The proposed Maharashtra Devasthan Inams Abolition (Draft) Act, 2026, has triggered strong opposition from Hindu temple organisations across the state, especially the Maharashtra Mandir Mahasangh, which has warned of a statewide agitation if the legislation is enacted in its current form.
The draft law, prepared by the Maharashtra government’s Revenue Department, seeks to abolish Devsthan Inams, lands historically granted to temples and religious institutions, and create a legal framework governing their ownership, occupancy rights, transfers, encroachments and tenancy claims.
What are Devsthan Inam lands?
Devsthan Inam lands are lands historically granted to temples, religious institutions and charitable bodies by erstwhile rulers, often with exemptions from land revenue. The draft Act defines them as grants of villages, portions of villages, land revenue assignments or tax-exempt lands given to religious institutions.
The draft legislation explicitly excludes lands governed by the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954, the Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act, 1952 and the Waqf Act, 1995. This exclusion of Waqf properties has become one of the central political flashpoints in the controversy.
Why has the bill sparked opposition?
The Maharashtra Mandir Mahasangh alleges that the proposed law would effectively facilitate transfer of temple lands to tenants, leaseholders, encroachers and private occupants.
🚨 नागपूर: देवस्थान इनाम व मंदिरांच्या जमिनी कुळे/वहिवाटदारांना देण्याचा प्रस्तावित कायदा
हा अन्यायकारक मसुदा तात्काळ मागे घ्या ⚠️ — सुनील घनवट अन्यथा राज्यभर तीव्र जनआंदोलन छेडले जाईल 🔥
According to the organisation, temple property legally belongs to the deity and cannot be alienated by either trustees or the state government. The Mahasangh argues that several Supreme Court and High Court rulings have historically recognised temples as juridical entities with protected property rights.
Speaking to OpIndia, Maharashtra Mandir Mahasangh national organiser Sunil Ghanwat outlined three major objections to the draft legislation. First, he argued that the Maharashtra government itself has no ownership rights over Devsthan lands and therefore lacks authority to enact a law enabling transfer of lands owned and managed by Hindu temples. He maintained that earlier legal frameworks governing such lands were intended to prevent transfer of temple property to tenants or private occupants.
Second, Ghanwat stressed the historical and civilisational importance of these temple lands. He said many such land parcels have remained with temples for centuries and, in several cases, may have originally been granted by Hindu rulers including Maratha king Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and other royal dynasties. According to him, enactment of the proposed law could result in historically protected temple lands passing into the hands of individuals for whom they were never intended, thereby weakening the institutional and religious foundations of temples.
Third, Ghanwat strongly objected to the exclusion granted to Waqf properties under the draft law. He argued that the legislation specifically exempts lands claimed by Waqf Boards while targeting only Hindu temple lands for restructuring and transfer provisions. According to him, this selective application has become one of the biggest points of contention surrounding the proposed legislation.
The organisation further claims the draft law weakens temple ownership rights, regularises encroachments, benefits builders and land mafias, creates unequal treatment between Hindu temple and Waqf properties, and undermines the financial independence of temples.
Key Provisions In The Draft Law
Abolition of Devsthan Inams
Section 3 abolishes all Devsthan Inams except cash allowances and extinguishes existing incidents and rights attached to such grants. This means traditional legal protections and structures surrounding temple lands would cease under the new framework.
Occupancy rights to tenants and holders
One of the most controversial provisions is Section 4, which grants occupancy rights to authorised holders, Mirasdars, tenants and inferior holders cultivating the land personally. The draft further provides that such lands would be held as “Occupant Class-I” property, effectively granting strong ownership-like rights. Temple bodies fear this provision could permanently transfer large portions of temple lands away from religious institutions.
Regularisation of occupation since 2011
The draft law allows regrant of certain Devsthan lands even to “unauthorised holders” if they have been in continuous possession since before 1 January 2011, if eviction would cause hardship, if they pay market value and if the holding remains within economic holding limits.
Additionally, residential occupants in Gaothan areas before 1 January 2011 may receive Occupant Class-I rights without paying occupancy price or Nazarana. Critics argue this amounts to legalising encroachments.
Anti-land grabbing clauses
The same draft law also introduces strict anti-land-grabbing provisions. Sections 7 and 8 criminalise illegal occupation of Devsthan lands, allow imprisonment ranging from two to five years, permit fines up to the market value of the land and enable summary eviction by collectors.
The government appears to be attempting a dual approach by regularising older occupations while simultaneously preventing future encroachments. However, temple organisations argue that the cut-off date mechanism itself incentivises past illegal occupation.
Why is the Waqf exemption becoming controversial?
The Maharashtra Mandir Mahasangh has strongly objected to the explicit exclusion of Waqf properties from the Act.
Mahasangh leaders pointed to a 2016 government circular that reportedly directed revenue records to mark Waqf properties as non-transferable. They asked why similar protection is not being extended to Hindu temple lands.
This has transformed the issue from a land reform debate into a broader political controversy involving alleged unequal treatment of religious institutions, Hindu temple autonomy and state control over temple assets.
Constitutional concerns raised by temple bodies
The Mahasangh argues the law violates Article 25 relating to freedom of religion, Article 26 concerning management of religious affairs and Article 300A dealing with the right to property.
According to the organisation, temple lands are essential for sustaining rituals, temple administration, charitable activities, priests and staff, religious festivals and community welfare activities. Leaders claim that transferring land rights would financially weaken temples across Maharashtra.
Demands raised By Maharashtra Mandir Mahasangh
The organisation submitted a memorandum demanding immediate withdrawal of the draft Act, explicit non-transferable status for Devsthan lands in land records, a stringent Anti-Land Grabbing law for temple lands, an SIT probe into past encroachments and forged records, and fast-track courts to resolve temple land disputes within six months.
The Mahasangh warned that if the government proceeds with the legislation, it could launch a statewide agitation involving temple trusts, devotees and Hindu organisations.
Meeting with CM Devendra Fadnavis
A delegation led by Maharashtra Mandir Mahasangh national organiser Sunil Ghanwat met Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis along with MLAs Pratap Adsad and Pratap Pachpute to submit a memorandum against the proposed law.
महाराष्ट्रात प्रस्तावित असलेला 'महाराष्ट्र देवस्थान इनाम निर्मूलन प्रारूप अधिनियम २०२६' हा कायदा मंदिरांच्या जमिनी व व्यवस्थापनासाठी अडचणीचा ठरणारा आहे. या कायद्याला राज्यातील लाखो मंदिर विश्वस्तांचा तीव्र विरोध आहे. या संदर्भात महाराष्ट्र मंदिर महासंघाचे राष्ट्रीय संघटक श्री… pic.twitter.com/1idtkfyxR1
Ghanwat later stated that the Chief Minister acknowledged the seriousness of the issue and instructed officials to convene a meeting with the concerned department and ministers.
What happens next?
The draft Act has currently been placed in the public domain for objections and suggestions. Citizens and stakeholders have been asked to submit objections before 5 June 2026 through divisional commissioners’ offices.
The state government may now choose to modify the draft, introduce amendments, delay implementation or proceed with the bill in the legislature.
Given the scale of opposition from temple organisations and the politically sensitive Waqf comparison, the issue is likely to become a major religious and political flashpoint in Maharashtra in the coming months.
Tension has increased in Chandana village of Kheda district, Gujarat, after local Hindus complained about illegal encroachment on village land and harassment of women and girls near shops built on that land. Villagers have now submitted a petition to the district administration demanding immediate action, removal of the encroachment, and proper security arrangements in the area.
According to the complaint, some members of the Muslim community occupied vacant land located in the middle of the village several years ago and later built shops and other structures there. Villagers say the area has now become a regular gathering point where Muslim groups sit for long hours and create trouble for women passing through the road nearby.
Villagers raise concerns over women’s safety
Local residents say Hindu women and girls use the road near these shops every day while going to schools, markets, temples and other places. Villagers claim that groups of men standing near the shops often pass obscene comments, use abusive language and make indecent gestures at them.
People from the Hindu community also said that the problem becomes more serious during religious events and festivals. Several temples and Chabutri Chowk are located near the disputed area, where programmes such as Navratri Garba, Bhathiji Maharaj Garba, Ramdhun and Ramdevji Bhajans are organised every year.
Villagers claim that during such festivals, some Muslim shopkeepers keep their shops open till late at night and make sarcastic and offensive remarks at people attending the programmes. Residents also recalled earlier incidents during Navratri when photos and videos of women and girls participating in Garba were secretly recorded, leading to tensions and clashes in the village.
According to residents, the area has now gained a bad reputation because incidents of staring at women, making obscene comments and even following girls to nearby shops have become common.
Petition submitted to the collector
The Hindu community has demanded that the administration remove the encroachment immediately and ensure safety in the village. A copy of the petition submitted to the Collector is reportedly available with Opindia.
In the petition, villagers stated that the land belongs to the village and that illegal structures and shops were built there without any permission. They urged authorities to take quick action before the situation worsens further.
Hindu organisation says harassment has been going on for years
Speaking to Opindia Dhavalsinh Zala, an office bearer of a local Hindu organisation, said Hindu women and girls had been facing harassment for nearly three years.
He said the accused had first occupied land in the centre of the village and later built illegal structures on it. According to him, tensions over the issue had already led to clashes during Navratri celebrations around three years ago.
Zala further said that during the latest Navratri celebrations, some Muslim youths rode motorcycles loudly through the middle of Garba events and behaved in an indecent manner. He claimed villagers had repeatedly complained about such activities, but the issue continued.
Administration starts action on illegal shops
Zala also linked the current anger in the village to a recent gangrape case involving a Hindu minor. He said that after details of the case came out, villagers started checking land records and documents connected to the disputed area.
According to him, the investigation by local residents showed that the structures were built on surplus village land. He added that the administration has now assured villagers of strict action.
The district administration has reportedly pasted notices on several shops built on the disputed land and asked owners to provide documents and proof related to ownership and construction. Officials have reportedly warned that strict action will be taken if valid documents are not submitted.
Minor Hindu girl gangraped for three years
The village had recently come into the spotlight after a serious case involving a 17-year-old Hindu girl was registered at Kheda Town Police Station.
Based on a complaint filed by the victim’s mother, police registered a case against nine Muslim men. According to the complaint, the main accused, identified as Parvez Pathan, first trapped the minor girl and secretly recorded obscene photos and videos of her.
The complaint says he then repeatedly raped her by threatening to make the videos viral. It further states that he later handed the girl over to several of his friends, who also raped her between 2023 and 2025.
The victim reportedly remained silent for years because of repeated threats and blackmail. According to the family, the accused warned her that the photos and videos would be leaked publicly if she spoke about the abuse.
The matter finally came to light after the girl, mentally disturbed by the harassment, spoke about ending her life. Her family then learned about the entire incident and approached the police.
A formal complaint was registered on 17th April, 2026. Police invoked serious sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the POCSO Act and began an investigation.
PI VB Desai of Kheda Town Police told Opindia that the initial investigation suggested the incident was part of a planned criminal conspiracy.
The gangrape case, along with the dispute over illegal encroachment and complaints of harassment, has now increased tension in Chandana village, with local residents demanding immediate action from the administration.
In a historic verdict that resolves long-standing disputes over one of central India’s most contested heritage sites, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore on Friday ruled that the religious character of the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex at Dhar is that of a Bhojshala with a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi (Maa Saraswati), originally established in 1034 AD by Raja Bhoj of the Paramara dynasty as a centre of Sanskrit learning. The court accepted the pleas of the Hindu sides, and rejected the pleas of the Muslim sides.
The court, comprising Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi, delivered the judgment in a batch of writ petitions and a writ appeal, including the lead case filed by the Hindu Front for Justice. It explicitly rejected claims that the structure was inherently or exclusively a mosque, and upheld its status as a centrally protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
The bench’s decision was based on an exhaustive review of historical records, archaeological evidence, the 2024 scientific survey conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) under court directions, and constitutional principles protecting religious and cultural rights. The court also partially quashed the 7 April 2003 order of the ASI Director that had restricted Hindu worship and permitted Friday namaz by the Muslim community in the disputed area.
Hindus have now been granted the right to perform daily pooja without restriction, and the government has been directed to form a trust for the temple’s administration while directing efforts to repatriate the Saraswati idol from the British Museum.
The bench relied heavily on a comprehensive scientific survey and excavation conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) pursuant to the court’s earlier directions in March 2024. It also drew on historical literature, inscriptions, gazetteers, and legal principles under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and Muhammadan Law.
The court placed significant weight on centuries-old literary and epigraphic records confirming that Raja Bhoj constructed the Bhojshala in 1034 AD as both a Sanskrit Gurukul and a temple of Goddess Saraswati (Vagdevi), the deity of learning. References in the Imperial Gazetteer of India (1908), the Royal Asiatic Society Journal (1904), G. Yazdani’s Mandu: The City of Joy (1929), and inscriptions such as the Sarpabandha grammatical charts and the Vijayasrimatika drama fragment describe the site as a temple dedicated to Saraswati, adorned with sculptures and educational slabs.
These sources portray the complex as a Hindu centre of Vedic sciences, grammar, astronomy, and poetics, and these features are incompatible with original mosque architecture. The judgment notes that later Muslim rulers, including Allauddin Khilji (1305 AD) and Mahmood Shah Khilji (1514 AD), damaged the temple but failed to fully erase its Hindu character, as they reused its pillars, slabs, and carvings in subsequent constructions. The “Kamal Maula Mosque” label was deemed a historical misnomer applied to a structure built atop temple remains.
Similarly, the court also placed on the Sarpabandha inscriptions and the Sanskrit grammatical carvings on the monument. The court noted the Sanskrit grammar inscriptions, Prakrit verses, references to Raja Bhoj, inscriptions praising Paramara kings, and Sanskrit dramatic compositions embedded into the structure.
The judgment Royal Asiatic Society findings which described Sanskrit grammatical diagrams, inscriptions shaped like serpents, and educational content linked to Sanskrit learning. The court viewed these as characteristic of a Sanskrit learning centre and Hindu religious-cultural institution, not a mosque.
ASI scientific survey and excavation confirm temple structure
A cornerstone of the ruling was the detailed 2024 ASI scientific investigation, survey, and limited excavation ordered by the court to determine the site’s true character. The report, spanning multiple volumes, revealed a pre-existing Paramara-period (10th–11th century) temple plinth and structure beneath the current building.
The court mentioned that the structure has carved Hindu pillars, temple-style ceilings, sculptures, mutilated Hindu idols, Vishnu-related inscriptions, Sanskrit inscriptions, temple architectural fragments, Hindu iconography, and reused temple materials in later construction.
Key findings of the ASI study included 94 sculptures and fragments depicting Hindu deities, including Vishnu, Narasimha, and mutilated human/animal figures, which are inconsistent with Islamic iconography. Further, 106 temple-style pillars and pilasters were reused from an earlier edifice. Havan Kund, Jal Kund, Shikhara motifs, pranala (water spouts), and Kirtimukha carvings were also found, all hallmarks of Hindu temple architecture.
Stratigraphic analysis, GPR-GPS surveys, and epigraphic study identified a 15th-century Khilji-period inscription explicitly referencing the “destruction of idols” and “conversion of temple into mosque.” Earlier 1972-73 excavations had already uncovered temple fragments and a Vishnu sculpture.
The court held that these findings irrefutably establish that the present structure was modified from, and built over, an original Bhojshala temple complex, not constructed as a mosque from the ground up.
The court said the structure had “all trappings” of a Hindu temple. The petitioners argued the complex had all characteristics of a temple and not a mosque, and the court substantially accepted that argument.
Revenue records described it as “Bhojshala & Temple,” not Jama Masjid
The High Court took note of the revenue records produced by the State Government, which consistently described the disputed premises as “Bhojshala & Temple” in all official entries up to 1935-1936. The bench highlighted that there is no reference whatsoever to “Jama Masjid” or any mosque in these revenue documents.
It further recorded that the dargah of Hazrat Kamaluddin Chishti is situated on a separate and distinct survey number 302, outside the Bhojshala complex itself. Accepting the State’s submission, the court held that the entire land of the Bhojshala complex has remained under the ownership and exclusive management of the State Government / Archaeological Survey of India since well before independence.
Consequently, the property never belonged to any Muslim individual or entity so as to permit its valid dedication as waqf, nor could it have been lawfully notified or treated as such under the Waqf Act. This official revenue documentation was treated by the court as strong corroborative evidence reinforcing the historical and archaeological findings that the site retained its character as a Hindu temple complex and centre of Sanskrit learning, rather than an originally constructed mosque.
No valid waqf dedication, property vests in the deity under Hindu law
The bench decisively rejected the mosque’s claim on legal grounds rooted in Muhammadan Law and Hindu religious jurisprudence. It emphasised that a valid mosque requires waqf property dedicated by its owner to the Almighty. No evidence existed of any such dedication over the land, which had vested perpetually in the deity of Goddess Saraswati following Pran Pratishtha.
The court stated that once consecrated, the property remains the deity’s in perpetuity, mere damage or reuse of materials by invaders does not extinguish this right. The court observed that the graves and maqbara adjacent to the complex were later additions and could not convert the temple’s religious character.
The court noted that historical records showed no continuous ancient namaz practice. Permissions for Friday prayers dated only from a 1935 Dhar State notification and the 2003 ASI order, both of which lacked statutory authority to override the site’s original temple identity.
Kamal Maula’s maqbara came centuries later
The High Court accepted the historical timeline regarding the Kamal Maula maqbara, holding that it was constructed significantly later than the original Bhojshala temple complex and on a distinct portion of land outside the core Saraswati temple area. Relying on the petitioners’ pleadings and corroborated historical records, including the Imperial Gazetteer of India (1908) and G. Yazdani’s Mandu: The City of Joy (1929), the bench noted that Maulana Kamaluddin had died in 1310 AD at Karnawati (present-day Ahmedabad) and was buried there.
The maqbara bearing his name at Dhar was erected only in 1514 AD, more than 204 years after his death, by Mahmood Shah Khilji, who had captured a small adjacent plot outside the main temple complex during a failed attempt to seize the Bhojshala. The court observed that this maqbara, along with the nearby graves and tombs shown in the site plan, were later additions by Muslim rulers who had damaged parts of the Hindu temple but could not alter its fundamental religious character.
These structures were therefore treated as separate from the disputed area, which the judgment declared retained its identity as the Bhojshala temple and centre of Sanskrit learning established by Raja Bhoj in 1034 AD. The bench emphasised that the mere presence of this later maqbara could not convert the pre-existing temple into a mosque or extinguish the deity’s perpetual rights over the original complex.
Unbroken continuity of Hindu worship at Bhojshala
The High Court observed that the Bhojshala complex has witnessed continuous Hindu worship since its establishment by Raja Bhoj in 1034 AD, even through it faced centuries of invasions, desecration, and later administrative curbs. The bench noted that despite damage inflicted by Allauddin Khilji in 1305 AD and subsequent attempts by Mahmood Shah Khilji in 1514 AD to alter the site, Hindu devotees continued to revere the premises as the temple of Goddess Vagdevi (Maa Saraswati) and performed rituals such as Havan in the Havan Kund and offerings at the Jal Kund on auspicious occasions like Basant Panchami.
The judgment specifically referenced the 1997 writ petition filed by Vimal Kumar challenging orders that restricted Hindu entry and worship, underscoring that the community had consistently asserted its religious rights. The court held that the 7 April 2003 ASI order, which confined Hindu pooja to only Basant Panchami and Tuesdays while allowing Friday namaz, was an impermissible restriction that could not alter the site’s original temple character or extinguish the fundamental right to worship under Article 25 of the Constitution.
By declaring the religious identity of the disputed area as the Bhojshala with Saraswati Temple and quashing the restrictive portions of the 2003 order, the bench restored the right of Hindus to perform daily pooja, darshan, and rituals without any limitation, affirming that the continuity of worship by devotees has remained unbroken in both practice and legal recognition.
Constitutional Imperative to rectify historical injustice
Drawing on Articles 25 (right to religion) and 29 (protection of cultural heritage) of the Constitution, the judgment called the temple’s desecration a “continued trauma” for Hindu worshippers spanning over 700 years. It invoked Article 13(1) to declare that pre-Independence wrongs, including the destruction and partial conversion of sacred sites, must be rectified in the post-Constitutional era.
The court noted the petitioners’ role in espousing the Hindu community’s cause, alongside parallel claims from Jain petitioners regarding shared educational and religious heritage. But the bench ultimately affirmed the dominant Saraswati temple character based on the available of evidence. It rejected arguments that the site’s protected-monument status or prior ASI notifications conclusively established mosque character, holding that such administrative labels could not override scientific and historical truth.
In its operative directions, the High Court declared the disputed area a Bhojshala with Saraswati Temple, quashed the restrictive portions of the 2003 ASI order, and mandated the creation of a trust under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, for temple administration and Sanskrit education, with ASI retaining overall custodianship. The Madhya Pradesh government has been asked to consider alternative arrangements for Muslim prayer if a valid claim is pursued. However, the monument remains protected, and no unauthorised alterations are permitted.
Arvind Kejriwal wrote a few words on X on May 14, 2026, ‘Truth has triumphed. Gandhiji’s Satyagraha has triumphed once again.’ Within minutes, AAP supporters were sharing the tweet, which was then boosted by left-leaning handles and portrayed as a success, a vindication of Kejriwal’s months-long struggle against Delhi High Court Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma. The story being told was straightforward and appealing; the judge had been forced out, the people had won, and truth had triumphed over a biased judiciary.
There is only one problem which is that it is almost entirely false.
What truly occurred on May 14 was not a political success for Kejriwal. It’s the contrary. The excise policy matter transferred to another bench by the Delhi High Court, not because Kejriwal was correct about the judge, but because Justice Sharma initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders for what they did. A judge who starts contempt proceedings against a party in a case is not allowed to hear that party’s primary issue under settled Indian law. The transfer wasn’t a retreat. It was a legal formality caused by an escalation, and it occurred at Kejriwal’s cost, not his benefit.
What actually happened?
You must understand the series of events leading up to May 14 in order to see why the ‘truth has triumphed’ story falls apart.
The CBI’s challenge against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and other AAP leaders’ discharge in the Delhi excise policy case was being heard by the Delhi High Court. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma was assigned the case. At some time, Kejriwal and other AAP officials submitted a plea for her recusal, basically asking her to withdraw from the case due to suspected bias and conflicts of interest. On April 20, Justice Sharma denied this recusal request, ruling that the recusal request itself amounted to putting the judiciary on trial and that a politician cannot be permitted to sow seeds of doubt against the court.
Kejriwal took a different route rather than contesting this order before the Supreme Court, which is the appropriate legal recourse under the Indian court system. He started using social media. He and other AAP leaders informed Justice Sharma in a public letter that they would no longer be appearing before her. Theatrically invoking the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, they then staged a visit to Raj Ghat and announced that they would pursue ‘Satyagraha.’ To put it briefly, they devised what the court later called a coordinated digital campaign to malign the judge and publicly boycotted the court proceedings.
Videos that had been manipulated were part of the campaign. AAP leaders circulated a video that reportedly showed Justice Sharma speaking at an RSS function. Later, the court made it clear on the record that the video had been misleadingly edited to provide the false impression that it was a college function. Kejriwal further openly declared that ‘ordinary people cannot believe’ that Justice Sharma would act against the Central government or the BJP, accusing a sitting judge of political prejudice without any evidence, not in court, but on the internet.
In her May 14 judgement, Justice Sharma described this as a ‘calculated campaign of vilification’ intended to weaken the court’s authority under the pretence of free expression. Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, she initiated criminal contempt charges against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Durgesh Pathak, Vinay Mishra, and Saurabh Bhardwaj. She then moved the primary excise policy case to a different bench as required by law.
Why the transfer was inevitale?
The ‘truth has triumphed’ camp is either unaware of or wilfully concealing the fact that Justice Sharma’s transfer of the main case was not a voluntary gesture of retreat. From the moment she initiated contempt proceedings, it was required by law.
Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, which means that no one should serve as a judge in their own cause, is one of the oldest and most important concepts in law. A party is accused in front of the same judge once the judge starts contempt proceedings against them. The judge would appear to have a personal stake in the outcome if they continued to hear the primary case involving the same accused individuals. Justice must not only be carried out, but also appear to be carried out, even in cases where the judge is completely neutral.
Justice Sharma expressed this clearly from the bench, ‘If I continue to hear this matter after the contempt procedures, these parties can allege I have a personal hatred against them. That is why I believe this case will be heard by another bench.’ Additionally, she made it clear, ‘I am not recusing myself while upholding my recusal order and refuse to alter a single word.’
The case concerning excise policy has been transferred to a new bench. Justice Sharma is still in charge of the contempt proceedings. Kejriwal and five AAP leaders are currently facing criminal contempt of court proceedings, which could result in a fine and up to six months in jail. This is picking up two cases instead than just one when you enter a courtroom.
Debunking the left narrative
1) Justice Sharma was forced to recuse because she was biased: This is factually incorrect because Justice Sharma specifically declared that she was not recusing herself and that she stood by her recusal order, which rejected the AAP’s charges of prejudice. The transfer happened as a result of the contempt proceedings she initiated, not because the recusal application was successful. In April, it failed, and on May 14, it still failed.
2) The Satyagraha worked: This claim is incredibly ironic. The public boycott, letters, social media campaign, and altered videos that Kejriwal is referring to as ‘Satyagraha’ are exactly what have put him and five of his colleagues in criminal contempt proceedings. According to Justice Sharma’s order, this behaviour is not permissible under the pretence of free expression. In contrast to the Satyagraha working, Kejriwal is now charged with criminal contempt in a court of law. The judiciary has categorically denounced Kejriwal’s social media pressure campaign against a sitting judge as an attack on the institution.
3) Truth prevailed: In this scenario, the term ‘truth’ is performing a great deal of heavy lifting on behalf of a political party that is still facing significant charges in the excise policy issue. The discharge of AAP leaders has been challenged by the CBI, and this case has not been resolved. The proceedings will now take place on a different bench. The fundamental legal matter, which is whether Kejriwal and others were properly discharged, is still completely unanswered. An acquittal is not the same as a bench change.
What this actually means going forward
Justice Sharma is now pursuing criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal and five key AAP leaders. These are separate proceedings that are not shifted only because the primary case did. Their actions outside of court, the social media campaign, the edited videos, the public letters, and the boycott, are at issue in the contempt case. They must reply to the notices the court has sent. The Chief Justice has ordered a new bench of the Delhi High Court to hear the primary excise policy case. This implies that the CBI’s objection to the dismissal of AAP leaders, such as Kejriwal and Sisodia, will be given another chance. The case is still very much alive even though a new chapter has begun.
In the meantime, Justice Sharma, whom the AAP machinery had spent months attempting to paint as compromised, came out of this incident having turned down their request for her to recuse herself, refusing to be intimidated, filing contempt charges against six politicians, and transferring a case, not because she was overruled, but because the law required it. ‘I refuse to be intimidated,’ she said from the bench. I have defended both myself and this institution.
Conclusion
This episode focuses on a pattern, the weaponisation of public pressure against state institutions, particularly the judiciary. When people with large social media followings launch coordinated campaigns to delegitimise sitting judges, manufacture or manipulate evidence, and publicly refuse to participate in the judicial process, they are not practising Satyagraha. They are systematically undermining public trust in institutions that safeguard ordinary people far more than politicians.
The judge needs to be protected from the kind of public pressure that Kejriwal tried to impose, which is why the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and its guiding principles exist. Criticism of court decisions is acceptable and encouraged. A calculated campaign to demonise and discredit a judge through fabricated videos and public remarks intended to weaken the court’s authority is not allowed and is expressly forbidden by law. The next time you come across a post on X claiming that ‘truth has triumphed’ over a legal transfer order, remember this if truth really won, why is the person making the claim now being charged with criminal contempt of court?
In the current age, conflicts are no longer exclusively conducted at borders with military tanks and weaponry. Instead, wars are now fought on mobile devices, featured on the front pages of global publications and within the offices of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) that operate under the pretence of advocating for human rights. This phenomenon is referred to as “Hybrid Warfare” or “Asymmetric Warfare.” The main goal is to ensnare a rising power in domestic strife to the point where it cannot reach its full potential.
Whenever India embarks on a significant initiative, whether it be a nuclear facility, a major port or a mining project, why do “human rights outfits” and “environmental activists” from around the world suddenly spring into action?
One might presume that these individuals are simply safeguarding nature, a seemingly commendable pursuit. However, is this an authentic passion for the environment, or is there a meticulous geopolitical and ideological strategy at play aimed specifically at diminishing India’s growing influence?
Today, we will explore the intricacies of this very “Hybrid Warfare” where traditional weapons such as missiles and guns are replaced by narratives, information warfare, misinformation and fabricated news. We will examine the Great Nicobar Integrated Development Project (GNI), an initiative that 39 “genocide experts” from 13 nations endeavoured to stop in 2024 by writing an open letter.
We will also conduct a thorough analysis of the theory of Cultural Marxism, a concept that, via education, media and social platforms, is instilling the idea in the minds of the youth that “development” necessarily means “destruction.” More importantly, we will expose the foreign NGOs and international lobbies that are causing an annual blow of 2-3% to India’s GDP resulting in a loss of hundreds of thousands of crores of rupees, resources that could have been allocated to hospitals, educational institutions, infrastructure and energy security.
America’s “Trail of Tears” vs lecturing India
A country that was originally built on the appropriation of indigenous lands has now become the largest center for climate activism globally. Through the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the United States forcibly removed tens of thousands of Native Americans, commonly known as “Red Indians” from their ancestral lands. During the notorious Trail of Tears, between 60,000 and 100,000 persons, primarily from the Cherokee and other tribes were forcibly relocated. Many lost their lives during the journey, falling victim to starvation, illness and the dreadful conditions of the forced march.
The complete picture is even more disheartening. From the 15th to the 19th centuries, the Native American population experienced a significant decrease due to wars, diseases and the systematic removal of tribes. Nevertheless, this very nation has evolved into the birthplace of NGO culture, declared itself a superpower, and today, having risen as an alleged champion for climate change dictates the rest of the world. These entities that once forcibly occupied lands are now, via NGOs, teaching us how we should manage our own land.
The terminology that was created and popularised by America is currently being promoted by paid activists in different countries as a way to forge their own identities. Recent entries into this vocabulary include phrases like “heatwave,” “climate activism” and “tribes.” However, the core question persists: what is the source of this hypocrisy? And why is this exact narrative being repeated in India at this time?
Drawing insights from both America and Europe, a fresh type of activism is presently being propagated in India, disguised as advocacy for tribal rights and environmental issues. Terms such as “forest rights,” “tribal land” and “climate justice” serve as the framework for this activism. However, the underlying objective is the infiltration of Cultural Marxism, which is being facilitated through civil society organisations and NGOs.
On one side, efforts towards national development and nation-building are depicted as forms of oppression and exploitation and on the other hand, networks supported by foreign funding aim to alienate tribal communities from the national mainstream and use them against national security interests. This exemplifies a contemporary version of the “Divide and Rule” strategy, presently rebranded in the rhetoric of “sustainability” and “inclusion.”
These are the precise forces that are engaged in the breakdown of culture, tradition and sovereignty akin to how the West has turned its own missteps into a tale of moral superiority.
“Hybrid Warfare” and the secret report of 2014
Historically armed confrontations transpired along national borders, but we currently exist in a period defined by “Asymmetric Warfare” where the preferred tools are social media, NGOs and intellectual activism.
In 2014, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) presented a report to the Prime Minister’s Office, a document that profoundly impacted the nation. It clearly indicated that certain foreign entities were utilising various strategies to hinder India’s progress toward achieving a $5 trillion economy. These included amplifying local complaints and dissent while undermining investment by depicting the nation’s image on global platforms as anti-human or anti-environment.
In its report, the IB outlined the significant impact that these movements have had on India’s energy security and mining industry:
Nuclear Energy (Kudankulam): Groups like “PMANE” and “Greenpeace” led protests that caused massive delays in enhancing India’s energy security.
Coal and Mining (Mahan Coal Block): “ActionAid” and “Greenpeace” effectively prevented investment by creating a global narrative focused on carbon emissions.
Industrial Hubs (POSCO and Vedanta): Billions of dollars in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) were forfeited under the pretext of local activism.
Agricultural Technology (Anti-GMO Protests): “ASHA” and “Greenpeace” obstructed agricultural productivity by hindering the adoption of innovative seed technologies.
Do you realise what the most concerning outcome of all this was? According to the IB, these actions led to a reduction of 2% to 3% in India’s yearly GDP growth rate. This equates to hundreds of thousands of crores of rupees, resources that could have been allocated to the development of hospitals, schools and infrastructure for our benefit.
Notably, these protests extend beyond the mere protection of trees or birds. In truth, climate activism has transformed into a multipolar ideological conflict of modern times. What we interpret as environmental concern is, in fact, “Watermelon Politics” appearing green on the surface, yet harbouring the same old red (Marxist) agenda inside.
Cold War strategy + Eco-Marxism + metabolic rift
As industrial development enhanced the conditions of workers, leftist ideology demanded a new instrument. They subsequently targeted the educated middle class and students, conducting a moral campaign against development initiatives. The objective is clear: To restrict the actions of elected governments through climate litigation and to challenge the nation’s sovereignty at the behest of foreign NGOs.
Interestingly, the foundations of this narrative are entrenched in the Cold War era. Since the 1960s, Western powers have adopted a strategy of creating emergencies and crises to maintain dominance over the populace. Currently, climate change is being depicted as a war-like emergency, with the purpose of suppressing the energy sectors and economies of developing nations.
This is the special reason these Western nations, particularly European countries such as Germany are currently resorting to “Regulatory Imperialism.” By imposing taxes like the CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism), they are inflating the costs of our steel and aluminum exports, which is resulting in India losing its foothold in the global market. This is similar to the Cold War strategy: Manufacture a crisis, spread fear and then masquerade as “experts” to dominate the world.
Heatwaves: A new narrative of fear
What, specifically, does the summer heat in our nation have to do with all of this? The true propaganda unfolds here: Whenever a heatwave hits India, the global media paints it as a disastrous crisis. Phrases like “95% of Indian cities at risk” and “wet-bulb temperatures” are frequently mentioned.
This data often amounts to scientific exaggeration and surfaces with remarkable timing, exactly when India initiates a new mining venture or power unit. The intention is to portray India as either a “victim” or a “villain,” thus creating international pressure with the underlying message: “Look, your country is burning. Therefore, stop the Nicobar project or any such initiative and invest in our costly green technologies instead.”
This signifies a well-coordinated effort to create skepticism about India’s economic stability and to characterise us as a weak nation. I do not deny the reality of the heat, instead, I oppose the fear-mongering tactics being used to threaten India’s energy security (specifically coal and gas), while the West itself continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels.
Furthermore, the Western entities that have mainly mushroomed in the current times and attempt to involve India in such ethical predicaments, perhaps fail to comprehend the fact that new India has no need for Western knowledge or assessments. For us, nature is not just a “resource,” it has perpetually been a crucial component of our existence.
The Atharvaveda includes the mantra: “Mata Bhumih Putroham Prithivyah.” This is interpreted as: “The Earth is our mother, and we are her children.” While Western societies aim to dominate nature, our tradition promotes coexistence and unity with it. We do not need Western-style “watermelon” activism. We require our own time-honored Dharmic Ecology, a belief system that values and reveres both progress and the natural world.
Civil Society and Cultural Marxism
Now, as inquiry arises: How do these persons achieve such organisation? How does their collective intellect operate? This is where Cultural Marxism makes its appearance.
When we examine history, in the early 20th century, thinkers from the “Frankfurt School” such as Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno observed that the working class was not rising up for revolution. Consequently, they revised their strategy. They asserted that the onslaught should be executed not through violence, but cultural influence.
This methodology is referred to as “Critical Theory,” which aims to depict institutions like family, religion and nationalism as “oppressors.” Today, this ideology has transformed into “Eco-Marxism.” Karl Marx introduced a theory called the “Metabolic Rift” This theory asserts that capitalism disrupts the fundamental connection between humanity and nature. Leveraging this idea, nearly every development initiative today is categorised as an act of “genocide” or “ecocide.” Cultural Marxism operates on three fronts:
Economic Marxism: This theory asserts that the adversary is the “capitalist,” while “worker” is the agent.
Cultural Marxism: The enemys are “traditional values” often disparaged as sanskars (cultural norms) and the agents are “marginalised groups.”
Eco-Marxism: Within this paradigm, the foe is “industrial development,” and its agents are environmental and tribal activists.
This is exactly why a narrative has been embedded in the consciousness of the average citizen today that the establishment of a factory will lead to the destruction of forests whereas the truth is often quite different.
Nonetheless, it is important to consider: Who has persistently led the charge in undermining India’s cultural heritage and traditions? The answer lies with Marxists and Communists. As times have evolved, this very Marxism has now taken shape among us in the form of Cultural Marxism.
It is through the perspective of this “Eco-Marxism” that these individuals interpret every significant project in India. For them, the Nicobar Project or any new infrastructure venture is not simply a construction project. They view it as a manifestation of “capitalist greed” that threatens the planet. This represents the ideological trap into which our youth are currently being caught.
How important is the Great Nicobar Project for India
Let us now shift our focus to a project that holds the promise of elevating India to the status of a “Global Superpower,” a project that is presently succumbing to the very same “Cultural Marxism.” It is the Great Nicobar Island Project, also known as the GNI Project. NITI Aayog envisions an investment of ₹81,000 crore, which includes four primary aspects:
A Mega Port at Galathea Bay: Build to compete with the ports of Singapore and Colombo.
A Greenfield Airport: Designed for dual functionality, serving both civilian and military needs.
A new power plant and a port city.
However, what is causing fear among China and its proxies? The truth is that the Nicobar Islands are strategically situated right at the entrance of the Strait of Malacca. The vast majority of global oil shipments and trade traffic pass through this strait. This strategic vulnerability is often referred to as the “Malacca Dilemma,” indicating that India could, at any time, blockade China’s energy supply lines from this strategic point.
This is precisely the reason why the expansion of the INS Baaz airstrip is a strategic necessity for India. However, the moment India began work on this initiative, the “Eco-Marxism” agenda of foreign-funded NGOs came into play.
The anti-India cabal (NGOs)
We are on the verge of disclosing the identities of the NGOs that are masterminding this entire operation. These groups are not regular. Their networks are profoundly connected with the governments of Western countries and massive corporate funding sources.
Survival International – UK: The organisation’s headquarters are situated in London, United Kingdom. It has labelled the Great Nicobar Project as a “death sentence” for the Shompen tribe. In 2024, the organisation coordinated a letter endorsed by 39 “genocide experts” from 13 different countries, intending to depict India as a “brutal nation” internationally. Their goal is to maintain tribal communities in isolation, away from modern healthcare and education, thereby preserving them as “biological museums.”
Greenpeace – Netherlands: This functions as the Indian branch of an organisation headquartered in the Netherlands. According to report from IB “Greenpeace” has invested crores of rupees to fund protests against nuclear power facilities like Kudankulam and coal mining operations. Their main objective is to obstruct India’s progress towards energy independence.
Amnesty International and ActionAid – UK: The IB categorised these entities located in London as “instruments of Western governments.” Disguised as advocates for human rights, they provoke public indignation towards initiatives including mining in India’s northeastern states and other sensitive areas, thus perpetuating the nation’s reliance on foreign countries for natural resources.
Satat Sampada and Harjeet Singh (India/International): In January 2026, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) executed raids at the locations associated with alleged climate activists Harjeet Singh and Sanjay Vashishth. The situation appears to be highly serious. An organisation known as “Satat Sampada” has received dubious foreign funding totaling ₹6 crore from the “Climate Action Network” (CAN).
The ED determined that the amount was being used to advocate for the “Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty” (FF-NPT) in India. This treaty aims to pressure India into halting its reliance on coal, oil and gas, despite the fact that 70% of India’s electricity is currently generated from coal. If these initiatives succeed, households throughout India would experience power shortages and factories would be compelled to close down.
PUCL, NAPM and Narmada Bachao Andolan (Locals): Foreign money do not directly reach the grassroots and instead, they function through local entities like the PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties), NAPM (National Alliance of People’s Movements) and the Narmada Bachao Andolan. These entities establish legal obstacles and provoke locals, consequently increasing project expenses and leading to delays.
एडवार्ड ग्रिफ़िन अपने एक लेक्चर में बता रहे हैं कि अमेरिका में १९२० में कॉम्युनिस्ट किस तरह से समाज की असंतुष्टि, नस्लवाद, समाजवाद जैसे प्रयोगों से लोगों को भड़का कर “क्या” हासिल करना चाहते थे। कुछ हायपर योद्धा इसी असंतुष्टि पर जीवित हैं, राज्य कोई भी क्यों ना हो! pic.twitter.com/ralLUevNtF
ESG, particularly in relation to the Great Nicobar Project, embodies a type of hybrid warfare, a scheme involving international NGOs and Cultural Marxism designed to impede India’s progress. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria are currently being utilised as a instrument. This is what is referred to as “Green Colonialism.”
Countries that have developed, having progressed through the use of coal and deforestation are now seeking to obstruct rising nations such as India under the guise of “ethical benchmarks.”
Great Nicobar Port: The stated reason for activism is the conservation of the rainforests. However, the actual reason is to obstruct India’s control over the “Strait of Malacca.”
Odisha Mining: The rallying point is “tribal identity,” but the genuine intention is to maintain India’s reliance on mineral imports.
Ken-Betwa Link: The superficial concern here is the “Panna Tiger Reserve,” whereas the genuine agenda is to impede agricultural productivity.
This is “Green Cordon” strategy, a deliberate tactic aimed at ensuring that India does not succeed in becoming a key player in the global supply chain.
The political nexus: Rahul Gandhi and the Chinese MoU
Nonetheless, these machinations are not exclusively external. They also garner political support from within India. It is through this internal backing that the entire ecosystem fulfils its cycle.
Rahul Gandhi and the Indian National Congress have started promoting ideas like “wealth redistribution,” concepts that are directly influenced by Marxist ideology over the past many years. Rahul and his associates share a consistent track record whether it pertains to Vedanta, POSCO or the Tata Nano project. They have resisted nearly every significant developmental effort.
There exists one more significant fact: In 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between the Congress party and the “Chinese Communist Party” (CPC). Hence, people have asked if this specific agreement is the cause of the opposition’s ongoing resistance to strategic endeavors such as the Great Nicobar initiative that could potentially threaten China?
Sabotaging Nicobar isn't saving the planet; it's gifting the Indian Ocean to China on a platter.
From Niyamgiri and POSCO to now the Great Nicobar Project, the strategy is clear: Oppose everything, stall everyone. Who does this 'activism' really benefit?
These are not simply political accusations, but they represent a peculiar trend. Whenever a project is introduced to provide India with a strategic advantage over China, why do the internal dissenting voices consistently become the most prominent? Is this just a coincidence, or is it the result of that MoU? This is a matter worth considering.
Venezuela vs Vietnam – A tale of two paths
At this point, you may be asking: What does it matter if there has been no development? We are quite content with our poverty.” In light of this, let us examine the stories of these two countries: Venezuela and Cuba.
Venezuela: Radical socialist measures were enacted here. Industries were taken over by the state and development projects were put on hold. What was the consequence? Venezuela’s GDP decreased by 88% and the country is now grappling with an inflation rate of 548%. This situation is termed the “Equality of Misery,” the sharing of deprivation.
Vietnam: In 1986, Vietnam launched the Doi Moi reforms and welcomed a market-driven economy. At present, Vietnam is growing at a rate of 7.1% and has become a significant global manufacturing hub.
The lesson for India from these two instances is evident. If we succumb to these anti-development narratives, we may face a fate similar to that of Venezuela, a country whose leftist policies have trapped its citizens in poverty. History confirms that nations which suppressed development are now left with nothing but destitution.
True Indian environmentalism vs “AC room” activism
It is essential to note that India does not require guidance from any Western NGO on how to protect the environment. Our indigenous traditions provide examples, such as the Bishnoi Movement and the Chipko Movement, where individuals physically embraced trees to protect their cultural heritage. Genuine heroes like Swami Gyan Swaroop Sanand (Professor GD Agrawal) gave their lives for the River Ganga, not for the purpose of financial aid from abroad.
A fundamental difference exists between true environmentalism and professional activism. These “professional activists” work from air-conditioned environments, generate social media hashtags and depend on the very roads and electricity infrastructure they passionately oppose. For instance, the group that lodged a Public Interest Litigation against the All-Weather Road Project on the Char Dham pilgrimage route included individuals whose wives are registered voters for Barack Obama in the United States, yet they operate from Dehradun, leading climate campaigns.
In any event, India does not require a “certificate” from the West regarding environmental stewardship. In our culture, we hold the Earth in high regard as a mother.
Mata Bhumih Putroham Prithivyah: The Earth is my mother and I am her son
Our framework is based on the concept of Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah (May all be happy), emphasising the harmonious progression of development alongside nature. The government’s decision to revoke the licenses of more than 21,000 NGOs represents a significant move in this direction. Nevertheless, this ideological struggle must also be fought within our educational institutions and on social media platforms.
The successful implementation of initiatives like the Great Nicobar project and similar endeavours will demonstrate that India is no longer a “soft state” susceptible to yielding under external influences. For this reason, the Great Nicobar project should not be regarded solely as a port or an airport facility. Such initiatives serve as concrete proof of a nation like India’s rising influence and as a nation becomes more powerful, it naturally instills apprehension among its neighbouring countries.
Additionally, sustaining strategic superiority in areas such as the Nicobar Islands is crucial to keep those very neighbours under control in the future. This is exactly why the Government of India has taken a decisive position. From 2014 to 2026, the FCRA licenses of more than 21,000 NGOs have been revoked. However, this struggle is far from concluded. It is vital to acknowledge that, to protect our sovereignty:
Constant vigilance regarding foreign funding is imperative.
We need to establish our own interpretation of development, one that achieves a harmonious equilibrium between nature and development.
It is of utmost importance to identify and uncover the Cultural Marxism that wants to portray nationalism and national security as forms of “oppression.”
Ultimately, will India become a dominant maritime force on the global stage, or will it give in to the pressures from external powers? The answer to this question rests entirely on the decisions we make today.
As the fuel prices are under pressure due to the West Asia crisis and the resultant blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the Congress party has launched a fresh attack against the Modi government over the recent three rupee per litre hike in petrol and diesel prices. The party has claimed that PM Modi has “unleashed the whip” on the public after the fuel price hike. The party has also alleged that the decision was deliberately deferred until the assembly elections were over.
Rahul Gandhi declared, “The public will pay the price for the Modi government’s mistake. The ₹3 shock has already arrived; the rest of the recovery will be done in instalments.” Earlier on 28th April, he had said, “Election relief over, inflation’s heat is on its way! After April 29th, watch out — petrol, diesel, everything will get expensive,” accusing the government of profiteering when oil was cheap and now dumping the burden on citizens.
गलती मोदी सरकार की, कीमत जनता चुकाएगी।
₹3 का झटका आ चुका, बाकी वसूली क़िस्तों में की जाएगी।
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge echoed this by blaming a “Modi-govt-made crisis” driven by “leadership crisis, lack of vision and incompetence.” Other Congress leaders are also parroting the same line.
Such attacks by the opposition party conveniently ignore history. In this context, it becomes important to revisit the fiscal sleight of hand from the United Progressive Alliance era, a decision that saddled the nation with a deferred liability that ballooned into a multi-lakh crore burden.
Oil Bonds that hid fiscal deficit
These were the special long-term sovereign securities, known as oil bonds, issued by the UPA govt to the Oil Marketing Companies to fund subsidies on petrol, diesel, kerosene, and LPG. Instead of subsidising fuel prices from the budget, the Dr Manmohan Singh govt issued these bonds to the OMCs, which became a costly liability for the country.
Far from shielding consumers, the UPA’s oil bonds proved economically damaging, failed to contain fuel price rises, and left the bulk of the repayment burden to the subsequent govt. In contrast, the Modi government’s refusal to reintroduce blanket subsidies on petrol and diesel stands as a model of financial prudence, especially when the entire world is grappling with the same global shock.
Between 2005 and 2010, the UPA government issued these special oil bonds worth approximately ₹1.48 lakh crore to the oil marketing companies. These were not ordinary borrowings. Instead of paying cash subsidies from the Union Budget to compensate public sector refiners for selling fuel below cost during the global oil price spike, the government handed over long-term sovereign securities.
The oil bonds carried maturities of 15 to 20 years and bore interest rates of around 7 to 8.4 per cent. On paper, this kept the fiscal deficit looking manageable, as subsidies were not funded from the budget. In reality, it was classic off-budget financing. The under-recoveries of the oil companies were masked, the immediate subsidy bill vanished from the books, and the true cost was postponed for future taxpayers.
This approach inflicted several layers of harm on the economy. First, it created a fiscal illusion. By treating the bonds as below the line items, the UPA avoided breaching the targets of the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act in those high price years when crude touched 147 dollars per barrel. But the liability for these bonds remained. Interest payments alone added roughly ₹1.70 lakh crore over two decades, pushing the total payout, principal plus interest, to over ₹3 lakh crore.
Second, the mechanism cut into govt funds, which could have been used for productive spending. Every year, the government had to set aside nearly ₹10,000 crore just for interest, funds that could have gone into infrastructure, health, or education.
Third, it weakened the balance sheets of the oil marketing companies, which were left holding illiquid bond paper instead of cash. This reduced their ability to invest in refining capacity and exploration, slowing the sector’s expansion and modernisation.
Most importantly, it eroded the fiscal discipline of the administration. Once governments learn that they can hide spending through creative accounting, the temptation to repeat it grows. But such deferral always carries a premium, paid in higher interest later and causes lost economic momentum.
Fuel prices still rose
The worst outcome is that the bonds delivered little relief to end consumers. Despite this massive off-budget support, fuel prices rose sharply throughout the UPA decade. In 2004, petrol in Delhi cost around ₹34 per litre. By 2014, it had climbed to over ₹72 per litre, an increase of more than 118 per cent. Diesel moved from about ₹22 per litre to nearly ₹55 per litre, a rise exceeding 155 per cent.
There were abrupt steep hikes in those years, including an ₹8 per litre jump in petrol prices in a single stroke in 2012. Global crude volatility at that time played its part, but the point remains: even with the bonds absorbing part of the subsidy burden, the government could not shield domestic prices from international reality. The policy brought temporary political calm but delivered no structural protection. Consumers paid more at the pump, the economy absorbed hidden costs through higher deficits and interest, and the oil companies remained squeezed.
Modi govt repays UPA’s debt
The bulk of the oil bonds issued by the UPA govt matured after 2014. Only a small tranche of bonds became due during the UPA. The heavy lifting, running into tens of thousands of crores of rupees each year between 2021 and 2026, was done by the National Democratic Alliance govt. By March this year, the Modi administration fully redeemed the final instalments, closing the bond accounts on a total obligation of around ₹3.20 lakh crore.
While the UPA had issued oil bonds amounting to ₹1.48 lakh crore, it repaid only ₹13,764 crore in principle, while the Dr. Manmohan Singh govt paid a whopping ₹68,750 crore in interest by 2014, the bulk of which was paid during UPA 2.
It is notable that for ₹1.48 lakh crore oil bonds, interest totalling ₹1.71 lakh crore has been paid from the exchequer.
Out of the total oil bonds issued, 14 oil bonds amounting to ₹ 1.34 lakh crore matured during the period from 2014 to 2026, and during this period, a total of ₹1.02 lakh crore was paid as interest by the Mod govt. Therefore, a total of ₹2.36 lakh crore was paid for matured oil bonds between 2014 and 2026.
This was no small achievement; it required careful budgeting, prudent revenue management, and a deliberate choice to prioritise long-term solvency over short-term populism. The government absorbed the interest burden year after year without resorting to fresh off-budget tricks. Despite pressure, the government didn’t reduce excise duty on petrol and diesel when the global oil prices were low, and used that extra revenue to repay the oil bonds with interest.
In doing so, it freed future budgets from this liability and strengthened the country’s fiscal framework. The very administration now being criticised for a ₹3 per litre hike had quietly paid the UPA’s credit card bill of ₹3.20 lakh crore for fuel consumed during its govt.
Today’s price hike, raising petrol to ₹97.77 per litre and diesel to ₹90.67 rupees per litre in Delhi, must be seen against this backdrop and the global context. The Strait of Hormuz crisis, triggered by escalating West Asia tensions, has disrupted nearly a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade. Brent crude has crossed 100 dollars per barrel and touched 126 dollars. Shipping insurance costs have jumped, freight rates have climbed, and supply chains from the Gulf to Asia face uncertainty.
Every major importer, from Europe to China to Japan, is feeling the pinch. Fuel prices are rising across continents. India, which imports over 85 per cent of its crude, cannot insulate itself from this reality.
Not repeating the Congress strategy benefits the country
Had the current global crisis taken place during a Congress government in India, it would have adopted the policy of the same deferred liability. It would have tried to subsidise fuel using borrowed money for political benefit.
The Modi government’s decision not to reintroduce subsidies on petrol and diesel is therefore sound economics. Market-linked pricing, introduced for petrol in 2014 and diesel in 2016, allows automatic adjustment according to global prices. This prevents the kind of unsustainable under recoveries that plagued OMCs during the UPA years.
Subsidising fuel indiscriminately, as was attempted earlier, distorts consumption, encourages inefficiency, and benefits the rich more. By contrast, the current system protects the public finance, and targeted interventions such as LPG subsidies reach those who need them most.
It is true that fuel price hike hurts the common man. But the alternative, returning to blanket subsidies funded either by fresh debt or by cutting development spending, would repeat the same mistakes that Congress made. The UPA’s experience shows that deferral of financial liabilities is not relief. It is just delayed pain, compounded by interest.
In an era when global energy markets remain volatile, this policy preserves macroeconomic stability and builds financial resilience. The Congress may find political mileage in selective memory, but the record is clear. The UPA deferred the bill. The Modi government paid it. And the country has to face the current global crisis now, not defer it to the future again.
When one thinks about electricity generation in India, what would one usually think of? A massive coal plant in Singrauli, a nuclear facility in Tarapur, or a large NHPC hydro project. But solar energy in India? That rarely makes the list. At best, one would think of solar either as a minor domestic backup plan or a fancy (but ultimately unsustainable) experiment that the government periodically attempts. One would hardly think of it as a method of electricity generation that could compete with coal or nuclear, let alone power a country like India.
That assumption, however, no longer holds. By the end of January 2026, solar accounted for nearly 27% of India’s total installed power capacity. Out of India’s total installed power capacity of 520 GW, more than 143 GW comes from solar alone. That is not a side contribution, but it is a structural shift. While it may not always dominate headlines, the scale of this transformation is impossible to ignore.
To put it simply, in just 11–12 years, India’s solar capacity has grown nearly 50 times.
India’s Current Solar Capacity (2026)
Saying “solar is growing” seems like an easy punchline, but the real story lies in the scale of growth.
By the end of March 2026, India had crossed 150 GW of solar capacity. To understand how massive this growth is, let us consider an example – if one household uses 1 kw of electricity, India’s current solar capacity is enough to power 15 crore households simultaneously; a massive feat given how quickly India grew her solar capacity in the past few years.
In fact, solar is now the largest contributor to India’s renewable energy mix.Globally, India ranks among the top 3 solar markets, right after the USA and China.
Solar generates over 173 billion units of electricity each year. Nearly 10% of India’s total electricity now comes from solar energy sources. For decades, India relied on coal for stability, but today, solar is quietly taking that role.
And because of this surge, India has crossed a major milestone with over 50% of its total installed power capacity now coming from non-fossil sources. Not in 2030 or in the future, this has already happened, and solar is leading this shift. Why?
Because it’s cheap, scalable, and fast to deploy. We can build a massive solar park or just install panels on your rooftop because both work.
Significance of Solar Energy
To understand just how significant India’s solar stride is, we must also understand why solar energy is so important compared to other sources, and what is its significance in today’s world. First of all, Solar reduces India’s dependence on other sources such as coal, oil, and gas. The more electricity it produces from solar energy, the less vulnerable it becomes to global fuel price shocks, supply disruptions and geopolitical pressure. As we saw in the US-Iran conflict, during the Strait of Hormuz disruption, it became increasingly unconventional to rely entirely on oil. India imports nearly 85% of its crude oil requirements, making solar energy essential for replacing a major economic burden.
Further, Solar is the cheapest source of energy. Because of the Modi Government, Solar tariffs in India have fallen dramatically over the years, making solar one of the cheapest sources of power generation. Unlike coal or gas, sunlight is free, making solar energy economically sustainable in the long run. Moreover, Solar changes the very structure of electricity. With rooftop systems and net metering, homes, farmers, and businesses can generate their own electricity and even send surplus power back into the grid. Consumers become producers. Solar energy helps to reduce the carbon emissions and air pollution caused by fossil fuels. According to the data, Coal-based electricity releases an average of 0.82kg of CO2 per kWh. But if we compare this to solar energy, it produces 0kg of CO2 per kWh during operation. It makes Solar energy a significant source compared to other sources.
How India’s Solar Capacity 50x’ed (2014–2026)
We had talked about the current solar capacity, but the real question is: How did India accomplish this? Because India is going from 3 GW in 2014 to 150+ GW in 2026, this is not typical growth. That’s a 50X jump in just about a decade. And no major economy other than China has done this at this speed.
India’s Solar Capacity Journey
This remarkable feat by the Modi government was accomplished in phases. During the first phase, from 2014 to 2018, when the government set aggressive targets and pushed the National Solar Mission, larger solar parks were introduced. This solved big problems like land and infrastructure, and, more importantly, sent a clear signal that solar is no longer experimental; it’s a serious policy.
The scale phase (2018–2022) marked a turning point: solar became cheap, with tariffs dropping from around 7-8 rupees per unit to under 2 rupees. From that moment, solar was no longer just clean energy – it was the cheapest energy, spurring private sector investment and driving the rise of massive solar parks in Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Karnataka.
The acceleration phase (2022–2026) followed, bringing together manufacturing push, Rooftop solar expansion, and better grid readiness. Most importantly, solar moved beyond big projects—now homes, farmers, and industries are all part of the system.
And the result? India added a record 44+ GW of renewable energy in just one year (FY26), the highest ever.
It’s not just the scale or the speed. India didn’t follow the slow, step-by-step transition model. It basically compressed decades of energy transition into 10–12 years. That’s what makes this transformation different.
The Policy Push: Role of PM Surya Ghar
So the next question is who actually pushed solar into people’s homes? Because making solar parks is one thing, but getting crores of households to adopt solar is another. That’s a different game.
This is where the PM Surya Ghar, Muft Bijli Yojana comes in. It was launched in February 2024 and completely changed India’s solar strategy. Instead of just building large solar parks, the focus shifted to something bigger: making every home a potential power generator. The idea was simple. Give people subsidies, make the process easy, and let them produce their own electricity. Under this scheme, households can install rooftop solar systems and generate up to 300 units of electricity per month. This almost wipes out their electricity bills.
PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana
As of early May 2026, over 31+ lakh homes have already been installed with solar panels and more than 60 lakh people have applied. This means demand is not the problem; people actually want this. Financially, this is not a small scheme. The government has already disbursed nearly ₹18,000 crore. Spending in FY26 nearly doubled that of the previous year. In terms of impact, over 9.5 GW of rooftop solar capacity has been added. But the real strength of this scheme lies in its design. The process is simple. No complicated approvals for smaller systems. The subsidy goes directly into your bank account via DBT. No middlemen, no delays.
That’s why adoption is scaling so quickly, as state-level data shows. States like Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan are moving ahead rapidly. In fact, Uttar Pradesh, which wasn’t even seen as a solar leader, has now emerged as a top performer. On the other hand, in some states, the story is different. Take Karnataka, for example: in early May 2025, over 54,000 applications but only around 18,000 installations. Same scheme. Same subsidy. Same country. The difference lies in how state governments implement it. In NDA-led states, governance is proactive, approvals are faster, and systems move quickly. Solar adoption is booming there. But in Congress-led states, it’s slow and bureaucratic, and progress stalls. That’s the bigger takeaway.
This is no longer just about solar energy. It’s becoming a test of state-level governance.
Because, in the end, the policy is the same for everyone… but the results clearly aren’t.
But the real strength of this scheme lies in its design. The process is simple. No complicated approvals for smaller systems. The subsidy is deposited directly into your bank account via DBT. No middlemen. No endless delays. And there’s another important point people often miss. Every home with rooftop solar is connected to the electricity grid. This means the house is not just consuming electricity; it can also generate power and send excess electricity back into the system through net metering.
In simple terms, millions of homes are slowly turning into mini power plants connected to India’s grid. That’s a massive structural shift in how electricity works in India.
Citizen Participation: The Missing Link
As discussed in the previous paragraph, the Indian government played a massive role in the solar sector. But this entire solar story isn’t just about government policy. Policy can push, but it cannot scale at this speed on its own. The real drivers have been the people. As of early May 2026, more than 60 lakh rooftop solar applications and more than 31 lakh installed systems show that this is not forced adoption or artificial demand. People are actively choosing solar because it makes economic sense. It lowers electricity bills, reduces reliance on power cuts, and gives households greater control over their energy use. This shift is not limited to urban India; through schemes like PM-KUSUM, over 21 lakh farmers have moved to solar-powered irrigation, cutting diesel costs, ensuring reliable power, and improving income stability. As a result, India is moving toward a “prosumer economy,” where consumers are also producers, rooftops are turning into small power plants that generate electricity, save money, and even feed surplus back into the grid.
This marks a fundamental shift from a centralised, top-down energy system to a distributed, people-driven one. As citizens saw direct value in solar, that’s why solar has scaled so rapidly. The government built the framework, but it was the people who turned it into a nationwide movement.
Industrial Backbone: Production Linked Incentive Scheme
But wait, building solar plants is one thing. The real question is: who is making the solar panels? If everything is imported, then we are not really independent but just dependent in a different way. That was exactly where India had a problem. For years, most solar equipment came from outside, especially China. The government made a strategic move with the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme. This is not just another policy; this is an industrial push. The idea was simple: don’t just install solar, but start manufacturing it in India. Under PLI, the government allocated around ₹24,000 crore to incentivise companies to build the entire solar ecosystem. This includes not just panels, but also cells, wafers, and even polysilicon. The entire supply chain was impacted. The result was massive.
When talking about installed power capacity, India’s installed solar capacity has grown from just 2.82 GW in 2014 to over 150 GW by March 2026, a 53x increase in just over a decade. And when talking about manufacturing capacity, India’s solar module capacity has grown from just 2.3 GW in 2014 to over 172 GW by March 2026, a 75x increase in just over a decade. That’s not just growth; it’s a complete shift.
Indian companies started scaling up fast. Investments poured in. Thousands of jobs were created across the sector. But the most important part was vertical integration. India does not just assemble solar products; it is gradually controlling the entire production pipeline. That changes everything. Now, solar is no longer just an energy story. It becomes an industrial strategy. India is not just consuming solar power; it is building the capability to produce the technology behind it. That’s how you move from adoption to real self-reliance.
Breaking Dependence on China
In this whole story, most people forget to mention India’s dependence on China. For years, India’s solar growth came with a hidden weakness: we were heavily dependent on China. At one point, nearly 80–90% of our solar cells and modules were imported from China.
Now think about that. If the entire energy transition depends on another country, then how secure is it really? One supply disruption or any geopolitical tension can hit the solar push. So this wasn’t just an economic issue. It was a strategic vulnerability. And that’s when the Modi government stepped in.
A series of policy measures were introduced, including Basic Customs Duty (BCD) on imports, ALMM regulations to prioritise domestic manufacturers, and Anti-dumping duties to counter unfair pricing. The idea was simple: if India is to lead the solar revolution, it must give Indian companies a fair chance to compete. Because of earlier cheap imports, it was almost impossible for domestic players to scale. Now, that equation is changing, with domestic manufacturing rising, Indian companies stepping in, and large solar projects gradually shifting towards Made-in-India modules. But let’s be clear, we are not fully independent yet. The critical components, such as calls and wafers, still need to be scaled up. But the direction is clear that India is moving from a system of dependence to building its own self-reliant solar ecosystem. And in a sector as critical as energy, that shift is not optional — it’s essential.
The Global Double Standard on Energy
For over a century, the USA and European countries have built their economies on the massive amounts of coal and fossil fuels during industrialisation. Today, most of these developed nations were powered by high historical carbon emissions long before climate targets became global priorities. And how ironic these so-called climate activists blame India for Carbon emissions.
Data shows that even today, India’s per capita carbon emissions remain significantly lower than those of the USA and many Western countries. India, with a population of over 1.4 billion, is still consuming less energy per person than developed nations. In India, the average person consumes approximately 13.61 GJ/person, whereas in the USA, the figure is more than double, approximately 31.47 GJ/person. It also exposes the hypocrisy of the West and America over climate change, which transitioned to cleaner energy only after becoming rich. In fact, India is trying to industrialise and expand electricity access while simultaneously investing heavily in renewables, such as solar. That makes India’s transition structurally more difficult.
Despite these criticisms of coal usage, India has become one of the world’s fastest-growing solar markets. In just over a decade, India expanded from around 3 GW of solar capacity to more than 150 GW, a scale of transition very few major economies have achieved.
Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India co-founded the International Solar Alliance (ISA) and pushed solar diplomacy globally. In 2015, it was co-founded by India and France during the COP21 Climate Summit in Paris. Even the headquarters of ISA is located in Haryana. It was designed as a coalition of solar-rich countries, especially developing nations located between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, to promote affordable solar energy, technology sharing, financing, and cooperation. What makes it significant is that India is no longer just participating in these global climate discussions but leading from the front. In fact, the ISA became the first major international organisation on solar energy.
PM Modi repeatedly framed solar not just as an environmental issue, but as a strategic and developmental tool. At the launch of ISA, he argued that “the world must turn to the sun to power its future” and presented solar energy as a way for developing countries to achieve growth without replicating the West’s fossil-fuel-heavy industrial model, underscoring the importance of the policies of the Modi government.
India also used the ISA to expand its influence across Africa, Asia, and the Global South by supporting solar infrastructure, training, financing, and technology partnerships. According to the Analysts, it is an instrument of “solar diplomacy”, in which India uses renewable energy cooperation to build geopolitical influence and present itself as a responsible climate leader.
The broader vision extended beyond India itself. Through initiatives like “One Sun, One World, One Grid,” Modi proposed interconnected solar energy networks capable of sharing renewable electricity across borders and time zones.
Today, the ISA includes more than 100 member countries and has evolved into one of the largest multilateral renewable-energy platforms led by a developing nation.
Import Reduction
Now the obvious question is, did these policies actually work? Because announcements are one thing, but the real impact is another. As we have seen in previous governments, announcements are made, but the work never starts. However, the Modi government has done a good job in the renewable energy sector.
China’s share in India’s solar cell imports has dropped from over 90% to around 56%. Even solar cell imports are declining, indicating that India is slowly shifting towards domestic sourcing.
Now, while the total import bill has fluctuated over time, this movement is largely driven by global price fluctuations rather than by rising dependence. The more important shift lies in the degree of reliance on imports, and that dependence is clearly declining. As domestic manufacturing capacity continues to expand, India is gradually insulating itself from external vulnerabilities, including global supply disruptions, currency volatility, and geopolitical pressures. In effect, the transition is not just about reducing imports in absolute terms, but about building a more stable, self-reliant energy ecosystem that is less exposed to external shocks.
Beating the 2030 Target Early
India is not just meeting its solar targets; it is consistently beating them. The original goal was to reach 100 GW by 2022, and while that milestone was achieved shortly after, the momentum didn’t slow down; instead, it accelerated. By 2026, India had already crossed 150 GW, effectively advancing targets originally aligned with 2030. This kind of acceleration doesn’t happen by chance. A major driver has been the sharp fall in solar tariffs, which made solar not just viable but the cheapest source of power at scale. At the same time, policy continuity fostered long-term investor confidence, enabling private players to rapidly deploy large projects nationwide. Alongside this, schemes like PM Surya Ghar expanded rooftop adoption, bringing a distributed dimension to growth and widening participation beyond large developers.
The result is something rarely seen in infrastructure – timeline compression. Instead of slow, linear expansion, India has achieved exponential scaling within a short span. What was expected to take a decade has been accomplished in just a few years, pushing the country ahead of its own projections and redefining the pace of energy transitions.
Why This Matters
The rise of solar power matters because this transformation is not only about generating power, but it is quietly reshaping India’s economic and strategic position. First, it strengthens energy security by reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels, by making the economy less exposed to global price shocks and supply disruptions. Second, it pushes India ahead on its climate commitments. With over 50% of installed capacity now coming from non-fossil sources, a milestone was achieved years ahead of schedule. But the impact doesn’t stop there.
It also drives economic independence. By building domestic manufacturing and reducing import dependence, India is creating a self-sustaining energy sector. This stimulates local industries, creates skilled and unskilled jobs, attracts new investment, and supports long-term industrial growth. And with a clear target of 500 GW of non-fossil capacity by 2030, the direction is obvious.
Solar is now more than just clean energy; it is a strategic asset shaping India’s growth, competitiveness, and future security.
Conclusion
India’s journey in solar energy is no longer about ambition, but it is about execution at scale. In just over a decade, the country has transformed solar from a marginal, policy-driven initiative into a central pillar of its energy system. What stands out is not just the capacity added, but the ecosystem that has been built around it, where policy, manufacturing, and public participation are aligned. Solar is no longer a backup option.
It is now core infrastructure, powering homes, industries, and the broader economy. And as India moves steadily toward its 2030 targets, the direction is clear that this is not just about adopting renewable energy. India is actively reshaping its energy future, and in doing so, setting a benchmark for the world.
The term ‘polycystic ovarian syndrome’ (PCOS) has been officially changed to polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS) following over a decade of international consultation comprising of clinicians, researchers and patient advocacy groups worldwide. “The Lancet” published the new name on 12th May (Tuesday) after it was revealed at the European Congress of Endocrinology in Prague.
According to Professor Colin Duncan of the MRC (Medical Research Council) Centre for Reproductive Health at the University of Edinburgh, the previous term possibly originated when researchers initially examined the ovaries of patients and detected several tiny sacs filled with fluid, reported The Guardian. These sacs are follicles, which are structures that hold an egg. He added that they are not cysts.
Every month, many follicles grow inside an ovary in healthy women. Eventually, one of these mature and release an egg while the others wither away. However, some follicles stop developing in people with this condition and does not mature to form an egg. The symptoms tend to begin in late adolescence, but it’s a multifaceted issue that can impact women in different ways.
The prevalent feature, polycystic ovaries, inspired the misleading moniker, but several specialists maintained that the name of the condition was inadequate and even deceptive. It failed to accurately reflect the range of metabolic, hormonal, reproductive and psychological issues related to the problem by concentrating solely on the ovaries.
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome #PCOS has a new name Polyendocrine Metabolic Ovarian Syndrome #PMOS. The new term finally reflects the full body metabolic and endocrine impact of this condition and may help drive earlier diagnosis and better care.https://t.co/suxqNEuV3mpic.twitter.com/XYbn4qkjS5
PCOS (now PMOS) has long been used to characterise a common hormonal disorder affecting women of reproductive age. At first, it was assumed to be just a reproductive ailment and was known as Stein-Leventhal syndrome at the time. Scientists in the 1980s learned that it was also linked to insulin resistance or the body’s inability to react to normal insulin levels in the blood.
It was then labelled as PCOS in which androgens, responsible for masculine traits, are generated by the ovaries which causes inconsistent or no periods, ovarian cysts, ovulatory dysfunction, acne, irregular ovulation, insulin resistance, inflammation, abnormal blood sugar level, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, high bad cholesterol and triglyceride levels, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, sleep apnea, unwanted facial or body hair, extreme hair thinning or loss, weight gain, fatigue, difficulties with fertility, pregnancy complications and likelihood of endometrial cancer among an assortment of other manifestations.
It also profoundly damages a person’s psychology, leading to depression, anxiety, diminished quality of life and eating disorders. Importantly, all women possess these “male sex hormones” but those with PMOS have an excessive amount. An imbalance between follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinising hormone triggers this overproduction. Furthermore, this odd abundance is exacerbated by additional factors.
Image via pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The body also creates more insulin in an attempt to compensate for the fact that multiple women with this concern are more resistant to the hormone. Elevated insulin levels also boost testosterone synthesis. “Increased androgens will also make you more insulin resistant and insulin-resistance makes you produce more androgens. So, there is this vicious cycle,” expressed Duncan.
Obesity is another primary factor which results in a decline in the levels of a protein that absorbs extra androgens in addition to being connected to insulin resistance. PMOS also run in families, indicating a significant influence in relation to heredity. This basically involves a variety of genes.
The Rotterdam Consensus is presently used for its diagnosis. According to the premise, women must exhibit two of the three symptoms, including irregular periods, polycystic ovaries and biochemical or clinical signs of elevated androgen concentration, such as extensive body or facial hair and acne. “It means you can have polycystic ovary syndrome without polycystic ovaries, or you can have polycystic ovary syndrome without an irregular period,” Duncan clarified.
It is noteworthy that an estimated 1 in 8 women or more than 170 million women globally, have PMOS. The World Health Organisation projected that between 10% and 13% of women who are of reproductive age suffer from this, which, interestingly, is more prominent in some regions than others. For instance, it is less common in Northern Europe than in South Asia. However, WHO also mentions that over 70% of women who have this disorder are ignorant about it.
Image via nternationalendo.com
The name change and its importance for women’s health
56 academic, clinical and patient associations have been fighting to rename PCOS for the past 14 years. 14,360 further inquiry replies were obtained after an earlier survey. The aim was to pick out a fresh, correct designation over preserving the PCOS acronym or a generic alias. Ovarian, metabolic and polyendocrine were the recommended keywords to centre on to represent the multisystem consequences of the condition.
As a result, PMOS was chosen after a comprehensive campaign including 22,000 people in a landmark decision while the symptoms, underlying issues and diagnostic standards remain the same. It stands for — Polyendocrine: Entails several hormone systems. Metabolic: Influences insulin, metabolism and blood sugar control. Ovarian: Recognises the part played by ovaries. Syndrome: A collection of symptoms that frequently coexist.
Image via nternationalendo.com
Not merely an ‘ovary’ issue, not the fault of ‘lazy and fat’ women
Hormones, metabolism, skin, digestion, mental health and the stress response are all sensitive to PMOS, but the entire picture was substantially downplayed when it was reduced to an “ovary” issue. It underestimated the wider scope and instead relied mostly on the ovaries. The recognition that it is a multifaceted condition with endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, psychological and dermatological aspects is evident in the renaming.
PCOS was similarly disingenuous since a lot of women do not genuinely have ovarian cysts regardless of appearance on an ultrasound. However, classifying these cases as such hindered detection and made it harder for patients and medical practitioners to communicate effectively. Hence, patients were dissatisfied with their care.
So yesterday PCOS was renamed to PMOS. After 11 years and about 22,000 people fighting for it. If you’re one of the women who was told to just lose weight or come back when you want children, the reason it was renamed is going to make a lot of things make sense.
Diagnostic criteria and treatment plans won’t be altered right away by the revised classification. Unless there is a need to reevaluate symptoms or dangers to health, current medical methods continue to be valid. Nonetheless, it would be clearer to women that the condition involves key hormonal and metabolic components in addition to the ovaries.
Moreover, it could inspire doctors to take a more complete approach to patient care, stressing screening for blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure and other long-term health problems, as well as lifestyle change and interdisciplinary therapy along with reproductive concerns.
Experts mentioned, “By putting endocrine and metabolic in the name, PMOS tells clinicians this is a whole-body condition, not just a gynecologic diagnosis. The new name should help push research toward the metabolic and hormonal roots of the disease, insulin resistance, androgen excess, and chronic inflammation rather than focusing on ovarian cysts. Even though this new name for a long-standing condition affecting women may take some time to associate with PCOS, it is worth the time and patience to better diagnose this whole-body medical phenomenon,” experts mentioned in conversation with Healthline.
Rachel Morman, Chair of Verity PCOS UK (United Kingdom) conveyed, “This shift will reframe the conversation and demand that it is taken as seriously as the long-term, complex health condition it is.” Over the next three years, PMOS will be progressively standardised worldwide and inculcated in 2028 International Guideline update.
Why this is crucial for India
PMOS cases are sharply increasing in India, particularly among young urban women and teenagers. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-supported PCOS investigation, is one of the largest in the country, revealed a major regional distinction in frequency and warned of rising metabolic problems within women.
According to a number of findings, estimated incidences might range from 3.7% to more than 22%, depending on region and diagnostic parameters. Scholars have connected the upsurge to sedentary lifestyles and the intake of processed foods, growing obesity, insomnia and stress alongside genetic predisposition.
These women also appeared to be at greater risk for metabolic issues at younger ages. According to a publication in the Indian Journal of Medical Research, almost one-third of Indian women with PMOS have metabolic syndrome. The doctors stated that the latest nomenclature might help divert attention from challenges pertaining to reproduction and stimulate early identification for mental health troubles and cardiovascular disease.
It should support a more interdisciplinary and proactive attitude for care while encouraging early screening for obesity, diabetes, hypertension and other metabolic problems in India.
The renaming might contribute to a reduction in the stigma surrounding the condition
This is a condition of stigmas. According to WHO, the symptoms associated with the condition are socially stigmatised in several settings, damaging relationships with family and friends, job opportunities, a sense of belonging, mental health and other facets of wellbeing. Depression, anxiety, negative body image and issues with socialisation are more usual in the patients.
screenshot from the Lancet article
The stigma is founded on lack of awareness and cultural expectations, especially for female bodies. It is probably experienced differently depending on the specific range of symptoms each person exhibits. These women feel alienated and secluded when they fail to convey their state to the outside world. This is even deemed as a “taboo” because of its correlation with menstruation and the ability to become pregnant.
Basically, a condition that affects the overall endocrine and metabolic health of women throughout their lives, impacts their physical and mental wellbeing, was wrongly confined to just their ovaries, making the whole conversation only about ‘reproductive health’, as if women do not exist beyond their reproductive system, as if women matter only in their reproductive age and not before or after that, as if women deserve to be properly treated only when they are pregnant or trying to be pregnant.
Thus, the new term could aide in lessening the stigma attached to infertility, hair growth, weight gain, acne and hirsutism, boost patient and healthcare provider awareness and facilitate timely recognition.
There’s more to the renaming of PCOS to PMOS than just an adjustment in terminology. It is an embodiment of the expanding scientific knowledge that this is a complicated endocrine and metabolic disorder that affects women’s health for the rest of their lives. It has the potential to raise awareness, mitigate stigma and encourage proactive care in India and abraod where millions of women are undiagnosed or mistreated.
The change of name is a welcome step, because it’s a long-overdue correction that could save millions of women from silent suffering by finally naming the real enemy, and not confining a complex, multi-faceted condition to just ovaries.
After over 18 months, US authorities have decided to resolve the long-standing criminal and civil fraud cases against Gautam Adani, the chairman of the Adani Group. As per reports, the US Justice Department is set to drop bribery and fraud charges against Gautam Adani and others associated with the company. The Securities and Exchange Commission has also announced a settlement in a related civil case, imposing a collective penalty of $18 million on Gautam Adani and his nephew, Sagar Adani.
Amidst these reports, The New York Times has floated a misleading narrative that the Adanis made a $10 billion investment offer in the USA that led to the settlement agreement.
On 14th May, The New York Times published an article headlined, “U.S. Set to Drop Charges Against Indian Billionaire Accused of Fraud”, wherein it claimed that the decision by the US authorities to drop charges against Gautam Adani came after “a meeting in which a lawyer for the billionaire, Gautam Adani, made an unusual offer, according to people familiar with the matter.”
“Another slide also offered the government a sweetener: If prosecutors dropped the charges, Mr. Adani would be willing to invest $10 billion in the American economy and create 15,000 jobs, echoing a pledge he made in the wake of Mr. Trump’s election. While prosecutors later told Mr. Giuffra that the $10 billion investment would play no role in the resolution of the case, his offer received a favorable response from at least one senior Justice Department official at the meeting, according to the people familiar with the meeting,” the NYT article reads.
In no time, several media publications in India picked up the NYT’s story without much deliberation over the factual accuracy of the US-based propaganda outlet’s claim.
In this vein, the Indian Express published an article headlined, “US set to drop charges against Gautam Adani after lawyer makes $10-bn offer: NYT Report”.
Hindustan Times followed suit and published a report with the headline, “US planning to drop charges against Gautam Adani over ‘willingness’ to invest, create jobs: Report”.
HT cited the NYT report to claim that the settlement came after Adani’s lawyer offered an investment commitment to the tune of $10 bn and the creation of 15,000 jobs.
Another news outlet, PGurus, also amplified the same misleading NYT story.
Unsurprisingly, leftist rag The Wire also pushed the ‘$10 bn investment for settlement’ narrative concocted by the NYT.
In addition to Indian media, several foreign news outlets notorious for their anti-India bias, like DW, also jumped on the bandwagon.
Meanwhile, politics in India has also heated up as the same anti-BJP parties that give contracts to the Adani Group but abuse him day in and out to score political points against the Modi government have relied on the NYT-peddled misleading narrative to throw shade at PM Modi.
In this vein, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who coined the term ‘Modani’ to allege that PM Modi grants illegal favours to Gautam Adani, posted on X, “The compromised PM did not strike a trade deal, but a bargain for Adani’s release.”
However, contrary to the narrative peddled by The New York Times and its amplification by the media in and outside India, the reality is that US authorities have not agreed to settle the cases against Gautam Adani and his nephew due to the lure of investment.
Did US Justice Department and SEC agree to settle cases against Adani for a $10 bn investment offer?
As a narrative is being pushed that PM Modi’s supposed close ‘acolyte’ has secured a settlement in the bribery case by offering a huge job-generating investment, it is crucial to separate propaganda from confirmed facts.
In April 2026, a legal team led by Robert J. Giuffra Jr., the lawyer representing Gautam Adani, participated in a meeting at the DoJ headquarters. In this meeting, Giuffra presented a defence contending insufficient evidence, lack of US jurisdiction, since the alleged conduct occurred entirely in India and bonds were not listed on US exchanges, and investors were repaid in full, thus causing no investor harm.
During the meeting, Giuffra ran a 100-slide presentation, with one of the slides referencing the $10 bn investment pledge that would generate around 15,000 jobs. This 100-slide presentation mainly focused on why the prosecutors lacked evidence against the Adanis.
It is not surprising that Adani’s legal team highlighted this investment pledge. In fact, this pledge itself was made by Gautam Adani in November 2024, after Donald Trump’s electoral triumph.
In an X post published on 13th November 2024, Gautam Adani wrote, “Congratulations to @realDonaldTrump. As the partnership between India and the United States deepens, the Adani Group is committed to leveraging its global expertise and invest $10 billion in US energy security and resilient infrastructure projects, aiming to create up to 15,000 jobs.”
The NYT itself mentions that Giuffra’s mention of the $10 billion investment was not new; the slide in question only echoed “a pledge he had made in the wake of Mr. Trump’s election.” The report further says that while one of the Justice Department officials reacted favourably, prosecutors, however, made it clear that this will not affect the resolution of the criminal case.
In the same report, the NYT contradicts itself. On one hand, it says that the decision to drop charges against Adani came after his lawyer made an ‘unusual investment offer’, on the other, it mentions that the prosecutors told Giuffra that the $10 billion investment “would play no role in the resolution of the criminal case.”
How can the settlement agreement have been arrived at based on the $10 bn investment pledge when the prosecutors already said that this pledge will have no effect on the criminal case’s resolution?
Clearly, The New York Times report mentions facts but adds a dash of misleading narrative that has now fuelled a political storm in India, handing the Modi detractors a chance to lend credence to their ‘Modani fraud’ and ‘compromised PM’ bogey even as the Indian Prime Minister has nothing to do with the case(s) against Adani and his nephew.
Neither the Justice Department nor the SEC has said that the Adanis have admitted to the accusations and charges brought against the company. The company has repeatedly denied the allegations and has maintained that US authorities have no jurisdiction, as none of the alleged transactions took place in the USA.
In a statement issued on 14th May, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said that the Commission has “moved for entry of final judgments by consent as to Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani, whom the SEC previously charged with making false and misleading statements in connection with a 2021 bond offering by Adani Green Energy Ltd.”
The SEC stated that Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani have not admitted or denied the allegations in the complaint filed against them, and that the duo have “consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin each from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, the final judgments.”
If and when the court approves the entry of final judgments, the court would order Gautam Adani to pay $6 million and his nephew Sagar Adani to pay a $12 million monetary penalty.
“Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani each consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin each from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, the final judgments, if approved by the court, would order Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani to pay civil monetary penalties of $6,000,000 and $12,000,000, respectively,” the SEC statement reads.
This came after the Adanis challenged the civil case by the SEC in a federal court in New York in April this year. The Adanis sought dismissal of the case. In filings before the Brooklyn federal court, the Adanis denied the allegations brought against them in the 2021 case pertaining to a $750 million bond offering by Adani Green Energy Ltd.
Background of the cases against Gautam and Sagar Adani
The cases against Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani stem from a November 20, 2024, indictment unsealed in federal court in Brooklyn. Prosecutors accused Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani, and Adani Green Energy executive Vneet Jaain, along with other executives, of orchestrating a scheme to pay or promise more than $250 million in bribes to Indian government officials. The alleged bribes were intended to secure solar energy supply contracts worth billions of dollars in potential profits.
The US authorities had also alleged that the defendants concealed the bribery from US and international investors while raising more than $3 billion in capital, including funds from US investors, violating securities and wire fraud laws as well as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Adani Group has consistently denied the allegations, describing them as “baseless” and vowing to pursue all legal recourse. No defendants appeared in a US court, as they remain in India, complicating extradition efforts under the US-India treaty.
Interestingly, the charges were presented against them by Breon Stacey Peace, who was the 48th United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. OpIndia reported earlier that Breon Peace had a connection to George Soros, hinting at a larger conspiracy to yet again damage the Indian industrialist’s reputation and business.
The latest development that both the DoJ and the SEC are set to drop charges against the Adanis comes a month after a US federal judge granted a request from the defendants for a pre-motion conference, advancing their effort to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit filed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In the plea, Adani Group argued that the case involves Indian defendants, an Indian issuer, securities not registered or traded in the US, and conduct alleged to have occurred entirely in India, making it an improper extraterritorial application of US law. There are no plausible allegations linking Gautam Adani to drafting, reviewing, or approving any specific misstatements or showing that he even knew about them.
However, the NYT report’s framing of the meeting as a “previously unreported meeting last month at the Justice Department’s headquarters in Washington” gives the impression that it was somehow secretive, intended to secure a backdoor deal.
Bottom line: Gautam Adani had pledged a $10 billion investment in November 2024, right after Donald Trump won the presidential election against Kamala Harris. The same investment pledge was cited in one of the 100-slide presentations displayed by Adani’s lawyer Giuffra during a pre-motion conference in April this year. But the prosecutors had made it clear that such a pledge would not affect the resolution of the criminal case.
The New York Times mentioned this fact in their report, but chose to frame the settlement agreement as an outcome of this “unusual offer”, giving the impression that the dropping of the charges against the Adanis is an outcome of this offer. Such a misleading framing of facts creates a perception that the Adanis have indeed indulged in the bribery and fraud charges brought against them and are now buying out a ‘settlement’ by offering massive investments boosting the US economy and jobs.
A serious law and order situation emerged in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, late at night on 12th May after a Muslim mob of hundreds came out on the streets to protest, raising slogans of ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ (beheading calls), Allahu Akbar, and pelting stones. The mob came out after a Muslim man was caught with a Hindu woman in a hotel by Hindu activists.
An FIR was lodged by the police in connection with the incident, and three accused were arrested. Ayush Gupta, Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Bhopal zone 1, said that the police are conducting searches to nab the remaining accused. “We are also analysing video footage to identify more people. We are also holding dialogue with the city Qazi and other leaders of the community,” DCP told the Hindu.
After two days of ruckus and disruption of Bhopal’s peaceful atmosphere in the name of protests against Hindus who caught an alleged “love jihad” accused, the police finally serviced them properly last night. pic.twitter.com/yHKlEZYVM0
The Muslim mob turned violent and vandalised the vehicles parked on the streets, including police vehicles. The police resorted to a lathi charge to disperse the mob. Subsequently, the police imposed Section 163 of the BNSS (Section 144 CrPC) to prohibit public gatherings in Peer Gate, Shahjahanabad, and the surrounding areas. Police personnel were deployed in the area to maintain peace.
#BIG | Islamist mob takes to the streets in Bhopal, raising beheading slogans against Hindu activists.
The crowd chanted, “Tera Mera rishta kya… La ilaha illallah”; “Gustakhe Nabi ki ek saza… Sar tan se juda”; “Naara-e-Taqbeer… Allahu Akbar.”
Viral videos show Islamists threatening with dire consequences
Several videos emerged on social media after the violent demonstration and the resultant police action. In the videos, Islamists can be seen openly provoking religious sentiments and threatening the police with dire consequences if they fail to take action against those perceived by the Islamists as threatening Islam.
Islamists in Bhopal are openly talking about violence, mobilising Muslims even from other states, and at some places, STSJ slogans were also raised. Hope the MP-govt is prepared… pic.twitter.com/7zoTufUCPo
An Islamist threatened to catch and beat Hindu women in the streets
In a video, an enraged Islamist threatened that Muslims are capable of picking Hindu women and thrashing them on the streets, but they choose to abide by the Constitution. He accused the police of allowing the people who beat up the Muslim man to take the law into their own hands. He vowed to kill the people if a satisfactory action is not taken against them by the police.A
"If Muslims wants, we will catch each Hindu girls, & we will beat them on roads. But we respect constitution (that's why we are trapping them through Love Jihad) & not kidnapping them from the road or beating them."
— Radharamn Das राधारमण दास (@RadharamnDas) May 14, 2026
Muslim man found in a hotel room with a Hindu woman
The Muslim mob was outraged over a recent incident where some members of a Hindu organisation allegedly beat a Muslim man after he was found in a hotel room with a Hindu woman in the Gautam Nagar area of Bhopal. The incident happened on 9th May, when some Bajrang Dal activists received an input about a Muslim man and a Hindu woman meeting at the Pride Hotel.
A group of Bajrang Dal members arrived at the hotel and entered the room where the couple was staying. They reportedly dragged the Muslim man named Arif Khan out of the room and stripped him half-naked. They smeared his face with ink and cow dung and paraded him through the street.
Arif Khan was found at the hotel by Bajrang Dal members (Images via X)
The Govindpura police registered a case in connection with the incident against 7 accused, of whom 2 have been arrested. Bhopal Police Commissioner Sanjay Kumar said that the accused have been booked under stringent provisions. He urged people to abstain from spreading rumours and posting or sharing provocative content on social media. He said that strict action will be taken against those found disturbing the peace of the area.
Notably, several Hindu organisations have grown vigilant with the recent rise in the cases of Love Jihad, where several Hindu women were found trapped and exploited by Muslim men, who lied to them about their real identities. In several cases, Hindu women were saved due to the alertness of members of Hindu organisations.
