by dousing the vehicle and the bodies with petrol and setting them on fire, according to statements made by Bharatpur Range Inspector General Gaurav Srivastava during the investigation.

Forensic analysis later confirmed that the charred remains and blood stains recovered from the burnt SUV—later traced to a cowshed in Jind district—belonged to Junaid and Nasir.

Reports may be read here, here and here.

The criminal case and investigation

The criminal case was registered at the Gopalgarh Police Station based on a complaint filed by Khalid, a relative of the victims. The FIR named Manesar and several others as accused in the abduction and murder of the two men.

The case included charges under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to abduction, abduction with intent to cause grievous hurt, wrongful confinement, and related offences.

During the investigation, police announced a reward of ₹5,000 each for eight suspects and circulated their photographs publicly. Two suspects were subsequently arrested in May 2023 from Dehradun, as per Hindustan Times.

The case also became politically contentious in 2023. At the time, Manesar had gone absconding, triggering a public dispute between the then Congress-led Rajasthan government under Ashok Gehlot and the Haryana government led by Manohar Lal Khattar. Gehlot accused the Haryana Police of failing to cooperate in apprehending the accused, while Haryana authorities in turn registered a case against the Rajasthan Police over jurisdictional issues, as reported by The Indian Express.

Manesar was eventually detained by the Haryana Police in September 2023 in connection with communal violence in Nuh. He was subsequently handed over to Rajasthan Police, who arrested him in the Junaid–Nasir case.

The bail order

A Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman of the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to Manesar on March 5, 2026.

The court noted several factors while allowing the second bail application. Most prominently, it observed that despite more than two years having passed since the accused’s arrest, not a single witness out of the 74 prosecution witnesses had been examined during the trial, according to The Indian Express.

The judge also took note of the fact that a co-accused, Anil Kumar, had already been granted bail earlier by the Supreme Court of India on January 28, 2026.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the court concluded that the prolonged incarceration and slow progress of the trial justified granting bail.

Manesar was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh along with two sureties of ₹50,000 each. The court imposed conditions requiring him to appear before the trial court whenever summoned and to mark his presence at the concerned police station once every three months until the trial concludes.

The order also warned that, given his criminal antecedents, he must not become involved in any other offence while on bail.

Defence and prosecution arguments

Manesar’s legal team, led by advocate Ashvin Garg and others, argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case. They contended that he stood on “better footing” than co-accused Anil Kumar, whom they described as the principal accused, while Manesar was alleged only to be part of a conspiracy, reported The Indian Express.

The defence also pointed out that he had been in custody since October 7, 2023, and had already spent more than two years and four months in jail without trial progress. They further submitted that although three criminal cases had previously been registered against him, he had been acquitted in two and granted bail in the third.

Opposing the plea, Public Prosecutor Vijay Singh and Senior Advocate Syed Shahid Hasan—appearing for the complainant—argued that the gravity of the alleged offences and the evidence collected during the investigation warranted continued detention.

Fear and despair among the victims’ families

The bail decision has deeply distressed the families of the two men killed in the incident.

Jameel Ahmed, a relative of Nasir, said the development had intensified their grief and created anxiety about the safety of witnesses.

“The families are disappointed and panicked with Monu Manesar’s bail. Our sorrow has increased. There is apprehension that they can do something untoward in the future and pressurise our witnesses. There is immense despair,” Ahmed told reporters of The Indian Express.

Family members of the victims have long maintained that Junaid and Nasir were kidnapped, assaulted, and murdered by members associated with the right-wing group Bajrang Dal—an allegation the organisation has denied.

A case that continues to test the justice system

Despite the bail order, the legal proceedings in the Junaid–Nasir case remain ongoing. However, the fact that none of the 74 prosecution witnesses have been examined even after more than two years has drawn attention to the chronic delays that often plague criminal trials in India—particularly in cases involving communal violence and vigilante attacks.

Related:

Monu Manesar, 20 others named in Bhiwani Double Murder: Rajasthan

The poster boy of cow vigilantism, Monu Manesar, is back

Monu Manesar not an accused in Junaid Nasir murder

Haryana Horror: Migrant worker lynched and teenager fatally shot amid rising violence

2024: Cow vigilantism escalates in July and August with rumour-driven raids and violent assaults on Muslim while legal consequences for perpetrators missing?

Anatomy of Violence in the Hitherto peaceful Nuh

Indian minorities must be protected, GOI needs to take steps: IAMC report

The post Bail for Monu Manesar, along with his grand welcome, rekindles fear and grief in Junaid–Nasir Lynching case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Temple Pattas and the Politics of Sacred Property 

The decision to grant land titles to temples is being justified as a route to enable them to access government schemes. On the surface, this appears as a bureaucratic correction. But the social context matters. In Rajasthan, temple management and priesthood are overwhelmingly controlled by Brahmin and Bania networks. Regularising temple land thus strengthens institutions already embedded within caste hierarchies.

This is not merely about religion; it is about property, legitimacy, and state-backed sanctification. When the state confers pattas upon temples, it converts religious capital into legal capital. In effect, public land becomes anchored to institutions historically aligned with Brahmanical authority. The material beneficiaries are not abstract “devotees,” but specific caste-based managerial structures.

The larger concern is the asymmetry. If temples are to receive legal facilitation in the name of heritage and welfare access, where is the parallel policy for community institutions run by Dalits, Adivasis, or minority groups? Selective formalisation reproduces structural inequality while appearing neutral.

Meat Shops, NOCs and the Food Governance 

The mandate that meat shops cannot open without Panchayat NOC approval, especially near public places, carries heavy symbolic and economic implications. In Rajasthan, the meat trade is largely associated with Muslim, Dalit and Rajput communities. Introducing an additional layer of discretionary approval effectively subjects these livelihoods to local majoritarian pressures.

The language of “public sentiment” or “cultural sensitivity” often becomes a tool for social policing. Panchayats are not caste-neutral spaces; they reflect local hierarchies. Granting them veto power over meat shops risks institutionalising social prejudice under administrative cover.

Food regulation in India has increasingly mirrored ideological currents rather than public health concerns. When cow shelters receive hundreds of crores while meat sellers face regulatory tightening, the contrast is telling. One sector aligned with Brahmanical social ethos receives subsidy and legitimacy; another, tied to marginalised communities, faces scrutiny and conditionality.

Brahminism, State Patronage, and Sociopolitical Control 

These measures must be understood within the broader framework of Brahminism as a system of graded hierarchy sustained through cultural authority and economic leverage. Historically, Brahmanical power has not relied solely on theology but on proximity to the state and control over symbolic capital — education, ritual, law, and legitimacy. Historian Divya Cherian traces this food-policy in Rajasthan to the political rise of Brahmins, Banias, Mahajans and Jains as intermediaries between the local kings and the jagirdars. During the tenure of Maharaja Vijay Singh Rathore, a devoted Vaishnavite, policies promoting strict vegetarianism imposed legal sanctions on not just Muslims and Dalist but the Rajputs – causing unpopularity of the king among his own Rajput clansmen. His successor, Maharaja Man Singh Rathore, a Nath sampraday adherent, withdrew strict Vaishnavite vegetarianism but by then the state was heavily dependent bureaucratically on the ‘vegetarian’ mercantile- Brahmanical lobbies.

In the 21^st century, granting pattas to temples and privileging cow protection schemes extend this pattern into contemporary governance. They reinforce a moral economy in which Brahmanical religious institutions are treated as guardians of civilization, while occupations associated with lower castes are rendered morally negotiable.

Importantly, this is not confined to the BJP. While the BJP’s ideological articulation is explicit, earlier Congress governments in Rajasthan — especially those preceding Ashok Gehlot — often reproduced similar structural preferences. The rhetoric of socialism coexisted with conspicuous promotion of Brahmanical institutions and Bania-dominated capital networks. Socialist jargons were invoked vigorously only while fomenting caste conflicts between competitive agrarian castes like Rajputs and Jats, but economic policy frequently aligned with established mercantile and brahminical interests.

Thus, the current decisions are less an aberration and more a culmination — a clearer articulation of long-standing patterns.

Bania Capitalism and the Politics of Selective Regulation 

The political economy dimension cannot be ignored. Rajasthan’s commercial networks have historically been shaped by Bania capital, particularly in urban centres. Regulatory regimes tend to burden informal, small-scale, caste-bound occupations — such as local butchers or street vendors — while leaving entrenched commercial capital relatively unscathed.

When the state intensifies scrutiny over meat shops but not over large-scale corporate food supply chains, it signals whose economic activity is deemed culturally legitimate. This differential treatment reinforces caste-coded divisions of labour. The rhetoric of protecting “public order” or “tradition” often masks an uneven terrain of enforcement. Regulation becomes a means of disciplining marginal livelihoods while consolidating a symbolic alignment with Bania and Brahmanical interests.

Studies show that upwards of two-thirds of Scheduled Caste rural households are landless or near-landless, underscoring how economic exclusion persists; state focus on symbolic assets like cows and temples further diverts attention from redistributive needs. Communities such as the Badhik—who traditionally make a living from butchery—are low caste, landless and historically marginalised, raising concerns that new Panchayat NOC requirements for meat shops disproportionately affect socially excluded groups.

Trade data from Rajasthan cattle fairs shows a dramatic decline in cattle sales — from 31,299 in 2010-11 to under 3,000 by 2016-17 — following stricter protective regulations, revealing real economic impacts on livestock trade.” This affects both pastoral and agrarian communities as well.

Cow Shelters and Cultural Priorities 

The allocation of substantial funds to establish cow shelters across Panchayat Samitis fits within a broader politics of sacralisation. Cow protection has long functioned as a mobilising idiom of Hindu identity. But in budgetary terms, prioritizing such projects over pressing issues like rural employment diversification or agrarian distress reflects ideological choice.

Rajasthan collected over ₹2,259 crore in cow protection surcharges and spent more than ₹1,500 crore on gaushalas and related schemes over a 5-year period, according to state finance data, showing the weight of symbolic welfare in the budget compared to other competing social expenditures. This means a major chunk of a designated revenue stream — meant ostensibly to support cow welfare — has gone to cow shelter grants, even as other social sector needs compete for attention. As per a report in the Financial Express.

When combined with land grants to temples and conditionality for meat sellers, a coherent pattern emerges: state resources flow toward institutions and symbols aligned with Brahmin-Bania identity, while regulatory burdens accumulate around occupations associated with Muslims, and Dalits.

Beyond Party Lines: Structural Continuities

It would be simplistic to attribute this entirely to one party or one chief minister. Rajasthan’s post-independence political culture has frequently oscillated between socialist rhetoric and social conservatism. Congress governments often invoked redistributive language in moments of caste tension among agrarian communities, yet maintained close proximity to Brahminical cultural authority and Bania commercial networks.

The BJP’s current moves under Bhajanlal Sharma represent a more overt consolidation of that legacy. The difference lies less in substance and more in explicit ideological framing.

Conclusion: Governance or Cultural Engineering?

At stake is not merely administrative reform but the moral architecture of the state. When temple institutions are regularised and empowered while meat sellers face new hurdles, governance crosses into cultural engineering. It privileges one vision of society over pluralistic livelihood realities.

For a state, that constitutionally promises equality and secular governance, the challenge is to ensure that policy does not become a vehicle for reinforcing inherited hierarchies. Rajasthan’s latest announcements raise difficult questions: Who receives the state’s protection? Whose work is dignified? And whose livelihood is made conditional upon local moral approval?

In answering these, one sees less a neutral reform agenda and more a calibrated reassertion of sociocultural power — rooted in long-standing Brahmanical and mercantile dominance, now articulated with renewed confidence.

(The author is a mechanical engineer and an independent commentator on history and politics, with a particular focus on Rajasthan. His work explores the syncretic exchanges of India’s borderlands as well as contemporary debates on memory, identity and historiography)

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

Related:

Galgotias University’s AI Expo Debacle: What it says about Contemporary Indian Education & Public Culture

Rajasthan: Gogamedi, a Rajput-Muslim shrine and the politics of communal capture

The post Temple Leases, Food Morality: Rajasthan’s new Panchayat order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We have been observing the systemic normalisation of public shaming—a practice where police, not the judiciary, effectively deliver a public verdict. This is not due process; it is a coercive performance of degradation, rendering the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ a fiction in practice. The evidence compiled herein is clear, suspects, who should still be shielded by the presumption of innocence, are paraded before cameras and crowds. They are forced into women’s clothes in a calculated act of gendered humiliation. Their heads are forcibly shaved. They are marched down roads with visible and severe injuries; limping on fractured legs or, in some cases, even made to crawl on the road!

This conduct is not the sporadic egregious misconduct of a few officers. It is a defiant, systemic practice that stands in direct contravention of established law. It squarely violates the unambiguous prohibitions set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) SCC (3) 526.  It is a profound violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees every person—accused or not—the right to life and human dignity.

Significantly, this recurring illegality continues in open defiance of advisories from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Rajasthan DGP’s own circulars forbidding these very acts. The state’s top police leadership, by failing to enforce its own directives, has transitioned from silent spectator to complicit enabler. This resource is a legal examination of this practice. It details how the instruments of law are being perverted to enact a form of public justice, replacing the sanctity of the courtroom with the irreversible, prejudicial judgment of the crowd.

A map of humiliation: the state-wide trend of extra-legal parades

The colonial practice to parade accused before public and media as some hunted animal trophy is worst form of abuse of human rights of an individual. The British adopted this practice to ensure that the people of India remain fearful and subservient to handful of foreign rulers (who’s police forces were trained to turn against their own). In large part, they were successful in ensuring brute control, but that such tendencies should spiral in free ‘democratic India?

Shockingly, these extra-legal “arrest rituals” are not isolated incidents but part of a systemic practice across Rajasthan this past year that our team has documented. We present a detailed legal analysis.

1. Gendered humiliation as punishment

Few practices reveal the collapse of constitutional restraint more starkly than the police’s resort to gendered humiliation as a tool of punishment. Across Rajasthan, police officers have repeatedly turned to misogynistic tropes—forcing accused men into women’s clothing, half-shaving their heads, and parading them before jeering crowds—as instruments of moral retribution rather than lawful procedure. These acts, staged in full public view were documented through 2025. Often, they were visually documented for social media dissemination. These unlawful acts are not by any means, spontaneous lapses of discipline. They represent a conscious performance of power—where masculinity, shame, and violence are choreographed into public spectacle.

Even when the police claim that the accused were found disguised in women’s clothes at the time of arrest, such an explanation cannot justify their public parading in the same attire. The act of displaying them before crowds in those clothes—long after custody has been secured—serves no investigative purpose. It is an act of deliberate humiliation, stripped of any legal rationale, and therefore per se illegal. It transforms supposed evidence of arrest into a spectacle of degradation, meant to mock rather than prosecute.

The incidents that follow demonstrate how the police have systematically weaponised gender stereotypes to degrade the accused. In Sikar, Udaipur, Nagaur, Jhunjhunu, and Dausa, law enforcement transformed arrests into orchestrated parades of humiliation, targeting not only the individual’s liberty but their dignity itself. Each case exposes how gendered humiliation has evolved into an informal yet recurring mode of punishment—public, performative, and patently unlawful.

• Sikar: After arresting two men for allegedly killing a bull by running it over with an SUV on October 1, 2025, Nechwa police subjected them to such degradation. Claiming the men were found hiding in women’s clothes, officers half-shaved their heads and then paraded them through the public market, forcing them to wear women’s nightgowns. This spectacle was designed to incite public anger, with crowds reportedly shouting for the men to be hanged. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar 

Departmental endorsement of Sikar Police’s illegal parade

This defiance of law is not merely a station-level anomaly, it is amplified by a glaring departmental contradiction, perfectly captured by the Sikar parade incident.

This illegal parade, designed to incite public anger, was then officially endorsed by the force’s public relations arm. Despite internal directives from the DGP (such as the detailed SOP dated September 21, 2023) explicitly forbidding such acts of humiliation, the official @PoliceRajasthan social media handle broadcast a video of this very parade. It was framed as a righteous act, captioned, “Rajasthan Police: A befitting reply to human cruelty”, thereby publicly celebrating a blatant violation of law as a policy success.

• Udaipur: Five men arrested by Hathipole police for rioting and assault with a sword were paraded on November 1 in a manner clearly intended to humiliate. Justifying the act with the claim that the accused were planning to flee in female attire, police forced all five to dress in women’s clothes. To amplify the shame, they were made to wear placards around their necks with slogans like “I am a burden on society” and “I am a criminal” as they were marched through the city. (Report in The Mooknayak).

Image Credit: The Mooknayak

• Nagaur: On August 1, in Merta town, three men accused of a lottery scam—a crime they allegedly committed while disguised in female attire—were subjected to a multi-layered shaming ritual. Police shaved their heads and then marched them from the bus stand to the court while forcing them to wear the women’s salwar suits. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

Throughout the parade, officers forced the men to keep their hands folded and repeatedly chant, “We made a mistake.”

• Jhunjhunu & Dausa: This tactic of weaponising an accused’s disguise was repeated across districts. In Surajgarh (Jhunjhunu), on July 20, the SHO paraded a man accused of attacking a sarpanch in the salwar suit he was allegedly wearing while in hiding. (Reports in Dainik Bhaskar and Patrika).

Image Credit: Rajasthan Patrika

Similarly, in Dausa, police arrested two men for attacking officers. After finding them hiding in women’s clothes, police paraded them through the village in that same attire, forcing them to walk with folded hands and issue a public warning that “No one should do this, or they will face the same consequences.” (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

2. Parading the injured accused/suspects: spectacles of cruelty

In several cases, police have paraded accused. Several of these accused were visibly and severely injured, turning a “spot verification” or “Medical Examination” procedure into a public display of suffering.

• Kota: On May 22, in a shocking parade from Kanwas, police paraded two murder accused who were severely injured, allegedly from fleeing arrest. Both men had their legs in plaster casts. Media reports explicitly described one accused, Atiq, whose both legs were broken, crawling or ‘dragging himself’ on the road. The second accused, Deepak, limped painfully alongside on a crutch. The Kota Rural SP justified this as “spot verification.” He said that “action was taken to have the accused verify the scene and to prepare a site map of the incident. Since both had sustained injuries, they were taken to the spot on foot” as ETV Bharat Rajasthan reported. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: ETV Bharat Kota

• Jaipur: On January 23, Vidhyadharnagar police paraded five men accused in a high-profile robbery and murder case. Two of the men had sustained fractured legs from falling in a ditch and were in plaster casts. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

Police forced these injured men to walk, limping and supported by officers, from the police vehicle to the crime scene and even to the victim’s house.

• Tonk: On September 30, The Times of India reported that the Tonk Police arrested three men for allegedly molesting a 13-year-old girl and threatening her with an acid attack. During the public “spot verification,” one of the accused, unable to walk, was filmed dragging himself on the road, while the other two limped beside him as locals cheered. During the parade, a large crowd gathered and chanted slogans of “Tonk Police Zindabad.” (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

• Kotputli: On July 1, four men accused of murdering a liquor contractor were arrested after a police “encounter” in which all four were shot in the legs. Immediately following their medical treatment, police paraded the injured accused, limping from their fresh gunshot wounds, in a “procession” through the town.

• Karoli: On February 25, two men accused of firing over a payment dispute at a salon were arrested after being injured, allegedly by falling on stones while fleeing. Police then paraded the two men, who were visibly limping, and forced them to walk through the city with folded hands, apologising to the public. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

3. Rituals of degradation: shaving, placards, and drums

Beyond gendered humiliation, police employ other theatrical methods of degradation designed to shatter an accused’s self-respect.

• Baran: On June 3, demonstrating that even an alleged intent to commit a crime warrants public degradation, police arrested 12 men for planning a robbery at a petrol pump. Before any trial, police shaved the heads of the accused and paraded them through the city market, forcing them to join their hands and publicly apologise. (Report in NDTV Rajasthan).

Image Credit: NDTV Rajasthan

• Pali: On October 28, the Pali Police orchestrated a highly theatrical shaming procession for three murder accused. Officers hired dhols (drums) to beat as they marched the men from Ambedkar Circle to the court. The accused, who were visibly limping, were forced to wear clothes with the label ‘Hardcore History-sheeter’ printed on them and beg for forgiveness.

During the parade, a woman tried to reach the accused to slap them, but the police stopped her

• Hanumangarh: On October 30, the Gogamedi police arrested six men, alleged to be members of a criminal gang. As a form of summary punishment, police forcibly cut their hair and then paraded them through village. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

The men were seen limping and attempting to hide their faces in shame during the procession.

Footage Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

• Udaipur: On October 5, combining multiple forms of humiliation, Bhupalpura police paraded two men accused of a stabbing. The men were forced to walk while visibly limping from injuries sustained during their arrest, and police had half-shaved their heads to maximise their public disgrace.

The accused men were marched in this state for approximately two kilometers to “recreate the scene.”

4. General parades: “sport verification” as public spectacle

Even in cases without overt torture, the routine practice of parading suspects for “spot verification” is used as a pretext for public shaming.

• Jodhpur: On August 20, after arresting suspects in a firing case, Jodhpur police paraded the accused on foot from the police station to the nearby crime scene in the middle of the market, justifying it as the “last day of remand” and a “spot inspection.” (Report in Amar Ujala.

Image Credit: Amar Ujala

• Bikaner: On July 28, Lunkaransar police paraded six men, accused of attacking a shopkeeper, through the same market where the incident occurred, forcing them to walk to the hospital. The parade drew a large crowd, which turned the procession into a “julus” (spectacle). (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

• Jaipur: In a separate Vidhyadharnagar case, on June 3, two men arrested for allegedly trying to free a suspect from police custody and tearing a constable’s uniform were paraded at the scene of the incident, where they were forced to fold their hands and apologise. (Report in Patrika).

Image Credit: Patrika

• Churu: On September 21, Taranagar Police paraded a young man accused of allegedly stabbing a female student. He was marched from the police station through the main market and bus stand to “send a message.” According to Dainik Bhaskar, the SHO was quoted as saying, “This is the fate of those who commit crimes.”

Link: https://dai.ly/x9qx8kw

The statutory framework: due process vs. public spectacle

The statutory framework governing arrest, detention, and investigation in India is exhaustive and focuses entirely on procedural correctness, investigative necessity, and the rights of the accused. This framework is designed to protect the individual from the arbitrary exercise of state power.

Conspicuously absent from the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and its predecessor, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is any provision, power, or procedure that legitimises the public parading, shaming, or forced humiliation of an accused or suspect. The police actions documented in Rajasthan are not a mere over-extension of authority but they are in direct contravention of black-letter law.

The limited and defined powers of arrest

The police’s power to arrest is not absolute. It is narrowly defined, primarily under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 (which corresponds to Section 41 of the CrPC, 1973). This section outlines the specific circumstances under which a police officer may arrest without a warrant. The entire purpose of this power is to prevent the commission of further offenses, ensure a proper investigation, or secure the accused’s presence at trial. It does not grant any power to inflict summary punishment or public humiliation.

The manner of arrest is detailed in Section 43 of the BNSS, 2023:

(1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action:

Provided that where a woman is to be arrested, unless the circumstances indicate to the contrary, her submission to custody on an oral intimation of arrest shall be presumed and, unless the circumstances otherwise require or unless the police officer is a female, the police officer shall not touch the person of the woman for making her arrest.

(2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.

(3) The police officer may, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, use handcuff while making the arrest of a person or while producing such person before the court who is— (i) a habitual or repeat offender; or (ii) a person who escaped from custody; or (iii) a person who has committed offence of organised crime, terrorist act, drug related crime, illegal possession of arms and ammunition, murder, rape, acid attack, counterfeiting of coins and currency-notes, human trafficking, sexual offence against children, or offence against the State.

While Sub-section (3) introduces specific grounds for handcuffing, its legal basis remains tied to preventing escape and ensuring safety—not for public display. The parading of an accused in handcuffs, often when they are already subdued or injured, serves no legitimate custodial purpose.

The absolute prohibition on unnecessary restraint

The most blatant statutory violation in these public parades is the breach of Section 46 of the BNSS, 2023 (mirroring Section 49 of the CrPC). This provision is not ambiguous and leaves no room for discretion. It mandates:

“The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.”

Forcing an accused to wear women’s clothing, shaving their head, hanging a placard around their neck, or forcing them to limp through a market while injured is, by any definition, “more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.” These acts are illegal, punitive, and fall entirely outside the police’s lawful authority.

Provisions pertaining to the use of handcuffing

The legal framework governing handcuffs in India was historically undefined, with no explicit provision in the previous CrPC, 1973. Their use was permissively shaped only by Supreme Court directives, notably in Prem Shanker Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) SCC (3) 526 and Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) guidelines (2010), which strictly limited it to a measure of last resort for securing restraint—not as a routine tool.

The new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), in Section 43(3), for the first time codifies this power, but only for exceptionally narrow and grave circumstances, such as for a habitual or repeat offender, a person who escaped custody, or one who has committed specified serious offences like organised crime, terrorism, murder, or rape.

While police may justifiably argue that handcuffs are necessary to secure an accused during spot verifications, medical examinations, or production before the court, the incidents documented across Rajasthan tell a different story. The visual evidence shows handcuffs being weaponised not for legitimate restraint, but as a prop for public shaming—an integral part of the illegal parade. This unnecessary, performative demonstration of power is a per se unconstitutional and illegal act, designed to inflict humiliation rather than uphold the law.

Zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21: SC’s definitive mandate in Prem Shankar Shukla

The foundational and most authoritatively-violated law on this matter remains the Supreme Court’s 1980 judgment in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) SCC (3) 526. This ruling did not just restrict handcuffing; it condemned the entire mindset behind public degradation as an affront to the Constitution. The Court declared that handcuffing is “prima facie inhuman” and “arbitrary,” calling it a “zoological strategy” that is “repugnant to Article 21.”

Addressing the exact ritual of parading, the Court observed:

“But to bind a man hand-and-foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the soul of our constitutional culture.” (Para 22)

The Court established that the “convenience of the custodian” (Para 24) is irrelevant. Handcuffing is not a routine procedure but an “extreme measure” (Para 25) that can only be justified as the “last refuge, not the routine regimen” (Para 25). The bench explicitly rejected the idea that the “nature of the accusation” (Para 31) is a valid criterion. Instead, the only determinant is a “clear and present danger of escape” (Para 31), which must be based on “clear material, not glib assumption” (Para 31).

Crucially, the judgment set a non-negotiable procedural safeguard: police cannot act unilaterally. Even in those rare, extreme cases, the officer must:

“…record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so… The escorting officer, whenever he handcuffs a prisoner produced in court, must show the reasons so recorded to the Presiding Judge and get his approval. Otherwise… the procedure will be unfair and bad in law.” (Para 30)

The Court concluded by condemning the practice as a “barbarous bigotry” and “an imperial heritage, well preserved” (Para 33), making it clear that such “animalising” (Para 23) displays are summary punishments “vicariously imposed at police level” (Para 31) and have no place under the Constitution.

The judgement of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) can be read here

Police duty is arrest, not punishment: the Omprakash judgment

In Omprakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand (2012) 12 SCC 72, the Supreme Court stressed the fundamental limits of police duty. The Court observed that the police designated role is not to deliver summary punishment, stating “It is not the duty of the police officers to kill the accused merely because he is a dreaded criminal. Undoubtedly, the police have to arrest the accused and put them up for trial.” (Para 42).

This observation highlights the principle that the police’s sole, lawful function is to bring an accused before the judiciary, not to usurp the judicial role by inflicting punishment—be it through extra-judicial killings or, by extension, through acts of public degradation.

The judgement of Omprakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand (2012) 12 SCC 72 can be read here

A Parallel Trial: Supreme Court on the illegality of media parades of accused

The Hindu reported that on August 28, 2014, the Supreme Court directly condemned the practice of police parading suspects before the media, viewing it as a serious threat to the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. During the 2014 hearings for the Public Union for Civil Liberties & another v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CDJ 2014 SC 831), a three-judge bench led by then-Chief Justice R.M. Lodha expressed strong disapproval of this practice. The Chief Justice was unequivocal, stating:

“Media briefings by investigating officer during on-going investigations should not happen. It is a very serious matter. This issue touches upon Article 21 [right to life and liberty including fair trial].”

The bench, which also included Justice Kurian Joseph, noted that this conduct prejudices the accused before they are even charged. Justice Joseph observed that by releasing unproven statements, “a parallel trial is run in the media,” which affects the fundamental rights of the accused and creates an indelible stigma.

Home Ministry’s advisory on media policy and ban on public parading of accused persons

The systemic defiance of legal norms is further evidenced by the police’s flagrant disregard for binding directives from the Union Government itself. As far back as April 1, 2010, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a comprehensive “Advisory on Media Policy of Police” (F. NO.15011/48/2009-SC/ST-W) to all states. This advisory explicitly mandates precautions to protect the dignity of those in custody. Guideline VI(a) of the memorandum is unequivocal that “arrested persons should not be paraded before the media.”

Para (VI) reads as follow;

“Due care should be taken to ensure that there is no violation of the legal, privacy and human rights of the accused/victims.

1.  Arrested persons should not be paraded before the media.
2.  Faces of arrested persons whose Test Identification Parade is required to be conducted should not be exposed to the media.”

It further instructs that “due care should be taken to ensure that there is no violation of the legal, privacy and human rights of the accused/victims.” The MHA advisory, which forms the basis for subsequent state-level circulars, also directs that any deviation “should be viewed seriously and action should be taken against such police officer/official.”

The recurring spectacles in Rajasthan are therefore a direct violation of these long-standing, explicit instructions from the very ministry overseeing internal security.

The MHA advisory dated April 1, 2010 can be read here

Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007

The very statute governing the state’s police, the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, establishes a clear, affirmative obligation for officers to follow the law. Section 29 of the Act details the duties and responsibilities of every police officer. Crucially, Section 29(i) mandates that an officer shall “perform such duties and discharge such responsibilities as may be enjoined upon him by law or by an authority empowered to issue such directions under any law.” This provision makes adherence to all legal mandates—including constitutional protections, Supreme Court judgments, and internal departmental circulars—a fundamental and non-negotiable component of an officer’s statutory duty.

Circulars/advisory issued by the DGP, Rajasthan

This reported illegality is not just a violation of MHA advisories but also a direct contravention of the Rajasthan Police’s own internal guidelines. On October 18, 2013, the Director General of Police (DGP), Rajasthan, issued a specific advisory to all District Police Superintendents and G.R.P. Ajmer/Jodhpur regarding police-media relations. This directive explicitly aimed to prevent the very practices now seen across the state. Para (vi) of the advisory clearly mandates:

“It should always be kept in mind that; (a) the arrested person should not be paraded before the media. (b) The face of the accused whose identity is to be paraded should not be shown to the media.”

The DGP, Rajasthan’s instructions dated October 18, 2013 can be read here

Rajasthan Police’s SOP strictly prohibits using handcuffs for “public ridicule, harassment, or humiliation”

On September 21, 2023, the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Rajasthan, issued a detailed Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) acknowledging that handcuffing and displaying accused was being done “routinely,” a practice that “humiliates a person,” “hurts their self-respect,” and “tarnishes the image of the police.”

Citing the Rajasthan High Court’s 2023 order (supra) and the Supreme Court’s mandate in Prem Shankar Shukla (supra), the SOP strictly prohibits using handcuffs for “public ridicule, harassment, or humiliation” or merely for the “convenience of the escort team.”

The SOP mandates that handcuffs are a last resort, to be used only in “exceptional circumstances” (e.g., the prisoner is violent, dangerous, or a high escape risk) and requires prior court approval. The reasons for their use must be meticulously recorded in the police station’s daily diary (Roznamcha Aam) before application.

The SOP also explicitly forbids the routine handcuffing of “Satyagrahis, persons holding dignified positions in public life, journalists, [and] political prisoners,” and states that even if justifiably handcuffed, they must not be paraded. It directs senior officers (IGPs and SPs) to ensure “verbatim” compliance with these instructions.

The ADGP, Rajasthan’s directive dated September 21, 2023 can be read here

“Will not conduct a public parade”: DGP’s January 2025 SOP directly bans shaming rituals

The legal prohibitions against these practices were reinforced with the issuance of a new “Standard Operating Procedure for the use of handcuffs” by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, on January 15, 2025. This SOP was issued to align with Section 43(3) of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which codifies the power to use handcuffs for specific, grave offenses (e.g., habitual offenders, terrorism, murder, rape, organised crime).

However, the directive unequivocally states that even for these accused, handcuffs are only permissible in “exceptional circumstances” where there is a “clear and present danger” of escape or violence, and the reasons must be “clearly recorded.” Most significantly, the 2025 SOP directly confronts and bans the very rituals this resource documents. It explicitly commands:

“The police officer, after handcuffing, will not conduct a public parade of the prisoner.”

Furthermore, it directly targets the police practice of broadcasting these events, instructing officers to: “…take special care that after handcuffing, photos or videos of the prisoner are not uploaded to social media.”

This latest directive from the state’s top police office leaves no ambiguity, explicitly forbidding the exact conduct of parading suspects and disseminating the footage.

The directions of DGP, Rajasthan dated January 15, 2025 can be read here

Rajasthan High Court’s condemnation on illegal handcuffing

On May 26, 2023, the Rajasthan High Court’s order (Jodhpur Bench) in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 156/2023, the Court, while disposing of the petition, issued several key directives. The operative part of the order mandates the respondents to conduct an expeditious inquiry into the incident and against the delinquent officers, including those already suspended. The Court directed that the Inspector General of Police (IGP) must personally monitor the progress of this inquiry.

Furthermore, the Court explicitly ordered the IGP to ensure that the directions issued by the Supreme Court [notably in Prem Shanker Shukala v. Delhi Administration (1980) SCC (3) 526, which prohibit routine handcuffing, are followed “in letter and spirit” throughout his jurisdiction.

The High Court’s take on the handcuffing was one of strong condemnation. It found the action of handcuffing the petitioner’s son—who was not formally arrested and was hospitalised with a fractured leg, rendering him unable to walk—to be “inhuman” and “absolutely illegal and unconstitutional.” The Court noted that the very presence of handcuffs at the general ward bed of an unarrested accused, who alleged he was fettered at night, “firmly established” the illegality and was a clear violation of constitutional mandates, dismissing the suspension of officers as an “eye-wash.”

The order dated May 26, 2023 of the Rajasthan High Court can be read here

The judicial condemnation of public parades extends beyond a single state

Apart from the Rajasthan High Court, this concern is also shocking courts across the country as well, as the Gujarat High Court, in R/WPPIL/153/2018, Bhautik Vijaybhai Bhatt v. Director General of Police, addressed this issue directly. The Public Interest Litigation sought a writ of mandamus to stop police from “taking out procession of accused persons by handcuffing them… and beat such accused persons in public place.” In response, the Additional Director General of Police filed an affidavit assuring the Court of “proposed draft instructions” to be issued to all officers.

The High Court’s order dated May 7, 2019, specifically recorded that these new instructions would ensure that accused persons are “not parading them in public at large” or given any “maltreatment.” The affidavit, accepted by the Court, affirmed that accused must be “protected from mob violence” and taken to the police station or Magistrate “in a dignified manner by protecting their individual status.” The Court disposed of the PIL by directing the state to issue this circular, reinforcing that legal guidelines must be “strictly complied with.”

The order of Gujrat High Court dated May 7, 2019 can be read here

No parading of accused/suspects: Hyderabad High Court (Telangana HC)

The New Indian Express reported that on June 21, 2018, a division bench of the Hyderabad High Court comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar recently expressed their “extreme displeasure” over parading of accused in front of media and television channels. The observation has evoked a positive response and won accolades from different walks of life. The judges asserted that the bench would pass orders prohibiting the practice.

Subsequently, the High Court refused a request to grant the DGP, Andhra Pradesh, two weeks to file an affidavit in the case. The bench, demonstrating its urgency on the matter, strongly remarked that “You are treating the accused-suspects as animals that is why you are allowing them before the media without any respect to their Right to Privacy which is a fundamental right. We will grant only a week’s time to you to file the affidavit as per our earlier direction” as the Deccan Chronicle reported

Rights of the accused: protection and fair trail, not degradation

The law, far from sanctioning humiliation, builds a wall of protection around the accused. Section 38 of the BNSS, 2023 (mirroring Section 50 of the CrPC), mandates that when any person is arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation.

Furthermore, Section 51 of the BNSS, 2023 (regarding the medical examination of the accused), shows the law’s intent:

…it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of any police officer… to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence…

The purpose of a medical examination is evidentiary—to find trace evidence on the accused or document injuries relevant to the crime. This provision is perverted when police parade suspects with injuries (like fractured legs), turning a procedure meant for legal and medical documentation into a spectacle of cruelty.

The core jurisprudential breach

These police conduct tears at the very fabric of Indian criminal jurisprudence.

1. Violation of Article 21 (Dignity): The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity. Public shaming, forced haircuts, and gendered humiliation are a profound assault on that dignity.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the “right to live with human dignity.” This is the “most precious right” afforded to “every person,” a guarantee that is not suspended upon accusation or arrest. As the Supreme Court has affirmed in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 1999] that, “even the State has no authority to violate that right.” (Para 7)

The judgement of PUCL v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 1999] can be read here

The only exception under Article 21 is that liberty can be curtailed, but only subject to the “procedure established by law”—which means through a fair trial, investigation, and conviction by a competent court. However, the police’s summary “punishments” in the name of spot verification and medical examination are per se illegal and a gross violation of the Constitution, as police have no authority to adjudicate guilt or inflict penalties.

This practice also fundamentally subverts Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits double jeopardy. When police inflict this public degradation, they are administering a “punishment” before any trial. Should the accused later be convicted by a court, they would have been subjected to two punishments—first, the illegal, irreversible public shaming by the police, and second, the judicial sentence. This police action is a brazen usurpation of judicial power, rendering the presumption of innocence a nullity.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 488, the Supreme Court even condemned the inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, particularly the use of solitary confinement and held that fundamental rights do not end at the prison gates. It was emphasised that prison authorities must respect the dignity and rights of inmates under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Thus, ‘human dignity’, which is apparently not a fundamental right was read as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The judgement of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980) can be read here

In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 this Court affirmed right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution, which was read as a right and a part of ‘life and liberty’ under Article 21. It was held that privacy encompasses autonomy, dignity, and the freedom to control their own personality.

The judgement of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) can be read here

2. Violation of Article 20(3) (Self-Incrimination): Forcing an accused to walk with folded hands and publicly chant “I made a mistake” is a form of compelled confession, obtained through duress and humiliation. It is a flagrant violation of the right against self-incrimination.

“I Made a Mistake”: forced confessions and the death of Article 20(3)

A core constitutional safeguard, enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution, dictates that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This right against self-incrimination is so foundational that the law of evidence, both in Section 25 of the former Indian Evidence Act and its successor Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, explicitly states that “No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.” These laws exist precisely because of the inherent risk of coercion in police custody.

The police rituals documented across Rajasthan—forcing accused men to chant “We made a mistake” or publicly apologise to crowds—are a flagrant and theatrical violation of these very safeguards. Such a “confession,” whether genuinely given in the privacy of a station or compelled by police pressure, is legally worthless and inadmissible as evidence.

Therefore, the only purpose of this public performance is extra-legal, to inflict humiliation, satisfy public anger, and enact a summary punishment. This practice is a performative and compelled act of self-incrimination. It does not matter if an accused has confessed; the police have no authority to broadcast this, let alone force its re-enactment as a public spectacle. By forcing an accused to apologise on camera, the police are not conducting an investigation; they are staging a verdict and illegally compelling a person to be a witness against himself, not before a court of law, but before a roadside mob.

3. Destruction of the Presumption of Innocence: The accusation has to be proven in a court of law. When investigating authorities “play to the gallery,” they usurp the role of the judiciary. They declare the person guilty before a trial, inflicting an irreversible public sentence that no subsequent acquittal can ever undo. This damages the credibility and integrity of the entire justice system.

The D.K. Basu mandate: a judicial blueprint against custodial abuse

The most foundational legal standards for arrest and detention were established by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment, D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) 1 SCC 416]. The Court, deeply concerned with custodial violence and the abuse of police power, formulated a set of 11 mandatory requirements. These guidelines are not suggestions but “preventive measures” designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and the protection of an arrestee’s fundamental rights under Article 21. They create a non-negotiable procedural blueprint that stands in stark contrast to the arbitrary rituals of public shaming. The Court directed in Para 35 of the judgement that requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures.

These directives establish procedures to protect the rights of individuals during arrest and detention. Police officers must wear clear identification, and their details must be registered. An “Arrest Memo” must be prepared at the time of arrest, detailing the time and date, witnessed by a family member or local respectable person, and countersigned by the arrestee.

The arrestee must be informed of their right to have one friend or relative notified of their arrest and custody location. If this person lives out-of-district, police must notify them via the Legal Aid Organisation within 8-12 hours. The arrestee has the right to an injury inspection at arrest, recorded in a signed “Inspection Memo,” and must receive a medical examination by an approved doctor every 48 hours. They may also meet their lawyer during interrogation.

All arrest details must be recorded in a station diary, with copies of documents sent to the Magistrate. Furthermore, the district/state police control room must be informed of the arrest and custody location within 12 hours and display this information publicly.

The judgement of DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) can be read here

No action from SHRC and DGP Rajasthan’s office

Despite an unambiguous legal framework, the compiled evidence reveals a systemic collapse of every accountability mechanism. The Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission (RSHRC), armed with suo moto powers to protect fundamental rights from illegal police practices, has remained a silent spectator. This inaction persists even as these “arrest rituals” have escalated since 2025, transforming from sporadic abuses into a monthly, viral spectacle of state-endorsed degradation.

This open defiance is amplified, not punished, with official police social media handles celebrating the violations. The institutional failure is absolute as the Rajasthan High Court has not taken suo motu cognizance, and the Director General of Police, despite his own clear directives (Jan 2025) forbidding these parades, has proven unable or unwilling to enforce them. The result is a state of perfect impunity, where the Constitution is openly defied, and the law, judiciary, and human rights commissions have, by their collective silence, become complicit enablers.

Related

What are the Rights against being handcuffed in India?

A prison without bars or walls

Indian courts and Medical Bail

The post Parade of Public Shaming: How Rajasthan police’s illegal “arrest rituals” replace due process with public defilement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Located in the Hanumangarh district of northern Rajasthan, near the fringes of the Thar Desert, Gogamedi is not merely a pilgrimage site but a living archive of north-western India’s syncretic past. The shrine, popularly known as Gogamedi, is dedicated to Gogaji Chauhan, also revered as Jaharveer Gogga, a 11^th century medieval Rajput warrior-saint whose veneration cuts across religious boundaries. For centuries, Gogamedi has drawn Hindu and Muslim devotees alike—peasants, pastoralists, warriors, and traders—making it one of the rare sacred spaces in Rajasthan where religious identity has historically been secondary to lineage, memory, and shared devotion.

It is precisely this inclusive character that has recently come under strain. On January 26 this year, Riddhima Sharma, a Jaipur-based social media influencer, visited Gogamedi and posted videos and statements that were widely perceived as communal and inflammatory. Circulated extensively on social media, the content appeared to question the legitimacy of Muslim participation at the shrine and deployed a language of exclusion alien to Gogamedi’s lived traditions. The episode led to public confrontations at the site and drew condemnation from local devotees and Rajput organisations like Kshatriya Parishad , who accused Sharma of attempting to communalise a shrine historically rooted in Hindu–Muslim coexistence.

What unfolded at Gogamedi was not an isolated provocation by an individual influencer. It was symptomatic of a broader political project—one that seeks to recast shared folk shrines into narrowly defined, Brahminical Hindu spaces, erasing inconvenient histories and displacing long-standing custodial communities. Gogamedi, with its Rajput genealogy and Muslim priesthood, stands as a stubborn obstacle to this project. Hindutva, the political project that this country is under siege currently from, is both Brahmanical and exclusivist.

Gogamedi, Gogaji Chauhan, and the Rajput Custodianship of a Shared Cult

Gogaji Chauhan, also known as Jaharveer Gogga, occupies a distinctive place in north-western India’s folk-historical memory.

To understand why Gogamedi resists easy communal categorisation, one must return to the figure of Gogaji Chauhan himself. Remembered in bardic traditions, oral epics, and folk memory as a protector of pastoralists and farmers, Gogaji was a Chauhan Rajput chief of Jangaldesh or Dadarewa (present-day Churu district) and a contemporary of Mahmud of Ghazni as per historians like Dasarath Sharma, RC Temple and sources like Kayamkhan Raso and Jain text Shrawak-Viatudi-Atichar. These historical references tell us that he was a feudal under the Imperial Chauhans of Rajasthan and the region he ruled, from Fazilka in Haryana to Dadrewa in Churu was called Chayalwara, after the Chauhan subclan – Chayal, to which he belonged.

During the era of Firoz Shah Tughlaq, many Chayal chiefs embraced Islam under the influence of Sufis, one of which was Dadrewa’s Raja Karamchand Chauhan, who became Kayamkhan. His and his brother’s descendants, collectively called Kayamkhanis, have produced excellent soldiers to this day, including many who have been awarded Vir Chakras and Sena Medals. The cities of Jhunjhunu and Fatehpur (near Sikar) were founded by Nawab Mohammad Khan and Nawab Fateh Khan – both Kayamkhani rulers.

Hence, unlike Sanskritic deities absorbed into Brahminical ritual hierarchies, Gogaji belongs to the world of historical figures turned folk hero-saints—figures whose authority emerged from martial ethics, local sovereignty, and popular reverence rather than scriptural sanction.

A crucial, often deliberately obscured fact is that the chief priests of Gogamedi have historically been Muslim Rajputs of the Chayal (Chauhan) lineage, regarded as descendants of Gogaji himself. Their presence is not a later “accommodation” but intrinsic to the shrine’s history. In Rajasthan’s folk religious landscape, lineage frequently outweighs doctrinal religion, and Gogamedi exemplifies this logic. The priesthood here is hereditary, tied to blood and ancestry rather than to Brahminical ritual qualifications.

Gogamedi is also part of a wider constellation of shrines associated with the five Panchpirs of Rajasthan, all of whom are remembered in regional tradition as Rajput warrior-saints – some of them are Pabuji Rathore, Mehaji Mangliya, Ramdevji Tomar and Harbuji Sankhla. In each of these shrines, custodianship has historically remained with the saint’s own descendants, irrespective of whether they identify today as Hindu or Muslim. This pattern unsettles modern communal frameworks but makes perfect sense within the pre-colonial social world of the region.

Far from being a marginal or neglected site, Gogamedi has repeatedly served as a space of political and social convergence. In June 2025, the town hosted a meeting attended by members of BAMCEF (an Ambedkarite organization) and its Rajput offshoot-wing KMM, with participation from both Hindu and Muslim Rajputs. These gatherings underscored Gogamedi’s continuing role as a node of Rajput solidarity cutting across religious lines—an aspect rarely acknowledged in mainstream narratives.

The shrine’s inclusive ethos was also formally recognised by the princely state. In 1911, Maharaja Ganga Singh Rathore of Bikaner undertook the renovation of the Gogamedi complex. Importantly, this was a vital act of historical preservation. Ganga Singh ensured that the Muslim priests of Chayal Chauhan ancestry were accorded due respect by Hindu devotees, granted state patronage, and paid for their maintenance as descendants of Gogaji Chauhan. The Bikaner ruler’s intervention reinforced the shrine’s syncretic and Rajput-centric character.

Gogamedi, therefore, is not simply a symbol of abstract Hindu–Muslim harmony. It occupies a unique socio-political position, binding Hindu Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs—particularly Kayamkhanis—into a shared sacred and historical universe. Any attempt to communalise the shrine necessarily threatens this fragile but enduring bond.

Influencer Politics, Brahminical Assertion, and the Targeting of a Rajput Shrine

Against this historical backdrop, the actions of Riddhima Sharma acquire a sharper political meaning. Sharma is not a local devotee shaped by Gogamedi’s traditions but a Brahmin influencer from Jaipur, whose social media persona is built around performative religiosity and viral provocation. Her intervention at Gogamedi was not an innocent act of devotion but an intrusion into a space structurally and historically divorced from Brahminical authority. What was at stake was more than a generic Hindu–Muslim tension.

The language deployed, and the specific focus on Muslim priests, pointed towards an attempt to engineer fissures between Hindu Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs, particularly Kayamkhanis, who have long been integral to the region’s political and social fabric. By questioning Muslim custodianship, such interventions seek to delegitimise Rajput lineage-based authority and replace it with a Brahmin-centred religious hierarchy.

This is a familiar pattern. Across north India, shared folk shrines—whether associated with warrior-saints, pastoral deities, or local pirs—are increasingly being targeted for “purification”. The process typically involves reframing the shrine within a Sanskritic idiom, introducing Brahmin priests, marginalising hereditary custodians, and reinterpreting history to align with a homogenised and Brahminised Hindu identity. Gogamedi’s resistance to this process lies precisely in its Rajput genealogy and Muslim priesthood, which together obstruct the consolidation of Brahminical socio-political supremacy.

Seen in this light, the Gogamedi episode is less about one influencer’s statements and more about a struggle over power, memory, and control. Control over the shrine implies control over donations, narratives, and regional influence. Displacing Muslim Rajput priests would not only communalise the site but also dismantle a long-standing Rajput polity in the region—one that has historically operated outside Brahminical mediation.

The backlash therefore, should not be read as a mere defensive reflex. It represents a conscious assertion that Gogamedi belongs to a non-Brahminical, lineage-based sacred order, and that attempts to hijack the Gogaji cult into a Brahminical socio-political structure amount to historical distortion and cultural aggression.

Conclusion: Defending Gogamedi Is Defending History Itself 

The controversy surrounding Gogamedi is a reminder that India’s religious past is far messier, richer, and more plural than contemporary political projects allow. Shrines like Gogamedi survived precisely because they resisted rigid boundaries—between Hindu and Muslim, between priest and warrior, between devotion and lineage. To communalise such spaces is not to “protect” tradition but to falsify it.

What is unfolding at Gogamedi today is a test case.

Will shared sacred spaces be allowed to exist on their own historical terms, or will they be forcibly assimilated into a homogenised religious order that privileges one caste and one narrative over all others? Defending Gogamedi is not merely about preserving harmony; it is about defending the right of history to remain complex, uncomfortable, and inclusive. In that sense, the struggle over Gogamedi is not peripheral.

It goes to the heart of how India chooses to remember itself.

Related:

गोगामेड़ी: राजपूत–मुस्लिम परंपरा और उस पर होते सांप्रदायिक दावे

The post Rajasthan: Gogamedi, a Rajput-Muslim shrine and the politics of communal capture appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Given that most anti-Hindutva critiques in the media emerge from the more privileged Brahmin–Bania perspectives, they inadvertently reinforce this diversion—keeping the focus on “Rajput history” and “Muslim history” while avoiding deeper discussions about present-day skewed representation, social engineering, and economic power in the state.

The real project is social engineering to secure Brahmin dominance in politics, bureaucracy, and culture. Crucially, this dispensation operates in tandem with Bania corporates, who reap massive economic benefits while Brahmins provide ideological legitimacy.

Cabinet and Leadership: It is numbers that matter

In early 2024, the BJP’s elevation of Bhajan Lal Sharma as Rajasthan’s Chief Minister, C.P. Joshi as state party chief and Babulal Sharma as Jaipur prantpracharak, signaled a clear shift towards Brahmin-Raj: three top Brahmin leaders at the helm, despite Brahmins being a small fraction of the state’s population. Although, after some uproar, C.P. Joshi was replaced by Madan Rathore (from OBC Teli) as the State president.

RSS Supremacy and Institutional Capture

The RSS, dominated by Maharashtrian Brahmin leadership, directs this design.  Mohan Bhagwat, personally presided over major coordination meetings in Jodhpur held between September 5 and 7 this year, underlining Rajasthan’s importance in the evolution of a national Hindutva strategy. These gatherings link the BJP’s governance in the state directly to Sangh priorities: temple projects, Sanskritisation drives, and rewriting cultural narratives to affirm Brahmin custodianship of tradition. Rajputs, OBCs and SCs are recast as auxiliary players in a story authored by Brahmin ideologues.[1]

The increased focus on Maratha figures from the Peshwa period, despite their irrelevance or controversial relation with the state’s history. The state-level celebration of Ahilyabai Holkar, despite her irrelevance to the state’s history, illustrates this strategy. This can be contrasted with the state government’s ambivalence towards the NCERT’s recent Hindutva led revisions, although disfavouring the State’s own history which only exemplifies this attitude.

Bureaucracy: The Quiet Arm of Hegemony

It is within the bureaucracy is where the real engineering occurs. National studies confirm that Brahmins are heavily over-represented in senior IAS/IPS ranks despite being a demographic minority. Rajasthan has seen repeated controversies around promotions and selections, with Brahmin-Bania candidates favored over Rajput, SC, ST, and OBC aspirants. For instance, the chief secretary of Rajasthan, Sundhansh Pant and the Finance Secretary Vaibhav Galariya are both Brahmins. Further, nine of the 24 Officers deputed at the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) are Brahmins — that is more than one-third. This pattern also reflects in appointments of Vice Chancellors & Judiciary. At Rajasthan University, 5 out of 8 Deans are Brahmins. Out of 32 government-run universities in Rajasthan, Brahmins were appointed as Vice-Chancellors in 11 — a striking overrepresentation for such a small demographic group.

Similarly, while several Brahmin and Bania officers currently serve as District Superintendents of Police, there is only one Rajput—and not a single Muslim—holding that position.

These administrative patterns influence which textbooks are printed, which religious boards receive funds, and which police cases are prioritised. The dominance of Brahmin officers ensures Hindutva’s agenda is implemented with sympathetic pro-Brahmin filters. For instance, both Sharma and Joshi (although no longer BJP State president but still highly influential) frequently attend events promoting Parshuram as a cultural icon — recently Sharma inaugurated a Parshuram Gyanpeeth.

Hence, institutional capture through selections ensures policy-shaping and policy enforcement in favour of the concerned castes — increased State funding towards the Vipra Boards, Vipra foundations, Brahmin-controlled Gyanpeeths, promotion of vegetarianism and selective application of cow protection laws highlight this policy-shift.

The Brahmin–Bania Axis

Recently, Shikhar Agrawal, the Additional Chief Secretary was given additional charge as chairman of RIICO. Rajasthan, particularly the Marwar region and Jaipur-Shekhawati belt, has been the traditional home of major capitalist Bania houses like the Birlas, Bajajs, Mittals, Godrejs, Jhunjhunwalas, Agrawals and Khatris. The Hindutva order in Rajasthan rests not only on Brahmin dominance in ideology and bureaucracy but also on the economic muscle of Bania corporates. Brahmins provide ideological legitimacy and administrative control; Banias provide capital, campaign financing, and media ownership.

Deregulation in mining, real estate, and energy overwhelmingly benefits Bania-controlled enterprises. Contracts in solar parks, cement, and infrastructure disproportionately go to groups like Adani, Birla, and Mittal. GST centralisation, championed by Bania networks has weakened smaller competitors while favouring large corporates.

The Adani Group’s explosive expansion into Rajasthan’s mines, solar projects, and logistics under BJP, the interests of the Birlas & Mittals in Cement, telecom, and education sectors safeguarded by policy, and Local Khatri & Mahajan networks thrive under SME-friendly reforms while enjoying bureaucratic protection, exemplify this. On the other hand, Rajasthani Muslims, historically strong in art, culture, handicrafts and local trade, are vilified to marginalise them economically. Similarly, ownership of farms and orans (grasslands) by small Rajput farmers and traditional heritage by Rajput elites is often attacked under the rhetoric of samantwad.  Thus, while the state actively promotes the economic hegemonies of Brahmins, Banias, and Jats — and popular civil society discourse normalises these — the same socio-political channels stigmatise Muslim businesses and undermine Rajput property ownership.

In short, Brahmin–Bania synergy ensures that while Muslims are scapegoated and Rajputs are historically and politically side-lined, the real beneficiaries are the Brahmin-Bania elites who monopolise both state power and wealth.

Mechanisms of Social Engineering

This institutional capture and policy favouritism, is guarded by many strategies of social engineering like controlling information, culture, and using media and cinema to mislead public discourse.

The control of information and culture has played a pivotal role in social engineering.
Curricula and festivals are increasingly tilted towards Sanskritic, Brahminised traditions, side-lining Rajasthan’s syncretic and regional heritage. Similarly, Rajput-Muslim syncretic culture, exemplified by Sufi-Nathjogi traditions like that of Gogapir, are disfavoured for a more Brahmin-centric orthodox traditions like that of Parshuram. Similarly, Rajput-Dalit heterodox traditions of Ramdevji Tanwar and Rani Bhatiyani remain under constant attacks of Brahminisation by the State. This helps clear more space for Brahmin social influence over other communities — normalizing both institutional capture and policy favouritism.

However, what is more discomforting is the means and strategies employed to protect this hegemony, especially the social ramifications on the communities projected as social-punchbags for narrative decoys.

Muslims and Rajputs as the Mobilising “Other”

Unlike the Persian-origin Ashraf elites of Lucknow and Hyderabad — Rajasthani Muslims are either SC and ST convert or Rajput converts. While Kayamkhanis of Marwar & Bikaner, Sindhisipahis of Jaisalmer, and Khanzadas of Mewat are Muslim Rajputs, others like the Mirasis, Rangrezs, Langhas, Meos have been part of the traditional culture of the Hindu Rajputs.

Anti-Muslim mobilisation remained difficult in most pre-accession princely states due to the Muslim proximity to the Rajputs. However, that has dramatically changed in the last few years with various social engineering strategies, particularly Sanskritisation and Kshatriyaiaation. Hence, despite being local ethnic groups and despite being well-integrated contributors to the pre-accession Rajput States, including the modern armies — the Muslims are projected as the Turkic or Mughal “other.”

Furthermore, Muslim-othering has been followed by self-contradictory anti-Rajput rhetoric — the samantwad rhetoric by Brahmin and Jat politicians on one hand, and the violent conflicts over identity of medieval-era Rajput kings and other feudal lords on the other. The militant claims by Jats and Gujjars over Mihirbhoj Pratihar, Anangpal Tomar, Prithviraj Chauhan are not spontaneous social phenomena but politically-planned social engineering, termed “Rajputisation”. In this, different historical Rajput warriors and saints are assigned to different OBC communities to create social clashes between Rajputs and various OBC castes.

Hindutva’s obsessive appropriation of Maharana Pratap serves three key objectives. First, it eclipses the broader social, economic, and cultural contributions of Rajput dynasties, from the Pratiharas of Mandore onward. Second, it casts the rest of the Rajputs as collaborators with the Muslim ‘other.’ Third, it diverts attention from Hindutva’s ongoing project of Rajputisation.

Hence, BJP-RSS’s social engineering protects its policy of allotting more political space to Brahmins and economic space to Bania corporates. However, such social engineering is further compounded by narrative decoys (eg. Haldighati inscription debates) planted in media and films.

Discourse Deflection: Karauli Riots and the Afwaah Irony

During the run-up to the 2022 State elections, the State witnessed communal tensions and riots in Udaipur, Jodhpur and Karauli.

In Udaipur, the gruesome murder of Kanhaiyalal Sahoo was milked by BJP for anti-Muslim social-tension, while Karauli witnessed communal clashes triggered by rumours during a procession. Amid the fear, Madhulika Singh Jadaun, and her relative Sanjay Singh sheltered Muslims in her home and saved lives. Being the real heroes against Hindutva polarisation, they are reported to have said “This is Hindustan and we are Rajputs, we are known to protect people and we will always do it. Irrespective of faith,”

This irony deepens when we turn to the cultural sphere. Set in a Rajasthan town, Sudhir Mishra’s film Afwaah (2023), portrayed how rumours and political manipulation escalate into violence. However, both Madhulika, a garments seller, and Sanjay, a technician, are forgotten a year later. Instead, the film starring Bhumi Pednekar and Sumit Vyas, cleverly placed Rajputs at the centre of anti-Muslim violence.

Furthermore, the obsessive discourse around the change of the Rakt-talai inscription accompanied by a complete silence over Rajput protests against NCERT’s recent revisions fuels a misleading narrative that positions Rajput history as a beneficiary of Hindutva revisionism—a claim flatly contradicted by the recurrent protests Rajputs themselves have mounted against Hindutva’s distortions of their history in recent years — which can be read here, here, here & here.

The BJP-RSS machinery in Rajasthan has pursued Brahmin dominance with remarkable consistency, yet this reality remains conspicuously absent from most critiques of Hindutva in the state — deflecting discourse towards Rajput-Muslim history and the false binary instead.

Conclusion:

The real dangers of Hindutva lies not merely in the hate it spreads, but in the social order it entrenches: a system where Brahmins and Banias, wield an outsized supremacy over Rajasthan’s politics, economy, and culture — while constantly scapegoating the Muslims and the Rajputs through popular literature and cinema.

(The author is a mechanical engineer and an independent commentator on history and politics, with a particular focus on Rajasthan. His work explores the syncretic exchanges of India’s borderlands as well as contemporary debates on memory, identity and historiography; he can be contacted on adityakrishnadeora@gmail.com)

1. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Sep/03/rss-all-india-coordination-meet-in-jodhpur-from-sept-5-to-7
2. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/ahilyabai-holkar-statue-unveiled-on-jmc-h-initiative/articleshow/121541829.cms

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

Related:

September of Fear: Targeted Violence against Christians in Rajasthan exposes pattern of harassment after Anti-Conversion Bill

Rajasthan: Civil Society demands arrests, rule of law and end to minority targeting under anti-conversion law

PUCL slams recently passed Rajasthan anti-conversion bill as “draconian and unconstitutional”

The post Hindutva’s Rajasthan Project: Brahmin-Bania Power, not just Muslim baiting appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The most recent incident took place on September 23 in Pratap Nagar, Jaipur—a constituency represented by the Chief Minister himself. What should have been a routine visit by religious leaders to a Christian training institute quickly turned into a scene of fear, aggression, and misuse of police authority.

This has prompted civil society groups to issue a joint statement, condemning the violence, demanding justice, and urging the state government to uphold the rule of law and protect constitutional freedoms.

What happened at Hindustan Bible Institute in Jaipur?

The Hindustan Bible Institute (HBI) in Jaipur, established to train pastors and Christian leaders, has been functioning peacefully for years. But on the afternoon of September 23, around 3 PM, it was surrounded by nearly 50 members of the Bajrang Dal, who accused the institute of engaging in religious conversions.

At that time, two guests—one from HBI’s head office in Chennai and another from Bagidora, Banswara—were present at the institute for a scheduled inspection visit. Without any proof or official complaint, Bajrang Dal members began protesting aggressively, claiming the two were in Jaipur to carry out conversions.

Instead of protecting the visitors or dispersing the crowd, the local police from Pratap Nagar Thana detained the two HBI guests for “questioning.” Their mobile phones were seized. The police also confiscated the institute’s laptops, landline phone, pen drive, and even official documents, including property papers.

“The police took the two Guests from outstation HBI offices to the Police station in the name of enquiry and seized their phones as if they had committed a crime,” — Joint Civil Society Statement

This action—without any legal warrant or confirmed wrongdoing—has shocked many and highlighted the growing misuse of police power in religious matters.

Christian families living in fear

The HBI centre in Jaipur is run by two local Christian families, who were also present during the incident. Civil society members who later visited them reported that the families were shaken and afraid for their safety. They had simply been hosting two guests for an official inspection—something that any organisation does regularly. Yet, after this incident, they now live in fear of further targeting or retaliation, despite doing completely legal and constitutionally protected work.

“They were terrified as to what may befall them when they were doing absolute legal work under the Indian constitution,” — Delegation after meeting the HBI families

Second attack in CM’s own constituency in just three days

Shockingly, this wasn’t an isolated case. Just two days earlier, on Sunday, September 21, Pastor Daniel was attacked while leading a Christian mass in a private house in Pratap Nagar. His prayers were disrupted, and he was assaulted.

Despite protests by the local community, an FIR was registered only after several hours. As of now, no arrests have been made in that case either. Civil society leaders pointed out that both attacks occurred within the Chief Minister Bhajan Lal Shamra’s constituency, showing a complete disregard for peace and communal harmony, even in areas under direct state leadership.

“This was the second incident in the CM’s constituency in three days,” — Civil Society Statement

The role of the anti-conversion bill: law or license to harass?

According to the joint statement, these incidents are not random—they are part of a larger pattern that began after the Anti-Conversion Bill was tabled and passed in the Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha earlier in September.

Since then, nine incidents targeting Christians have been reported:

• 2 attacks in Dungarpur
• 1 in Alwar
• 2 in Jaipur (including the HBI incident and Pastor Daniel’s attack)
• 2 cases of police harassment in Kotputli-Behror district
• 2 incidents in Anupgarh, Hanumangarh, including a break-in at a children’s hostel and assault of two Christian staff

Civil society groups argue that the Anti-Conversion Bill has created a climate of suspicion and intolerance, where any religious gathering or activity is falsely framed as an attempt at forced conversion, leading to mob violence and police misuse.

Civil society responds: urging accountability and justice

In response to the Pratap Nagar incident, a delegation of civil society organisations met with DCP Sanjiv Nain, ACP Vinod Kumar Sharma, and SHO Manoj from Pratap Nagar Thana. The delegation included Sawai Singh, John Mathew, President of Jaipur Christian Fellowship (JCF), Father Vijay Pal Singh, Joint Secretary of JCF, Kavita Srivastava of the PUCL.

They condemned the police actions and mob aggression and demanded:

1. Immediate release of the two HBI guests detained unlawfully
2. Return of all confiscated items, including phones, laptops, and documents
3. Arrest of the Bajrang Dal members responsible for the protest and disturbance
4. Strict action to prevent further attacks on minorities

“Till strict action is not taken, such incidents will continue,” — Civil Society Delegation

United stand: who signed the statement?

The joint press statement was issued by multiple rights and minority organisations across Rajasthan, including Jaipur Christian Fellowship, Rajasthan Samagra Sewa Sangh, PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties), APCR (Association for Protection of Civil Rights), Rajasthan Baudh Maha Sangh, NFIW (National Federation of Indian Women), AIDWA (All India Democratic Women’s Association), Daman Pratirodh Andolan, Rajasthan, Buddhist Society of India, Jamat-e-Islami Hind, Rajasthan, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Dalit Muslim Ekta Manch.

This shows that the issue is not just about Christians, but about the broader erosion of civil rights and religious freedoms in the state.

An urge for rule of law, not rule of fear

The repeated attacks, police overreach, and growing fear among Christian families in Rajasthan are more than isolated incidents—they represent a systemic problem that is threatening India’s constitutional values. If religious minorities cannot carry out their daily prayers or official inspections without being accused, detained, or threatened, then the rule of law itself stands compromised.

The civil society groups are clear in their message: This must stop. Now.

“Such communal incidents and attacks on minorities need to stop now,” — Joint Statement

They call upon the Rajasthan government to act decisively—not just to protect the rights of one community, but to preserve the secular, democratic fabric of India.

Related:

“Your Helplessness feels in the garb of Protection”: SC rebukes CBI for failure to arrest officers in custodial death case of Deva Pardhi

“Shielding their own”: Supreme Court slams Madhya Pradesh police, transfers custodial death probe of a tribal man to CBI

“No One is Above the Law”: Supreme Court demotes Deputy Collector for demolishing a slum settlement by flouting HC order

The post Rajasthan: Civil Society demands arrests, rule of law and end to minority targeting under anti-conversion law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recent months have laid bare a chilling pattern of brutal rapes and assaults across Rajasthan, each incident a stark testament to a deeply entrenched societal malaise.

From the unimaginable violation of a female patient within the sterile confines of an ICU in Alwar, subjected to rape by hospital staff while undergoing treatment, to parallel and equally horrific occurrences echoing from Bikaner, Barmer, and Tonk even in the state capital, Jaipur.

Alwar: Female patient raped inside hospital ICU, fearing Job losses staff, asked for forgiveness

On June 4, 2025, in a deeply disturbing incident, a female patient in the ICU of ESIC Medical College Hospital in Alwar’s MIA area was allegedly raped by a nursing staff member. The incident occurred around 1:30 AM on June 4, 2025. The 32-year-old victim, who had been admitted on June 2 for a tubal operation and moved to the ICU on June 4, recounted the horrifying ordeal to her husband the following day after regaining consciousness.

According to Police, the victim’s husband filed a report stating that a guard had asked him to leave the room around 11 p.m. on June 4, after which the nursing staffer entered. The victim’s husband further detailed that his wife was not fully conscious or able to move, preventing her from resisting the assault by the nursing staff member, who had drawn a curtain around her. The rapist reportedly told her he was a doctor performing an operation.

Accused confessed to the crime in front of doctor

On June 6, the accused nursing staff member, identified as Subhash Gathala from Sikar, confessed to the crime in front of Dr. Deepika. ESIC Medical College Dean Aseem Das confirmed that a case has been registered, and an administrative inquiry team has been formed. The victim’s family registered a complaint at MIA Police Station, and police are investigating.

Alarmingly, hospital staff allegedly attempted to cover up the incident, telling the victim’s husband to “forgive him, or others will lose their jobs.” The husband, however, insisted on going directly to the police. A critical security lapse was also uncovered: the ICU, a highly sensitive area, had no CCTV cameras, as Hindi newspaper Dainik Bhaskar reported

The hospital guard admitted that while shifts change and staff are present, there are no cameras. Police investigation revealed that Gathala, originally posted elsewhere, was temporarily stationed in Alwar on a “diversion.” Police have registered a case and are investigating the matter, taking statements from both the hospital administration and the victim.

State Congress leaders and LoP criticised BJP-ruled state government

Following these alarming incidents, former Chief Minister and prominent Congress leader Ashok Gehlot sharply criticised the BJP-ruled state government.

He took to his social media handle, X, to express his dismay, stating, “During the tenure of the Congress government, the health model of Rajasthan became a topic of discussion in the country and the world, but the BJP government has ruined it. The incidents of rape of a female patient in the ICU of a hospital in Alwar and the incidents of misbehaviour and assault by a doctor on a Dalit Congress leader in a government hospital in Pali are examples of this. The people of the state are regretting that more than half of the tenure of such an inefficient government is still left. How bad will be the condition of the state in this time.”

कांग्रेस सरकार के कार्यकाल में राजस्थान का हेल्थ मॉडल देश-दुनिया में चर्चा का विषय बना था परन्तु भाजपा सरकार ने इसे बर्बाद कर दिया है।

अलवर में अस्पताल के आईसीयू में महिला रोगी से रेप की घटना तथा पाली के सरकारी अस्पताल में कांग्रेस की दलित नेता के साथ डॉक्टर द्वारा बदसलूकी एवं…

— Ashok Gehlot (@ashokgehlot51) June 7, 2025

Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee President Govind Singh Dotasra also targeted the government, posting on social media that “the entire Rajasthan is ashamed by the atrocity committed by the nursing staff against a woman admitted in the ICU of a medical college in Alwar. This incident, which crosses all limits of barbarism, is a blot on humanity.”

He urged the Chief Minister to “wake up from deep sleep and see that every day in the state, innocent little girls are being raped, and the dignity of women is being torn apart. Under your misgovernance, cases of atrocities against minors have increased by over 18% from 2023 till now. It is shameful that everyone from ministers to the Chief Minister is intoxicated with power. There is no such thing as women’s safety, sensitivity, or good governance left. The situation is getting worse, but there is no one to see or listen.”

अलवर में मेडिकल कॉलेज के ICU में भर्ती महिला के साथ नर्सिंग स्टाफ द्वारा की गई दरिंदगी से पूरा राजस्थान शर्मसार है। हैवानियत की सारी हदें पार करने वाली यह घटना मानवता पर कलंक है।

मुख्यमंत्री जी, गहरी नींद से जागिए और देखिए प्रदेश में हर दिन छोटी-छोटी मासूम बच्चियों से बलात्कार… pic.twitter.com/y9hZoyPJYG

— Govind Singh Dotasra (@GovindDotasra) June 7, 2025

Adding his voice to the growing condemnation, Leader of Opposition Tikaram Juli took to X (formerly Twitter) to express his outrage. He wrote that “the heinous incident of rape of a victim woman by nursing staff in the ICU of ESIC Medical College in Alwar has shaken the entire state.”

हाल-ए-राजस्थान | अस्पताल में महिला से दरिंदगी | अलवर में मानवता शर्मसार

अलवर के ESIC मेडिकल कॉलेज की ICU में भर्ती एक पीड़ित महिला के साथ नर्सिंग स्टाफ द्वारा बलात्कार जैसी घिनौनी घटना ने पूरे प्रदेश को झकझोर कर रख दिया है।

यह प्रदेश की शासन व्यवस्था की विफलता है, जहां पीड़िता…

— Tika Ram Jully (@TikaRamJullyINC) June 6, 2025

Governance failure: safety compromised in sanctuaries

Juli further asserted that this incident signifies “a failure of the state’s governance system, where the victim is unsafe even in a place considered most secure.” He emphasised that “such an inhuman act occurring to a woman in a hospital’s ICU is not just an attack on a single woman, but an assault on the soul of the entire society.”

#WATCH | Alwar, Rajasthan: On alleged rape incident in ESIC Medical College, LoP Tikaram Jully says, “This proves that cases like rape under the rule of Bhartiya Janata Party are also suppressed. They remain unresolved, and if any grievant reaches out to the higher authorities… pic.twitter.com/IdmXwGOp7l

— ANI MP/CG/Rajasthan (@ANI_MP_CG_RJ) June 7, 2025

Bikaner: two minor girls raped by self-proclaimed temple priest, govt demolished illegal encroachments of accused

On June 3, 2025, a shocking incident reported in Bikaner district where two minor girls, aged eight and nine, were sexually assaulted by a self-proclaimed temple priest. The girls had visited a temple near their grandparents’ house when the accused, later identified as Shri Bhagwan, lured them with Prasad and promises of new sandals before committing the heinous act. Upon their return, the terrified girls revealed the ordeal to their family, disclosing how the perpetrator had threatened them with a fodder-cutting sickle, warning them of dire consequences if they spoke out.

Accused’s criminal history and demolition of illegal encroachments

The investigation quickly unearthed the shocking antecedents of the 50-year-old accused, Shri Bhagwan. It was discovered that he was a convicted murderer, having served a 20-year prison sentence for the 1993 murder of five people during a robbery in Bidasar. Despite being sentenced to death by lower courts, his sentence was commuted to 20 years by the Supreme Court, leading to his release in 2013, as reported Dainik Bhaskar

Following his recent arrest for the rape incident, authorities moved swiftly to demolish his illegal ashram in Surjansar village. This structure, built on government land, also housed a temple where he reportedly practiced tantric rituals.

Illegal activities and reclamation of land

The demolition drive, led by Sub-Divisional Officer and Tehsildar of area, revealed further illegalities. Opium and cannabis plants were discovered on the premises, indicating cultivation of narcotics. Additionally, Shri Bhagwan was found to be involved in illegal water siphoning and electricity theft. The operation successfully reclaimed approximately 50 bigha of encroached pasture land, returning it to the Gram Panchayat, as reported

The accused, who had misled villagers under the guise of spiritual healing, was also found to be in possession of weapons, highlighting the extent of his criminal enterprise.

Tonk: minor Dalit girl found after sexual assault

Another case of gang rape has surfaced from a village in the Pachewar police station area of Tonk district, Rajasthan. After the brutal assault, the perpetrators allegedly tied the minor Dalit girl’s hands and feet and abandoned her by the roadside. The victim was discovered unconscious on the night of February 28, prompting a police investigation, as NDTV Rajasthan reported

Authorities have since registered a case under the POCSO Act against four young men. It’s alleged that a neighbouring woman assisted the accused in their heinous crime. Police sources indicate that one of the suspects is from the victim’s village, while the other three reside in Kurad village.

FIR registered against four accused

Malpura DSP Ashish Prajapat confirmed that the victim provided a named complaint against four individuals, also accusing a neighbouring woman of aiding them. The police are actively investigating the matter. According to the victim’s statement to the police, around midnight on February 28, as she stepped out of her house for a short while, three or four individuals abducted her after covering her mouth.

The accused then took her to a shed behind a neighbour’s house where the gang rape occurred. When the minor screamed for help, the neighbouring woman allegedly came out but ignored her pleas and went back inside, emboldening the attackers, as reported

They subsequently tied the girl’s hands, feet, and mouth before leaving her near her home. Police have taken cognizance of the case and initiated investigation.

Barmer: a 31-year-old woman allegedly end her life by suicide after being blackmailed with rape threats and obscene videos

A distressing incident has come to light in Barmer’s Girab police station area, where a 31-year-old woman, a mother of three, tragically ended her life by suicide on June 10, 2025. The woman was found hanged at her home, and initial reports suggest she was driven to this extreme step after allegedly being blackmailed with threats of rape and the circulation of obscene videos.

According to police, the woman was reportedly lured, raped, and filmed by a man from her village, identified as Sumar Khan (name changed). He allegedly continued to exploit and threaten her, with the latest pressure on Tuesday causing her immense distress. The woman’s uncle has since filed a formal complaint against the accused. While the family asserts that the husband had reported the matter to the police in September 2024, claiming no action was taken, police officials state they have no record of such a report. A thorough investigation into the matter is now underway, and the woman’s body has been sent for post-mortem, as per a report in the Times of India.

NCW demands immediate action, takes suo moto cognizance

The National Commission for Women (NCW) has taken suo moto cognizance of this grave Barmer suicide case. On Monday, the NCW chairperson, Vijaya Rahatkar, took to X (formerly Twitter) to announce that she has written to the Rajasthan Director General of Police, urging immediate intervention and a swift inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the woman’s death.

The National Commission for Women has taken Suo Moto cognizance of a deeply disturbing case from Barmer, Rajasthan, where a 31-year-old woman allegedly died by suicide after being blackmailed with rape threats and obscene videos.

Hon’ble Chairperson Smt. Vijaya Rahatkar has…

— NCW (@NCWIndia) June 16, 2025

Jaipur: 21-year-old woman gang-raped in Sanganer

This incident, occurring in March, adds to the disturbing pattern of such crimes. On the evening of Holi (March 14) in Jaipur’s Sanganer area, a 21-year-old married woman was allegedly gang-raped in a secluded farmland. The victim, who had recently moved to Jaipur, had reportedly left her home after a domestic dispute. She was accosted by two youths on a motorcycle who forcibly dragged her into a field and gang-raped her. A third person, who arrived later, fled, as reported

As per the Times of India, the survivor promptly lodged an FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sections 70 (gang rape) and 126 (wrongful restraint) at Sanganer Sadar police station. Medical examinations confirmed injuries. Police swiftly arrested Puran Yadav (22) and Himanshu Choudhary (19), and a 17-year-old boy was also detained. The investigation is ongoing.

Moreover, Rajasthan is facing an escalating crisis of gender-based violence, making women’s safety a critical concern. Recent months have revealed a chilling pattern of rapes across the state, defying belief. From an unimaginable assault on a patient inside an Alwar ICU to minor girls targeted in Bikaner and Tonk, and a tragic suicide in Barmer linked to blackmail, the scale of the problem is alarming. Even Jaipur has witnessed multiple incidents, including a gang rape.

These pervasive crimes, occurring in seemingly secure places like hospitals and homes, highlight a profound societal and governance failure, demanding immediate and decisive action to protect women and ensure safe public spaces.

Related:

A Pattern of Impunity? This report details horrific crimes against Dalits in UP, Rajasthan, MP and beyond

Statewide Attacks: Caste fury unleashes brute violence against Dalit students

Tribal women paraded, assaulted; nationwide outrage follows

The post Beyond belief: rape incidents spiral, from a hospital ICUs to villages, exposing widespread gendered crimes across Rajasthan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Though the family approached the police and demanded an investigation into the killing of the infant, the cops reportedly did not respond. It was only after the villagers staged a protest at the residence of Alwar SP (rural), police registered an FIR against two head constables and one unnamed police official

A 6 am raid, police abusing family, kicking the infant, reveals the FIR

According to the FIR, the incident took place on the morning of March 2, 2025, in Ragunath Garh, Nouganwa, Alwar district, Rajasthan, when a police raid led to the tragic death of a one-month-old infant. According to the FIR filed by the infant’s father, Imran, a group of 12 to 15 police officers from the Nouganwa Police Station arrived at their home around 6 AM. The officers allegedly abused the family and searched their home and mobile phones.

In his complaint, Imran described the incident that, “On 02.03.2025, at about 6 AM, 12 to 15 police officers from Nouganwa Police Station entered my house, abusing us. They searched our house and mobile phones. My child was kicked by the police, and she died instantly. My parents started shouting and causing a scene, which made the police flee the area.”

FIR Registered at PS Nouganwa u/s 103(1) of BNS, 2023

Imran also recognised two of the officers involved—head constable Girdhari and Jagveer—who were named in the FIR. He added, “I knew two of the police officers, Girdhari and Jagveer. I can recognize the others by their faces. There was no illegal case against me, and I tried explaining this to them, but they did no listen.”

Cop stepped on my infant daughter’s head and killed her: mother of infant

Razida Khan, the mother of the infant told the Times of India that, “When I was sleeping on the cot with my infant daughter, the policemen arrived all of a sudden and pulled me out and sent me out of the room. They also pulled my husband out. They stepped on my infant daughter’s head and killed her.”

“ This is murder, and I want justice,” she added, reported TOI.

No cases registered against infant’s father Imran neither is he named in any FIR

Such a raid, though now frequent is unjustified under any circumstances. Here, with no cases registered against Imran Khan, him not named in any FIR related to cybercrime cases makes it worse. Additional SP Tejpal Singh said that a police team had gone to a house in the Nouganwa police station area on Saturday to arrest an accused in a cyber fraud case, reported Hindustan Times.

Disciplinary action taken against five cops over infant’s death, no arrest yet

Outraged by the alleged negligence and the tragic death of the infant, villagers gathered outside the residence of the Alwar Superintendent of Police, staging a protest and demanding immediate action against the police officers involved in the raid.

In response to the mounting pressure, Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) Tejpal Singh confirmed that an FIR had been filed against police officers connected to the incident. He assured the family of swift action against those responsible for the infant’s death.

However, a delegation led by former minister Nasru Khan also met with ASP Tejpal Singh to discuss the incident. As part of the disciplinary actions taken, two head constables—Jagveer and Girdhari—and three constables—Sunil, Sahid, and Rishi—were reassigned to the police lines on Sunday, March 2, pending further investigation into the matter.

ASP Tejpal Singh further clarified, “Two head constables and three constables have been sent to the police lines in connection with the case. Additionally, the location of the mobile phone allegedly used in the cybercrime was not found at the victim’s residence,” as reported by The Week.

The Additional SP said that the protest ended on Monday.

Alleged police extortion and cover-up: Raj LoP Tikaram Julie demands CBI probe

Leader of the Opposition, Tikaram Julie, has raised questions about the police administration in relation to this incident. Speaking to NDTV on Monday (March 3), he said, “In this incident, it’s not just the five constables who are guilty, action should also be taken against the officers. In the name of taking action against cyber criminals, the police are looting people. We have raised this issue before, and during the discussion on the Home Department in the Assembly, we will demand answers from the government. The police are running a nexus. They arrest 50, but release 48. The action is now being used by the police as a means of extortion.”

He stated that suspending five police officers will not bring the deceased child back. He further said, “This kind of dictatorship is not new; since the BJP came to power, there has been a race to show that their law-and-order system is very effective. In the name of cyber fraud, terror is being spread. I raised this issue during the Lok Sabha elections as well, highlighting that the police is engaging in illegal activities. The government is not being held accountable in this matter” reportedNDTV Rajasthan

He added, “Is it just the fault of these five individuals? Didn’t the SHO, CO, and ASP know where their officers were going? The police have set up an entire racket, and this should be fully investigated by the CBI to ensure the truth comes to light.”

He also wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that, “Crime is at its peak in Rajasthan, and the government has lost control over the law and order situation in the state. The tragic incident in which a one-and-a-half-month-old baby died during a police action in Raghunathgarh Colony, under the Nouganwa Police Station in Alwar district, has shaken me to the core. I raised this issue in the Assembly and also addressed it during a press conference in the Lok Sabha elections, highlighting that the police in Alwar are intimidating the public. The police are harassing common people in Alwar, which is unjust.

राजस्थान में अपराध चरम पर है, प्रदेश की कानून व्यवस्था पर सरकार का अंकुश नहीं है।

अलवर जिले के नौगांवा पुलिस थाना अंतर्गत रघुनाथगढ़ कॉलोनी में पुलिस की कार्रवाई के दौरान एक डेढ़ माह की बच्ची की मौत की घटना ने मन को झकझोर के रख दिया l यह बात मैने विधानसभा में भी उठाई है और लोकसभा… https://t.co/liBqZHFwp3

— Tika Ram Jully (@TikaRamJullyINC) March 2, 2025

“Under the BJP government, Rajasthan’s image is shifting from being a “crime-free” state to a “crime-ridden” state. During BJP rule, the state has fallen under the control of jungle raj and mafia raj. Criminals have become so emboldened that they are carrying out robberies, murders, thefts, and dacoities in broad daylight.” He added further on X

Former minister Nasru Khan also alleged that the police harass these families on a daily basis and extorts lakhs of rupees from them.

Brinda Karat met with infant’s mother, demands arrest of all police officers involved

A delegation from the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), led by Polit Bureau member Brinda Karat, visited Raghunathgarh village in the Naugaon police station area of Alwar on March 4 (Tuesday). The visit was in response to the tragic death of a one-and-a-half-month-old infant girl, Alishda, who allegedly died after being crushed under the boots of police officers during a raid, reported TOI

“A delegation from the CPI(M), including Brinda Karat (Polit Bureau member), Kishan Parikh (secretary, Rajasthan State Committee), Sumitra Chopra (State Secretariat member, Rajasthan State Committee), and Raisa (district secretary), visited the family of one-month-old Alishda, who was killed by police brutality on March 2, 2025,” the CPI(M) said in a statement.

Brinda Karat on the murder of one-month-old child Alishda by the Police at Raghunathgarh Village, Alwar. pic.twitter.com/Wziz47ineS

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) March 4, 2025

Moreover, Brinda Karat also demanded the immediate arrest of all police officers involved in the infant’s death, as reported by The Hindu

No women police officers present during the raid: a grave violation of protocol

The tragic death of a one-and-a-half-month-old infant in Alwar during a police raid has raised serious questions about law enforcement’s conduct in the state. Reports indicate that the raid, which took place in Tauliya Bas, Raghunathgarh, was conducted without any women police officers present—a direct violation of established protocols. When dealing with families and vulnerable children, the presence of women officers is essential.

The raid was reportedly carried out without prior information and Imran and his family even not named in the FIR and no criminal cases registered against them. This illegal and reckless conduct not only led to the death of the infant but also exposing serious flaws in police operations and accountability.

Blame on five officers or a deeper systemic issue of police insensitivity?

The tragic death of a one-and-a-half-month-old infant during a police raid in Alwar raises more than just questions about the five officers directly involved. The incident points to much deeper systemic issues within the police force and law enforcement practices. How can such a brutal event unfold with no proper oversight or accountability? The absence of women police officers during the raid, a direct violation of protocols, compounds the gravity of the situation. Furthermore, the raid itself, carried out without prior notice and in apparent disregard of Supreme Court guidelines, raises concerns about the legality of police actions.

What is even more troubling is the lack of immediate response from statutory bodies from among the state or national commissions such as the Women’s Commission and the Child Rights Protection Commission. The absence of suo-moto action by these bodies, highlights a significant gap in their responsibility and duty to protect vulnerable groups. Additionally, the failure to arrest the officers involved in this incident further perpetuates the cycle of impunity within law enforcement.

Is it truly just five officers at fault, or does this incident reflect a much larger issue within the police force’s culture, practices, and lack of accountability? Until these deeper systemic issues are addressed, tragedies like this will continue, with no meaningful justice for the victims.

Related:

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

India saw 84 internet shutdowns in 2024: Access Now Report

India third highest across the world to enforce internet shutdowns

The post Month-old Muslim infant allegedly crushed during police raid in Alwar: No arrests made; three cops booked on murder charges appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Only one state has an act for gig workers—Rajasthan—as of now, and if this draft becomes law, Karnataka would be the second state to enact a law for gig workers’ welfare. Notably, the Indian National Congress (INC) was the ruling party in Rajasthan, as it is now in Karnataka when the act was passed in the legislative assembly. Telangana, another state in which a gig worker draft law has been on the cards, is also a Congress-ruled state. However, Telangana’s law is not publicly accessible yet, and information on it was reported by sections of the media.

A few common threads

Generally, all state governments, as of now, seem to be following a set structure in terms of the welfare of gig workers.

One, in the definitions, they define:  

i) Aggregators to include major players like Swiggy, Zomato, etc., and smaller players like, say, Shoffer—a luxury electric car ride-hailing service based out of Bangalore.  

ii) Gig workers to include the delivery or ride partners or other such people registered on these platforms for work.

Two, they constitute a board to oversee the welfare of workers and ensure the implementation of the act.

Three, they establish a welfare fund to which the aggregators will be made to pay a certain amount per transaction per worker or some other mechanism.

Four, they outline the rights of the workers and the responsibilities of the aggregators, along with stating the penalties for violations.

While all these elements are present in the Karnataka Gig Worker law draft, it is important to understand the changing contours of employment relations in the gig economy year by year, along with the growing trend of gig work, when drafting the provisions of the law. For example, food delivery workers wear uniforms of the brand they are working with, as mandated, thus providing free marketing to the brand as they ride through the city. This is not factored into the pay given to them, and in fact, the uniforms are supposed to be bought from the brand by the workers themselves. These types of disguised employment conditions are not considered by the government while it defines the relationship between aggregators and workers.

In this context, this article will discuss the Karnataka Gig Worker law, its similarities and differences with the Rajasthan Gig Workers law, and the potential for improvement in the legislation on Gig Worker Welfare.

Draft Karnataka-based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Bill, 2024

The draft bill defines an aggregator as a digital intermediary for a buyer of goods or user of services to connect with the seller or the service provider, and includes any entity that coordinates with one or more aggregators to provide the services. Essentially, a food delivery app like Swiggy, or an app that facilitates the hiring of electricians or beauticians like Urban Company, comes under the definition.

Section 2(e) of the Act defines gig workers as a person who performs work or participates in a work arrangement that results in payment based on terms and conditions laid down in such a contract. This includes all piece-rate work, and whose work is sourced through a platform, in the services listed in Schedule-I.

The Schedule includes the following services:

1.   Ride Sharing Services  
2.   Food and Grocery Delivery Services  
3.   Logistics Services  
4.   E-Marketplace for wholesale/retail sale of goods and/or services—B2B/B2C  
5.   Professional Service Providers  
6.   Healthcare  
7.   Travel and Hospitality  
8.   Content and Media Services

The draft bill has provisions for the rights of the gig worker in Section 6, granting them the right to register with the Gig Workers Welfare Board—established under Section 3—and the right to access general and specific social security schemes, as well as the right to access a grievance redressal mechanism (Section 7). This Grievance Redressal Mechanism involves either a complaint to the state government-appointed officer or a petition through a web portal whose link should be provided on the aggregator’s website.

The draft also outlines several responsibilities for aggregators:

1. Aggregators must provide a database of workers to the board and update it (Section 10).  
2. Aggregators must register themselves (Section 11).  

3. Aggregators must ensure that the contract is fair, easily understandable in a language comprehensible to the worker and listed in the 8th Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Any change in the contract should occur with prior notice, and termination of the contract by the worker on account of the change should not affect the entitlements they were supposed to receive. 

4. Aggregators must communicate to the gig worker the parameters of allocation, distribution, assessment, and grounds for denial of work, as well as the parameters of the rating system and categorization of the workers on the quality of service, log-in time, etc. if such categorization is done by the employer (Section 14).

5. Aggregators cannot terminate the gig worker without prior notice of 14 days, and the contract must have an exhaustive list of grounds for termination or deactivation from the platform (Section 15).

6. Aggregators must pay workers weekly without delay (Section 16).

7. Aggregators must ensure reasonably safe and healthy working conditions, as practicable as possible (Section 17).  

8. Aggregators must ensure that a grievance link is available on their website and constitute an internal dispute resolution committee if they have more than 50 workers. These disputes include failure to adhere to the responsibilities mentioned above (Section 24). 

9. Aggregators must appoint a human point of contact for queries, with workers having the option to communicate in Kannada, English, or any 8th Schedule language known to them.

The draft also proposes the establishment of a welfare fund, to be funded by the aggregators at a percentage of the pay of platform-based gig workers per transaction or based on annual state-specific turnover, as may be notified by the government. For this purpose, the draft proposes a Central Transaction Information Management System where all transactions are mapped and monitored by the Board to ensure that payments made to workers and deducted fees are recorded and accounted for. Penalties range from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1, 00,000 and are compoundable unless the offense has been committed on more than three occasions.

It was also reported in the media that the government and aggregators agreed on levying a cess per transaction rather than based on state-specific turnover.

Similarities and differences with the Rajasthan Act

Both laws establish a board, give similar powers to the gig worker welfare board, and establish Central Monitoring Systems. In essence, both laws grant the same rights to workers, impose the same responsibilities on aggregators, and establish welfare funds.

However, the difference lies in the details of these broad structures. For example, the Rajasthan Act explicitly recognises the right of workers to participate in all decisions taken for their welfare through representation on the board. In constituting the board, the Rajasthan Act mandates that one-third of the members shall be women. The Karnataka draft misses these provisions and does not have as many members on the board. The Rajasthan law includes 12 board members, including the in-charge minister, while the Karnataka draft includes 10 members, with five being ex-officio members from various departments.

The Karnataka Act also emphasises transparency and the need for communication in languages understandable by the worker. By making it mandatory for the aggregator to provide details of the rating system or categorization of gig workers based on the quality of service rendered, log-in time, or other criteria, the draft attempts to lift the veil under which aggregators have operated until now.

Other key differences can be found in the welfare fee and penalty sections. The draft Karnataka law chooses an either-or approach, where the welfare fee could either be a percentage of each transaction or a percentage of the state-specific annual turnover. The Rajasthan Act does not mention turnover. In terms of penalties, Rajasthan’s law imposes penalties ranging from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 50 lakh. The Rajasthan Act also has provisions for interest payable on delayed payment of the welfare fee.

Potential for development

There is much room for development in the Karnataka draft law. While the fundamental question of defining the relationship between the gig worker and aggregator has not been answered, the draft leaves many concerns in the areas it chooses to operate in.

For example, it does not consider women in the gig workforce, nor does it enact specific provisions to protect their interests, such as maternity-specific provisions where women do not have to lose their categorization within the platform if they take a maternity break.

The bill has already been reportedly opposed by various companies due to concerns about compliance, with claims that it will hurt the ease of doing business in the state. While these concerns are expected, the sheer volume of compliance measures businesses must adhere to under the act raises doubts about its effective implementation. Meanwhile, Kerala’s Minister for Labour, V. Sivankutty, stated in August that the government intend to introduce the Kerala State Platform-Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Bill, 2024 in the assembly session this October.

In this paradigm, where the government seems to have decided not to accord the status of a worker to the gig worker and the status of an employee to the aggregator, the least it could have done is to provide for the increased bargaining power of the worker. This could have been achieved through the official recognition of unions in the gig economy, allowing bargaining to be done with unions or federations of such unions.

Conclusion

Despite the improvements in the Karnataka draft law, the fundamental question and demand remain unheeded. With the control aggregators usually exert on gig workers, the demand has been that gig workers be recognized as employees. With the BJP in Rajasthan not giving importance to the previously enacted gig worker law, and Congress governments consistently defining the relationship between gig workers and aggregators as independent individuals rather than employees, the future possibilities look narrower. 

Such a law should not be a choice between no protection at all and meagre protection for gig workers.

(The writer is a researcher with the organisation)

Related:

Rajasthan’s Gig Worker Law, a step towards industrial democracy

Karnataka Budget 2023-24: CM announces Rs. 4 lakh life & accident insurance policy for gig workers

Report Highlights Poor Working Conditions for Gig Workers; Uber, Ola, Amazon Score Zero

Report Highlights Poor Working Conditions for Gig Workers; Uber, Ola, Amazon Score Zero

India’s Gig Workers: Overworked And Underpaid

The post Karnataka’s draft law for welfare of gig workers, an insufficient tokenism? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Rajasthan’s Banswara witnessed a high voltage campaign starting third round of electioneering clearly after the outcome of the first two rounds had not gone the regime’s way. On Sunday, April 22, 2024, Modi, delivering a speech that was worse than his own set worst standards slurred and stigmatised Muslims. The nationwide outrage – including 20,000 complaints to the Election Commission of India for violating laws – did not stop the surge of venom that he continued to utter through the campaign.

In the April 22 speech, in a swipe at the much hailed manifesto of the Indian National Congress (INC) Modi said, ‘they’ will take away women’s Mangalsutras. In his campaign, PM Modi seemed to be conveying to voters that Congress-led governments in the past have given Muslims preferential treatment. He even reportedly referred to the community Muslim community disparagingly as those with “more babies”, saying “Earlier, when their (Congress) government was in power, they had said that Muslims have the first right on the country’s assets. This means to whom will this property be distributed? It will be distributed among those who have more children. It will be distributed to the infiltrators. Should your hard-earned money go to the infiltrators? Do you approve of this?” However, it seems the voters in Banswara did not quite get swayed by this rhetoric. BJP saw a resounding defeat in the Banswara with the new and rising Bharatiya Adivasi Party’s Rajkumar Roat seeing a convincing victory with a margin of 820831 votes over BJP’s Mahendrajeetsingh Malviya. The BAP’s Rajkumar Roat defeated the former state cabinet minister and BJP’s incumbent from Banswara, Kanak Lal Katara. 

The hate-filled speech also saw a detailed complaint  filed with the Election Commission of India by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) within days of the April 22 speech. 

In its complaint, CJP stated that Modi’s speech contained targeted and communal slurs against the Muslim community, which led to a polarised voting environment. The complaint cites the Model Code of Conduct, the Representation of Peoples Act, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, and urged the ECI to take strict action to ensure free and fair elections and to stop hate-mongering against the Muslim community. A few days after, a notice by the ECI was sent to BJP President JP Nadda and notably not Narendra Modi for his speech. 

Also, Sabrang India has been documenting hate speech by BJP leaders and affiliates across the country over the past decade that the party has assumed a brute majority. The BJP set forth an extravagant star campaign across India, unleashing its big leaders including PM Modi, chief ministers such as Yogi Adityanath, Himanta Biswa Sarma, influencers, organisers, and even cynical time-tested tactic of this majoritarian outfit, the voters did not give BJP a victory. Hate speeches did not seem to have achieved the goal. 

In our analysis we have noted that it is in the post 2019 BJP’s second term in the centre from 2019 onwards has marked a sharp rise in hate speeches. These hate speeches, targeted towards religious minorities, have been a means of getting votes by polarising the environment on the BJP’s part. 

How did this tactic fare for the BJP in 2024 in the 18th Lok Sabha elections? The BJP seems to be struggling to form a government despite having earned the largest number of seats, they have lost significant support in a number of significant seats. 

Sabrang India tracks these developments further below to check whether hate speech worked or failed. 

In Maharashtra, in at least 8 seats where hate speech was made, the BJP saw a resounding loss. UP too saw a loss in four such seats, and Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Bihar saw seats which didn’t respond to communal speech as well. 

Rajasthan

Apart from Banswara, one more district in the state saw a resounding defeat where star campaigners were involved. In Barmer, INC’s Umeda Ram Beniwal won against BJP’s Kailash Choudhary by a substantial margin of 417,943 votes. In Barmer, religious preacher Dhirendra Krishna Shastri, and supporter of the call for ‘Akhand Bharat’, had given a speech invoking the bogey of ‘love jihad.’ He urged Hindu brothers to remain ‘vigilant’ against conversion attempts and told Hindu sisters to be alert, regarding people doing ‘love jihad.’ Shastri, who has been accused of assaulting a Dalit person. Had also called for the demolition of mosques in Kashi and Mathura.

Uttar Pradesh

In Ballia, the results also showed a similar rejection of divisive rhetoric as the Samajwadi Party’s Sanatan Pandey defeated BJP’s Neeraj Shekhar by 43,384 votes. The district in UP had seen communal speeches, with the district’s BJP MLA Surendra Narayan Singh asserting that those who refuse to chant Vande Mataram have no right to live in India and should be sent to Pakistan.

“Chanting Vande Mataram may be an emotion. But if you are living in India, then Vande Mataram is a must. It is in Sanskrit and can be translated into Urdu too. Those who do not want to chant it by heart have no right to live in India. If it were up to me, I would send such people to Pakistan within a week after making their passports.”

Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal too had seen a starry campaign by the state’s chief minister Yogi Adityanath himself, who tried to rouse sentiments of the voters by saying that the Congress will distribute their wealth and give it to ‘Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltrators’ and that the Congress will allow cow slaughter for Muslims.

Sambhal had also seen instances of horrifying narratives of voter suppression against people of the Muslim community. However, the results spelled a disaster for the BJP whose candidate lost to Samajwadi Party’s Zia ur Rehman by 121494 votes. Jaunpur and Barabanki too had witnessed charged speech in both places by Narendra Modi, however they both saw the defeat of BJP as Samajwadi Party and the INC won in these respective constituencies. 

“They seek votes here and while in South India they abuse and humiliate the people of Uttar Pradesh and use absurd language for the people of UP”

– Prime Minister #NarendraModi was speaking to a election rally in #Jaunpur, #UttarPradesh.#LokSabhaElections2024 pic.twitter.com/emtNXp5Ggq

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) May 16, 2024

Maharashtra

Maharashtra witnessed over eight districts which saw a strong campaign which communally charged speech which witnessed the fall of BJP in the election results. 

In Maharashtra’s Nanded, despite a campaign marked by hate speech in June, INC candidate Chavan Basantrao Valwan defeated BJP’s Chikhalikar Prataprao Govindrao by 59,442 votes. Nanded had seen a charged communal speech by serial hate offender Kajal Hindustani, a social media influencer notorious and popular for her communal speech, having seen various cases filed against her earlier. On May 4, she joined a rally where she spoke against secularism encouraging the Hindu community to do ‘love and land jihad.’ 

“In the name of secularism, you are being played. Your brother is sitting like a butcher and is chopping you. In nine states and in many districts, Hindus have become a minority. After the railway and the defence, Muslims own the most land. Our women, temples, land and gau mata are not safe. Nor is the Hindu safe in this country. You have only one nation. Other Hindus are running to India from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. The Indian government has promised them citizenship. But where will you go? The Hindu is running from here, from Assam, Bengal etc. Till when and where will you run? How much will you run? Our jihadi brother, he is dreaming of Ghazwa e Hind. What is Ghazwa e Hind? Making India an Islamic nation. They are working according to a terrorist, Talibani ideology. What are we doing? We are only raising slogans. Till when will you stay like this, watching your sister get targeted by ‘love-jihad?’ You get prepared, you too do ‘love-land jihad’, do religious conversions.”

Solapur in Maharashtra experienced a high voltage and shrill campaign by the BJP aimed at stirring communal sentiments. Yet INC candidate Praniti Sushilkumar Shinde won by over 74,197 votes against BJP’s Ram Vitthal Satpute. Solapur had also seen BJP’s “star campaigner” and MLA from Telangana’s Ghoshamahal constituency T Raja Singh give an anti-Muslim speech on. In the speech he was seen urging the state’s Chief Minister, Eknath Shinde, to avoid seeking votes from Muslims and instead focus on those who “save Gaumata.” He further called for a boycott of halal-certified goods and demanded the use of bulldozers for demolitions in Maharashtra. “We had heard of land jihad and love jihad. Now we hear of vote jihad,” the MLA stated, referencing Salman Khurshid’s comment encouraging voters to commit to ‘vote jihad.’ He warned against continuing such practices, asserting, “There was a time when ‘you’ did a lot of jihad. Now is not that time anymore because if you do jihad now, Modiji will hammer you (thok denge).”

In #Maharashtra‘s #Sangli, #BJP MLA #TRajaSingh incited violence against #Muslims. He asked #Hindus to shoot down in the chest of those who convert people and are involved in ‘#LoveJihad‘. He also said ‘shoot the landya (Muslims)’ by referring the statement to #BalThackeray. pic.twitter.com/BcGoAOE2jy

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) May 28, 2024

Maharashtra’s Kolhapur which had witnessed a fiery speech by VHP leader, too was lost by the BJP as Chhatrapati Shahu Shahaji of the Indian National Congress emerged victorious, clinching the win with a substantial margin of 154,964 votes against Sanjay Sadashivrao Mandlik of the Shiv Sena. On May 20, Surendra Jain, General Secretary of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), delivered a provocative speech in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, rife with conspiracy theories aimed at Muslims. Jain asserted, “Wherever Hindus are a minority, they are in danger,” and stoked fears about Muslims and Christians allegedly funnelling money from abroad to convert Hindus. He claimed that Hindus were being deceitfully converted to Christianity, portraying both Muslim and Christian communities as aggressors against Hindus.

The 2024 elections too saw communally charged speeches by candidate Navneet Rana in Maharashtra as well as for the campaign of BJP’s Madhavi Latha Kompella in Hyderabad. However, not did Navneet Rana’s speeches result in little effect, she also lost her constituency in Amaravati that she was contesting for, as the BJP candidate from the Amravati Lok Sabha constituency faced defeat and Balwant Baswant Wankhade of the Indian National Congress won the seat, beating the BJP candidate noted for stirring communal sentiments, Navneet Rana, by a margin of 19,731 votes. 

Sangli, which saw virulent hate speech by BJP’s star campaigner who has been noted to have over a 100 FIRs against him, T Raja Singh, saw the victory of an independent candidate named Vishal Prakashbapu Patil over the BJP’s Sanjay Kaka Patil. Patil, a Congressman had fought as an Independent after Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Udhav Thackeray had refused the Sangli seat to the Indian National Congress (INC). On June 6, two days after the results he became the 100th winner for the grand old party as he re-joined the Congress after his victory. Patil won by a margin of 100053 votes. In Sangli, T Raja Singh has again given an extremely inflammatory speech against Muslims, where he said, “Shoot in the chest of people who do ‘love-jihad’.” He had even reportedly encouraged Hindus to pick up arms at an event in the Maharashtra district reportedly organised by Sakal Hindu Samaj. Yet, as seen in the results these theatrical attempts did little to sway the voters. 

Despite seeing a rally by PM Modi, Maharashtra’s Nashik was claimed by Rajabhau (Parag) Prakash Waje of Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) with a margin of 162,001 votes, surpassing Shiv Sena’s Godse Hemant Tukaram. On May 15, Nashik saw a high-profile rally by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed that Congress plans to divide the union budget into separate allocations for Hindus and Muslims. Modi asserted that during a previous regime, Congress intended to allocate 15% of the union budget exclusively for Muslims, a plan that he said was halted due to his opposition as the then Chief Minister of Gujarat. “The Congress regime at that time had wanted to spend 15% of the entire budget of India on Muslims only. They had to shelve the plan after strong opposition from me in my role as the Gujarat Chief Minister. But now they are bent on reintroducing their previous agendas,” Modi stated. He further warned that if Congress is elected, it would create two budgets based on religion, a move he vowed to prevent. “If Congress is elected, it will make two budgets on the basis of religion. I will not allow the Budget to be divided as a ‘Hindu budget’ and ‘Muslim budget’ and will not allow quotas based on religion.”

The state’s capital also saw UP CM Adityanath come to Mumbai to campaign for BJP’s Sudhakar Tukaram Sudhawale. He spoke about the how the ‘temple is built, and the BJP will move towards Mathura as well and urged voters to vote for ‘Kamal.’ However, BJP’s candidate lost to INC’s Varsha Gaekwad by 16514 votes. Similarly, Latur had witnessed a rally by PM Modi and it was there that he had claimed Congress had a ‘stamp of Muslim league.’ The BJP lost to INC’s Kalge Shivaji Bandappa by 609021 votes. 

Jharkhand

In Lohardaga, INC candidate Sikhdeo Bhagat secured a victory, defeating BJP’s Samer Oraon. Just a month ago, Loharadaga had seen a similar rally by Modi on May 4 spewing hate. The BJP leader there made several controversial and reportedly inflammatory statements against opposition parties. He accused them of encouraging “infiltrators” to settle on Adivasi land, claiming that these actions threaten the rights and resources of indigenous people. “Infiltrators are being encouraged to settle here; they are being allowed to grab the land of Adivasi people.” He further raised the bogey of love-jihad and spoke about how these people target women and introduced charged terms like ‘land jihad’ and ‘love jihad,’ as well as ‘vote-jihad’, and claimed that the Congress party had aimed to provide religion-based reservations to Muslims, “They want to go against the Constitution of India and give reservation to the Muslims.” However, it seems that this could not get the intended results for the NDA with the BJP losing a solid defeat with 139,138 votes in Lohardaga. In Jharkhand’s Singhbhum too the PM Modi had taken out a rally, discussing how ‘they’ will give people’s wealth to ‘their’ (Congress’) vote bank. Jharkhand Mukti Morcha’s Joba Majhi defeated the BJP candidate by 168402 votes. 

Bihar

It seems the communal rhetoric of the BJP or its allies could not work in Bihar’s Gaya either as, Jitan Ram Manjhi of the Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular) emerged victorious with 101,812 votes over RJD’s Kumar Sarvjeet in Bihar’s Gaya. Just a month before voting, Gaya had seen Pravin Togadia, the leader and president of Antarrashtriya Hindu Parishad, deliver a highly charged speech in Gaya, Bihar, on April 3. In his speech, Togadia invoked tropes against Muslims, saying that Islamic forces have historically remained undefeated globally and India is the sole exception for them. He claimed, “For 500 years, the flag of Islam flew over India’s heart, and India stands as the only example in the world where Islamic rule was overthrown and replaced with saffron flags. This was not achieved through charity, donation, or treaty, but through our forefathers’ blood and swords.”

This is not to say that hate has been entirely overcome as the BJP, with its formidable RSS cadres still won 239 seats. However it does mean that a successful focussed campaign by the people supporting a credible opposition can ensure that issues that dominate an election campaign and results reflect the needs and aspirations of wide sections of the people.

Related 

Rising tide of hate speech marks India’s general assembly election campaigns

#GrowASpineOrResign: Citizens’ mass city-wide protest against inaction by ECI over PM Modi’s hate speech & suppression of voters rights during ongoing election

Elections 2024: The lead up to the first two phases of voting have seen far right leaders deliver anti-Muslim hate speech across India

FIRs for hate speech registered against BJP MLAs Nitesh Rane and Geeta Jain: Maharashtra Police to Bombay High Court

The post Did hate speech deliver victories for the BJP? A constituency-wise analysis appeared first on SabrangIndia.