Home Blog Page 2

‘India is secular’: Bombay HC rushes to rescue Dia Mirza’s Diwali sermon, but where is this environmental concern during Bakrid?

Jinit Jain
-
0
‘India is secular’: Bombay HC rushes to rescue Dia Mirza’s Diwali sermon, but where is this environmental concern during Bakrid?

There is something deeply peculiar about India’s secularism discourse. When Hindus celebrate Diwali, they are expected to listen to lectures on pollution, reconsider their traditions and modify the way they celebrate their festivals. When candles are burned, decorative lights are switched on and other forms of festive consumption take place during Christmas, nobody launches a nationwide moral campaign asking Christians to reconsider their celebrations. When thousands of animals are slaughtered during Bakrid, environmental concerns and animal welfare rarely receive the kind of celebrity-driven public sermonising that Diwali attracts.

But the moment somebody questions why Hindus should be lectured about celebrating their own festival, the country’s secular credentials suddenly become a matter of constitutional concern.

The latest example is the Bombay High Court’s intervention in the controversy surrounding actor Dia Mirza’s anti-firecracker video.

On Tuesday, November 3, the Bombay High Court directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to restore Mirza’s video promoting an environment-friendly Diwali after the civic body removed it following objections from BJP leaders.

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale expressed displeasure over the comments made by politicians, saying it was “disturbed by the stray comments made by some politicians”.

The court reminded everyone that India is a secular country and observed that environmental protection was an issue affecting everybody, irrespective of religion or caste.

“Everyone is breathing the same air, be it anyone,” the bench remarked.

Fair enough. Everyone does breathe the same air. But does the same principle apply when the environmental consequences of other religious celebrations are discussed?

The court could have confined its intervention to questioning why the BMC selectively removed Mirza’s video while retaining similar appeals featuring Madhuri Dixit, Nishigandha Wad and cricketer Ajinkya Rahane. That would have been a perfectly legitimate question about the civic body’s conduct.

Instead, the court chose to invoke secularism and expressed its hurt over political comments.

The larger question, however, is whether secularism requires Hindus to accept unsolicited instructions on how to celebrate their festivals, or whether environmental responsibility should be applied uniformly across communities.

When Diwali becomes an environmental problem, but other festivals escape similar scrutiny

Every year, as Diwali approaches, a familiar exercise begins. Celebrities, environmental activists and public figures start telling Hindus how they should celebrate their festival.

Firecrackers are targeted, traditional celebrations are questioned, and citizens are reminded that their festivities must conform to the environmental expectations of a select group of self-appointed moral guardians.

There is nothing wrong with discussing pollution caused by firecrackers. Air pollution is a genuine public-health concern, and responsible celebrations are worth encouraging. But why does this environmental consciousness become so conspicuous when Hindus celebrate Diwali?

Consider Christmas. Candles are an integral part of several Christmas celebrations, alongside decorative lighting, plastic decorations, packaging and other forms of festive consumption. Candles themselves have an environmental footprint through the materials used in their production and the emissions generated when they burn. Yet nobody expects the courts to intervene or Bollywood celebrities to produce videos instructing Christians on how they should celebrate Christmas.

Then comes Bakrid, when large numbers of animals are sacrificed as part of religious observances.

The environmental consequences of livestock production are hardly a matter of conjecture. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in its 2023 assessment, estimated that global livestock agrifood systems accounted for approximately 12% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, using 2015 as the reference year. The assessment includes emissions associated with cattle, buffaloes, sheep, goats and other livestock, covering production and supply-chain activities.

This does not mean that all livestock emissions can be attributed to Bakrid. But it does raise legitimate questions about the environmental footprint of large-scale animal consumption and the need to discuss it honestly.

The Animal Welfare Board of India has also repeatedly issued advisories ahead of Bakrid, asking state authorities to prevent illegal animal slaughter, cruelty during transportation and violations of animal welfare laws. Its June 2023 advisory specifically noted that large numbers of animals were likely to be slaughtered during the festival and called for strict enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and relevant slaughterhouse rules.

The question is simple: why is there no comparable celebrity-led campaign asking people to examine the environmental and animal-welfare implications of large-scale animal consumption?

Why do we not see Bollywood celebrities recording videos asking people to reconsider wasteful consumption or highlighting the environmental footprint of livestock production during Bakrid?

If the argument is that everyone breathes the same air, then surely everyone should be equally accountable for the environmental consequences of their actions.

Environmental responsibility cannot be a one-way street where Hindu traditions are repeatedly scrutinised while other religious practices are treated as subjects that must not be questioned.

Bombay High Court’s secularism argument raises more questions than it answers

The Bombay High Court’s observation that India is a secular country is hardly controversial. What deserves scrutiny is the context in which the observation was made.

The immediate issue before the court was the BMC’s decision to remove a video after political objections. The civic body had commissioned several celebrities to promote an environmentally conscious Diwali in accordance with judicial directions. Mirza’s video was removed while similar messages from other personalities remained available.

The court was justified in questioning this inconsistency.

However, the controversy also raises a question about the judiciary’s approach to public discourse surrounding religious festivals. Why must every objection to an environmental campaign involving Diwali be framed as a threat to secularism?

There is a difference between opposing pollution-control measures and questioning the manner in which those measures are communicated.

People can support cleaner air while also questioning why a particular celebrity should be appointed to tell them how to celebrate a festival that has been part of their civilisational traditions for centuries.

The court’s observation that it had not seen politicians making similar videos about pollution also deserves some perspective. Public representatives are not environmental campaign managers, and their failure to record awareness videos does not invalidate questions about the consistency of celebrity activism.

More importantly, a court’s observations carry considerable moral and institutional weight. Invoking secularism in a dispute over a civic body’s social media campaign risks shifting the discussion away from the actual issue: whether environmental standards and public awareness campaigns are being applied consistently.

Secularism should guarantee equal treatment of communities, not create an expectation that the majority must constantly defend its cultural practices against public lectures.

If a court wants everyone to breathe cleaner air, it should encourage a consistent environmental conversation across communities. It should not allow the impression to grow that Diwali is uniquely deserving of judicial and celebrity-led moral scrutiny.

Dia Mirza: Bollywood’s environmental crusader has her own record of public sermons

The controversy is also an opportunity to revisit Dia Mirza’s much-publicised environmental activism.

Mirza has positioned herself as one of Bollywood’s prominent environmental voices. She has repeatedly spoken about plastic pollution, sustainable living, climate change and the need for ordinary citizens to change their consumption habits.

However, her interventions have often raised questions about the manner in which she approaches environmental activism and whether she understands the realities of the people she chooses to lecture.

In June 2026, Mirza appeared on Soha Ali Khan’s podcast and narrated an incident involving her five-year-old son, Avyaan, and a coconut water delivery worker.

According to Mirza, the delivery worker had brought coconuts packed in plastic bags and accompanied by plastic straws. Her son objected to the packaging and instructed the worker to take the plastic back, saying that plastic was not allowed in their house.

Mirza appeared to take pride in her son’s environmental consciousness and his willingness to stand up against plastic consumption.

But what exactly was the delivery worker supposed to do?

He was simply delivering an order. He was hardly responsible for deciding how the business packaged its products. If Mirza had an objection to plastic packaging, she could have taken it up with the supplier or chosen an alternative arrangement.

Instead, an ordinary delivery worker became the subject of an anecdote about environmental awareness in a celebrity household.

This is precisely where celebrity activism begins to look disconnected from ground realities. People working ordinary jobs do not necessarily have the power to dictate the packaging policies of the businesses they work for. Environmental responsibility also requires an understanding of their economic circumstances.

Then came another remarkable intervention.

During the same podcast appearance, Mirza made sweeping remarks about men being responsible for climate change and declared that patriarchy was the cause of the climate crisis.

“It is the men in this world. It is the men who have driven climate change, and they are totally responsible for the chaos,” she said.

She subsequently clarified that she was referring to patriarchal systems of domination, extraction and consumption rather than blaming every individual man.

Nevertheless, reducing a complicated global crisis involving fossil fuels, industrialisation, deforestation, corporate emissions and government policies to an ideological explanation raises questions about the substance of such environmental commentary.

There is also the larger question of celebrity lifestyles. Environmental responsibility cannot be measured merely by the number of awareness campaigns a celebrity participates in or the number of public lectures she delivers. It must also involve consistency in everyday consumption and an honest assessment of one’s own environmental footprint.

These episodes do not establish that Mirza personally violates every environmental principle she advocates. But they do expose the limitations of her approach and the disconnect between celebrity activism and the realities of ordinary Indians.

The problem is not that Mirza advocates cleaner air or reduced plastic consumption. These are legitimate concerns. The problem begins when environmental advocacy turns into public sermonising, with celebrities assuming the authority to instruct ordinary citizens on how they should live and celebrate their festivals.

Hindus do not need Bollywood celebrities to explain Diwali to them

There is a recurring pattern in India’s public discourse. Diwali is discussed through the prism of air pollution, Holi through water conservation, Ganesh Chaturthi through immersion-related pollution and other Hindu celebrations through questions about noise, safety and environmental damage.

Some of these concerns are legitimate and deserve attention. Hindu communities can and should explore ways to make their celebrations more sustainable.

But why is the same urgency not visible when other religious practices are discussed?

Why should Hindus be expected to accept lectures about firecrackers while questions about the environmental footprint of other festive practices are often conspicuously absent from mainstream celebrity activism?

Why should an actor’s video become an occasion for the Bombay High Court to remind everyone that India is secular, while the broader principle of equal environmental accountability receives so little attention?

There is no reason why Hindus should be exempt from environmental regulations. But neither should their religious traditions become convenient targets for celebrities seeking to demonstrate their environmental credentials.

The BMC was wrong to selectively remove Mirza’s video if its campaign was genuinely based on public-health concerns. The Bombay High Court was entitled to question that decision. But the judiciary should also be mindful that invoking secularism in such controversies can create an impression that questioning celebrity sermons directed at Hindus is somehow incompatible with India’s constitutional values.

Dia Mirza is free to advocate a cracker-free Diwali. Citizens are equally free to question her approach, examine her record and ask why her environmental sermons appear so selective.

And the Bombay High Court is free to insist that public awareness campaigns should not be withdrawn because of political pressure. But it should also recognise that secularism does not require Hindus to surrender their right to question the manner in which their festivals are portrayed or policed.

If everyone breathes the same air, everyone must be held to the same environmental standards. If every festival deserves respect, no community should be singled out for unsolicited moral instruction. And if environmental activism is to command public respect, those who preach it must demonstrate consistency rather than expect unquestioning acceptance of their sermons.

Medical expenses and the myth of free healthcare in government hospitals

श्रवण शुक्ल
-
0
Medical expenses and the myth of free healthcare in government hospitals

On 27 October 2026, a bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard a compelling public interest petition that laid bare the stark realities of India’s healthcare ecosystem. The court was presented with the case of a drug distributor’s wife receiving cancer treatment at a major private hospital. A chemotherapy injection available on the open market for ₹11,000 was barred from being brought from outside, and the hospital billed it to the patient at a staggering ₹1.30 lakh.

Expressing deep dismay, the bench questioned the justification for such “open plunder” and asked where the money leaving patients’ pockets ultimately goes. During the proceedings, other startling disclosures emerged – such as a saline drip line costing retailers ₹15 being billed at ₹250 by hospitals. Observing that approximately 90 per cent of medicines remain outside price control frameworks, the court bluntly remarked that these are human lives, not commercial trades. While private hospital counsels argued that high margins compensate for public infrastructure gaps, the Supreme Court firmly rejected the notion that institutions can mark up essential life-saving medicines by 100 to 200 times.

Price controls on cancer drugs: progress and persistent gaps

Shortly before these judicial observations, the Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers announced a significant policy intervention on 8 October 2026. Trade margins on all non-scheduled cancer drugs were capped at a maximum of 30% over the Price to Retailer (PTR) to determine the MRP, effective from 9 November 2026. According to the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), the MRPs of 543 cancer-related drug formulations and packs were revised, resulting in dramatic cost reductions for several treatments- such as Palbociclib and Thiotepa.

However, patient rights activists, including Malini Aisola of the All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN), note that several extremely high-cost immunotherapy and specialized drugs, such as Keytruda, priced at over ₹2.16 lakh, remain entirely outside this price control ambit. Analysts point out that exemptions granted to certain manufacturer assistance programmes and distributor margins still leave room for substantial markups, keeping financial toxicity a primary concern for cancer care.

Price control on cancer drugs

Decoding healthcare expenses: Insights from the NSS 80th round

While high-profile cancer cases highlight extreme medical costs, everyday health burdens for the masses involve common ailments like fevers, infections, hypertension, and diabetes. The 80th round of the National Sample Survey (NSS) on Household Social Consumption: Health, conducted by MoSPI between January and December 2025 and released in April 2026, offers authentic insights into Out-of-Pocket Medical Expenditure (OOPME).

The survey data reveals a wide chasm between public and private healthcare facilities:

  1. Average Admission Costs: The average out-of-pocket expenditure per hospital admission in a private hospital is roughly seven and a half times higher than in a government facility₹50,508 vs ₹6,631. At the median level, the gap widens to 22 times ₹24,000 vs ₹1,100.
  2. Institutional Childbirth: Deliveries in government hospitals incur an average out-of-pocket cost of ₹2,299 (median ₹801), compared to an average of ₹37,630 (median ₹32,000) in private setups.
  3. OPD Services: Outpatient department (OPD) visits in government hospitals reflect a median expenditure of zero, indicating that more than half of public OPD treatments are entirely free.

Despite these low public OPD costs, the share of total hospital admissions handled by government facilities has dropped to 36.7 per cent, down from roughly 42 per cent in the 2017-18 survey. Analyses by health experts like Oommen C. Kurian of the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) show that roughly two out of every three hospitalized patients now turn to the private sector.

Average & Median OOPME

The three cracks in government hospitals: Medicines, machines and specialists

The preference for private facilities stems from fundamental supply chain bottlenecks within public institutions, often categorized into three major structural gaps:

  1. The medicine window shortage: Essential Drug Lists (EDLs) exist on paper, but Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audits across states like Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, and Rajasthan highlight frequent stockouts. Procurement delays force patients to secure essential prescriptions from external retail stores at full MRP.
  2. Idle diagnostic equipment: Advanced diagnostic machines (CT scanners, MRIs, and ultrasound units) frequently remain non-operational in district and rural hospitals due to a lack of trained technicians, radiologists, or delayed annual maintenance contracts (AMCs), pushing patients toward costly private laboratories.
  3. The human resource famine: Official data from the Ministry of Health’s Health Dynamics of India reports underscores a severe shortage of specialist doctors in rural Community Health Centres (CHCs). With nearly 80 per cent vacancy rates for surgeons, physicians, obstetricians-gynaecologists, and paediatricians, rural CHCs are unable to perform basic surgical procedures, triggering mandatory referrals to urban medical centers.

Ayushman Bharat (PM-JAY) and the burden of hidden costs

The Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) has expanded coverage significantly empanelling over 38,700 hospitals and extending benefits to senior citizens aged 70 and above. However, evaluation studies submitted to NITI Aayog’s DMEO indicate that roughly 65 per cent of beneficiaries treated in private hospitals still incur out-of-pocket expenses for non-covered items, diagnostics, and medicines. Furthermore, logistical expenses such as private ambulance transport, lodging, food, and wage losses remain outside scheme packages, placing continuous pressure on low-income households.

Conclusion: towards a true right to health

Recent National Health Accounts (NHA) estimates for 2022-23 indicate that government health expenditure has risen to ₹3.85 lakh crore (1.43% of GDP), helping lower the overall out-of-pocket share to 43.4 per cent. Yet, families still bear a substantial portion of day-to-day medical costs directly.

As the Supreme Court aptly noted, healthcare is fundamentally about human lives rather than commercial enterprise. Bridging the gap between policy claims and ground realities will require sustained financial investment in public infrastructure, uninterrupted medicine supply chains, functional diagnostic assets, and adequate deployment of rural specialists to ensure universal and truly free healthcare.

(This report was published on Chapter1Mag. Click here to read the detailed story.)

No Diwali in sight but Delhi’s AQI is above 300: Read how the Hindu festival has been maligned all these years for air pollution

Shriti Sagar
-
0
No Diwali in sight but Delhi’s AQI is above 300: Read how the Hindu festival has been maligned all these years for air pollution

On Monday, 2nd November, Delhi’s air quality deteriorated to the ‘very poor’ category for the first time this season, as a thick layer of smog enveloped the national capital ahead of Diwali. The Air Quality Index (AQI) stood at 307 at 7:05 AM on Monday, according to data from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). The city had recorded a 24-hour average AQI of 261 (“poor”) on Sunday, marking a sharp deterioration from 117 (“moderate”) a day earlier. On Friday, 30th October, the AQI had dropped to just 60 following heavy rainfall, giving Delhi its cleanest October air quality reading in four years. However, the improvement proved short-lived, with pollution levels rising sharply over the weekend.

Delhi’s AQI crosses 300 even before Diwali celebrations

Diwali is just around the corner, but Delhi’s AQI has already crossed the 300 mark, with the capital’s air quality entering the ‘very poor’ category. The city has witnessed a sharp deterioration even before the festival of lights, with no Diwali firecrackers having been burst yet. The AQI had already climbed to 261 on Sunday, placing the city in the ‘poor’ category, before crossing 300 on Monday morning.

The timing of the deterioration has also brought the annual debate around Diwali and air pollution into focus. Every year, Delhi’s AQI is discussed in connection with firecrackers, with the Hindu festival frequently singled out as a major reason behind the capital’s deteriorating air quality. This happens irrespective of whether firecrackers are banned, restricted or permitted in the form of so-called green crackers. 

This year, Diwali falls on 8th November, later than it does in several years. The Hindu lunar calendar has an additional month, known as Adhik Maas, in 2026, which affects the timing of festivals. Consequently, the capital has entered the ‘very poor’ air quality category before the festival itself. 

Over the years, Diwali has become a ‘festival of ridicule’ for liberals and propagandists. Every year, they come out and blame Hindus for bursting fireworks, claiming it worsens the air quality. But this year, with no Diwali in sight yet, Delhi’s AQI is already above 300. This narrative highlights how the leftist ecosystem and media have targeted Diwali and Hindu festivals for years whenever Delhi’s AQI increased after Diwali. 

The selective targeting in previous years is evident in the public commentary from several leftists and social media users:

Rocky Singh, who got famous from a food show, wrote last year just a day after Diwali, “DELHI AIR POLLUTION WAS AT LETHAL LEVELS YESTERDAY”.

Photographer Atul Kasbekar wrote: “In the name of ‘religion’ people in north India are voluntarily destroying their health”.

X user “The Protagonist” wrote: “F**k all of you, pathetic imbeciles for making life miserable. FYI India accounts for about 46% of global asthma deaths, and roughly 200,000 people die each year in India from asthma,” while sharing an image of an asthma inhaler.

X user Jatin Gupta wrote, “Delhi is a city full of buffoons and idiots. The air is unbreathable now because some dimwits think burning crackers = Diwali. Just dumb. Plain Dumb.”

Such remarks reflect how the Hindu festival frequently becomes a target of leftists whenever pollution levels rise during the winter months. By focusing almost exclusively on a seasonal festival that lasts a couple of days, these liberals overlook structural, atmospheric, and year-round contributors to NCR’s pollution, turning a complex environmental crisis into an ideological target. Instead of examining the multiple sources responsible for the capital’s pollution, the annual discussion often turns into a campaign against Hindus celebrating Diwali and bursting firecrackers.

What really chokes Delhi? Multiple pollution sources that are often ignored

The annual targeting of Diwali over Delhi’s pollution crisis also overlooks several facts about the sources responsible for deteriorating air quality. The left-liberal ecosystem frequently focuses on firecrackers while ignoring the impact of vehicular emissions, construction dust, industrial pollution, crop residue burning, waste burning and unfavourable meteorological conditions. These factors combine to create the toxic winter air that Delhi residents experience every year.

OpIndia’s vertical Chapter1 magazine reported the issue in detail, explaining the multiple factors responsible for choking the national capital. 

According to the report, temperature inversion, weak winds, local emissions, and early stubble burning have all had a combined effect. Stubble’s share in Delhi’s PM2.5 was recently put at around 4%, with projections to rise between 8 and 13% over subsequent days. 

In Punjab, 174 stubble burning cases had been recorded by 13th October, against 126 by the same date the previous year. On 18th October, 208 fire incidents were recorded across seven states, with more than half of them concentrated in Punjab.

The situation is similar across international borders. Smoke from forest fires in Indonesia has reached Malaysia and Singapore, pushing PM2.5 levels in Singapore up to 284. Schools have had to be shut in several Malaysian states, including Johor, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, and Selangor, along with Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim stated that Malaysia is ready to help Indonesia, and asked his foreign minister to convene a meeting of ASEAN environment ministers.

Delhi is not alone in experiencing transboundary atmospheric issues. Even far wealthier, better-equipped cities have had to live through spells of choking haze where the cause lies entirely beyond their control: Singapore, among the most developed cities in the world, breathes smoke originating from fires in another country.

Setting stubble aside, the broader sources of pollution reveal a clearer picture. The most reliable consolidated account is found in an expert report prepared on the Supreme Court’s direction, which the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) discussed at its February 2026 meeting. Experts from the IITs and other research institutions combined studies conducted between 2015 and 2025 into a single common picture, synthesising ten years of research.

Vehicles (Largest Local Source): Vehicles constitute the largest local source of pollution. Different studies attribute different precise percentages depending on counting methodologies. CAQM’s report places the vehicular share at 23% in winter, matching data from Aaj Tak’s analysis. A 2018 TERI-ARAI study put transport’s share at around 28%. According to the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), across multiple studies, vehicles consistently emerge as the largest ‘combustion’ source, accounting for 51 to 53% of Delhi’s local pollution (excluding external smoke and secondary particles). CSE also noted that at the start of winter, gases like nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide rise alongside PM2.5, directly linking them to vehicle combustion and secondary particle formation.

Who contributes how much to Delhi’s air, winter versus summer

Dust and construction: Dust accounts for 15% of pollution in winter and 27% in summer. This includes road dust, soil dust, and construction-demolition debris. In the 2018 TERI-ARAI study, road dust comprised around 8% and construction around 6% of coarse particles (PM10). Dust control remains among the quickest and most cost-effective measures via road cleaning, paving, green belts, water sprinkling, and construction curbs. Public perception aligns closely with this; surveys show people frequently identify construction dust and garbage burning as their primary surrounding concerns.

Industry and power plants: Industry and thermal power plants together account for 9% in winter and 14% in summer. While lower than vehicles and dust, their gaseous emissions contribute to secondary particle formation in the air. In a May 2026 review, CAQM highlighted six thermal power plants failing to comply with rules regarding stubble co-firing, indicating ongoing monitoring gaps.

Local versus Outside (The airshed concept): CSE analysis showed that in 2025, the share of local sources rose from 27.3% in 2024 to around 35%, meaning local shares increased even when external stubble smoke dipped. Experts stress the concept of an “airshed”; air respects no state boundaries, uniting Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, and parts of Uttar Pradesh under shared atmospheric conditions. CAQM’s expert report factors in both local emissions and regional transport of pollution.

Meteorological & geographical factors

Wind speed plays a decisive role in pollutant dispersion. When wind speeds drop below 10 KM/Hr, pollution cannot clear out effectively. Delhi’s early warning system flags a low ventilation index and slow winds as primary drivers of elevated pollution. On 30th September, the ventilation index fell below 6,000 square metres per second, signalling unfavourable dispersion conditions. While rain alerts influenced by low-pressure systems over the Bay of Bengal were noted across 15 states, with weather shifts around NCR areas like Ghaziabad and Noida, substantial air quality improvements depend on sustained wind movement. Furthermore, snowfall in the mountains brings cold air into the plains, creating strong atmospheric inversion conditions.

Geography actively works against the National Capital Region. Bordered by the Himalayas, the Gangetic plains act as a structural bowl trapping air. Lower nighttime temperatures increase particle density, causing heavy morning haze well before any festive celebrations take place.

What has the government done to tackle Delhi’s pollution?

The Delhi government and the Centre have introduced several measures to tackle the recurring pollution crisis. These include the Air Pollution Mitigation Action Plan announced in April 2026, the new EV Policy 2026, the Winter Action Plan 2026-27 announced on 29th September and the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) implemented by the CAQM.

The measures focus on reducing vehicular emissions, controlling construction dust, monitoring industrial pollution, preventing waste burning and addressing crop residue burning in neighbouring states. The CAQM has also pushed for cleaner vehicles, stricter industrial emission standards and better monitoring infrastructure across Delhi-NCR.

However, the recurring deterioration in air quality shows that these measures require consistent implementation and coordination between Delhi and neighbouring states. A problem involving multiple pollution sources cannot be resolved by focusing on just one activity for a few days every year.

Conclusion

With no Diwali in sight, Delhi’s Air Quality Index has already hit the 300 mark, proving that the city’s toxic haze is driven by deeper geographic, meteorological, and year-round structural factors rather than a Hindu festival. For years, the leftist ecosystem and media targeted Diwali, framing the Hindu festival as the primary culprit behind the Capital’s suffocating air. 

The current reality, where severe air degradation manifests weeks before the festival due to a calendar shift, exposes the flaws in that narrative. Treating a long-standing environmental crisis as an occasion to malign traditional celebrations by Hindus ignores scientific source apportionment, distracting from the sustained, year-round policy actions required to clear Delhi’s skies.

‘OCI cardholder not at par with Indian citizens’: Bombay High Court pulls up Imran Khan, who joined the CJP protest; actor tenders unconditional apology, gets interim relief on Leave India notice; read details 

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
‘OCI cardholder not at par with Indian citizens’: Bombay High Court pulls up Imran Khan, who joined the CJP protest; actor tenders unconditional apology, gets interim relief on Leave India notice; read details 

On 2nd November (Monday), actor Imran Khan tendered an unconditional apology before the Bombay High Court for joining the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest against the Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in early October despite not being an Indian citizen. The Bombay High Court stated that Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholders are not Indian citizens. However, the court granted interim relief to the actor on the Leave India notice issued by the Foreigners Registration Regional Office (FRRO).

After challenging the Leave India notice, Imran Khan tendered an unconditional apology for participating in the CJP protest 

In his apology, Imran Khan said that he has no association with the organisers of the 10th of October protest and was not aware of the consequences of his participation in the protest.  

The 42-year-old actor submitted that he will not participate in any political protests in India in future. 

The apology came after Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna directed Khan to submit an unconditional apology while hearing his challenge to the Leave India notice issued by the Foreigners Registration Regional Office (FRRO) after the actor’s detention in October 2026. 

As Imran Khan, who is an American citizen, tendered an unconditional apology, the Bombay High Court division bench directed the FRRO to extend the Leave India notice issued against the actor. 

What the Bombay High Court said 

During the Monday hearing, the Bombay High Court bench observed that Imran Khan had no business joining the protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, given he is an OCI cardholder and has no voting rights, let alone any supposed discrepancy in the SIR exercise affecting him. 

The bench reminded the petitioner that an OCI cardholder cannot partake in protests in India and their rights are not on par with Indian citizens. It also declared that such behaviour by OCI cardholders will not be tolerated. 

“Suppose you have participated inadvertently, etc then you need to apologise; without such unconditional apology we will not accept your undertaking… Because you are not even remotely affected by SIR… You have no business there… You need to understand that you as an OCI cardholder aren’t at par with Indian citizens…,” the court orally observed. 

“In our order, we will say that you will give him some time to file his response… He will file his undertaking and unconditional apology etc. because (at) some point of time you will show magnanimity and say this man must live here… Considering the fact that he has been living in our country for all these years and has worked here and got recognition from here, then you must show a big heart,” the court said. 

“Also, we may clarify that an OCI Cardholder cannot criticise or venture into all this by living here…this will not be tolerated…. Go to the USA and participate in protests there and you can even go and cast your vote, but you protesting anything here won’t be tolerated” 

The court questioned Khan’s motive behind his presence at the anti-SIR protests in Maharashtra on 10th October. It asked Khan to make clear whether he voluntarily joined the protest or was there for some work unrelated to the protest. 

“What for were you there? There’s a complete difference between the rights of citizens and OCI Cardholders… You need to clarify whether you were there for protests or for some other work? You will have to categorically make a statement that you had no association with the protests, etc. Because the agitation was with regard to SIR, with which you have no concern at all,” the court said. 

Khan’s representative advocate Venkatesh Dhond stressed that his client has no association with the organisers of the 10th of October protest and went to the protest site in Mumbai ‘out of curiosity’. 

However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh, who represented the Centre, contended that while Imran Khan made ‘curiosity’ claims, on social media, he had “instigated people”. 

The court also drew a parallel with how an Indian citizen would be treated if they joined a protest in the US.  

“Imagine if an Indian citizen does such protests in any other country, take, for example, your country – the US. That Indian citizen would have been sent back to the country on the next immediate flight,” the court stated. 

Moreover, the court also questioned why, if Imran Khan lived in India for most of his life, worked and married here, and even became a noted Bollywood actor here, he did not accept Indian citizenship. 

“Since your childhood you have been here. Why don’t you accept Indian citizenship? You have become a Bollywood star here,” it remarked. 

After hearing arguments of both sides, the court decided that the suspension of Leave India notice shall continue till the FRRO decides the matter after allowing Imran Khan an opportunity to respond to the notice. 

Pertinently, the Bombay High Court reiterated that OCI cardholders have no right to participate in political protests in the same way as Indian citizens. It stated that an apology and undertaking not to participate in any protests in future should not be construed as a green signal to indulge in similar activities. 

The next hearing in the matter will take place on 7th December 2026. 

Imran Khan was detained and booked for participating in the CJP protest 

Actor Imran Khan, an American citizen who holds an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card, was issued a notice to leave India following his participation in the CJP protest in Mumbai’s August Kranti Maidan. His partner, actor Lekha Washington, and his cousin Zayne Marie Khan also participated in the protest. 

Khan’s pictures waving a victory sign inside a police van after detention had gone viral online, suggesting that contrary to his submission in court, the actor’s presence at the protest was not out of curiosity.  

Sharing the photograph of himself inside a police van on social media, accompanied by the caption: “Apparently I’m going for a drive”. 

Source: Imran Khan’s Instagram page

The notice, issued by Mumbai Police, invoked provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which empowers the government to regulate the entry, stay, movement and departure of foreign nationals in India. 

Notably, Section 7 of the Act empowers the Central Government to issue directions governing the entry, departure, presence and movement of foreigners in the country. Section 29 specifically deals with the removal of foreign nationals from India. 

Under Section 29, the Central Government can order the removal of a foreigner for violating the Act or rules and orders made under it, or based on an adverse security report. Government officers are also empowered to take reasonable measures to enforce such directions. 

OCI scheme 

The Overseas Citizen of India scheme was introduced in 2005. It allows eligible people of Indian origin who hold foreign citizenship to register for OCI status. 

Despite its name, an OCI card does not grant Indian citizenship. OCI cardholders remain foreign nationals, although they enjoy certain privileges, including a lifelong, multiple-entry visa to India, subject to applicable rules. They are also entitled to specified benefits relating to education, property ownership and certain professional activities. 

Source: MEA website

“OCI is not to be misconstrued as dual citizenship. OCI does not confer political rights. The registered Overseas Citizens of India shall not be entitled to the rights conferred on a citizen of India under Article 16 of the Constitution with regard to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment,” the Central government states. 

BMC deletes Dia Mirza’s anti-cracker video after backlash: A look at her history of performative environmental activism and public sermons

Jinit Jain
-
0
BMC deletes Dia Mirza’s anti-cracker video after backlash: A look at her history of performative environmental activism and public sermons

Bollywood actress Dia Mirza has found herself at the centre of a controversy after the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) deleted her anti-firecracker video from its social media accounts following objections from BJP Mumbai president Ameet Satam.

The actress had appeared in a civic awareness campaign urging Mumbaikars not to burst firecrackers during Diwali. However, Satam questioned why the BMC needed to enlist Mirza to tell people how to celebrate a festival deeply rooted in Indian traditions.

“We don’t need lessons on how to celebrate #Diwali from @deespeak. Our traditions are deeply rooted in our culture,” Satam wrote on X.

The BMC subsequently removed the video without offering an official explanation. Interestingly, similar appeals featuring Madhuri Dixit, Ajinkya Rahane and Marathi actress Nishigandha Wad continued to remain online.

After her video was removed, Mumbai Mayor Rity Tawde slammed the actor, saying that she shouldn’t teach Hindus how to celebrate Diwali. Twade also accused her of running a selective agenda and siding with divisive forces.

Mirza has since defended her participation, saying the video was recorded in the interest of public awareness and that air pollution is a public health concern.

But this controversy has brought back an uncomfortable question about the actress’s much-publicised performative environmental activism. Over the years, Mirza has repeatedly used her celebrity status to advocate sustainable living, lecture people about plastic consumption and offer explanations for environmental degradation. But she has often been found not following them herself.

Here is a look at the controversies surrounding Dia Mirza’s environmental activism.

1. When Dia Mirza’s five-year-old son schooled a coconut delivery worker on plastic pollution

In June 2026, Mirza appeared on Soha Ali Khan’s podcast and narrated an incident involving her five-year-old son, Avyaan, and a coconut water delivery worker.

According to the actress, the worker had arrived with coconuts packed in plastic bags and plastic straws. Her son objected to the packaging and instructed the delivery worker to take the plastic back, as it was not allowed in their house.

Mirza appeared to take pride in her son’s environmental awareness and his willingness to stand up against plastic consumption.

However, the anecdote exposed a rather peculiar approach to environmental activism.

A delivery worker is hardly responsible for deciding how a business packages its products. He is merely delivering an order. If Mirza has an issue with plastic packaging, the logical response would be to address the supplier or find an alternative arrangement rather than turn an interaction with a delivery worker into a lesson on environmental consciousness.

The actress appeared to celebrate her child’s intervention without considering the position of the person standing at her doorstep and doing his job.

Environmental awareness is important. But so is understanding the economic realities of people who cannot dictate the packaging practices of the businesses they work with.

2. When Dia Mirza declared that patriarchy causes climate change

Earlier in June 2026, Mirza triggered another controversy during her appearance on Soha Ali Khan’s podcast.

Discussing climate change, she made an extraordinary assertion that men had driven the climate crisis and were responsible for the resulting chaos.

“It is the men in this world. It is the men who have driven climate change, and they are totally responsible for the chaos,” she said.

She also declared that patriarchy was the cause of climate change.

The actress subsequently clarified that she was referring to patriarchal systems of domination, extraction and consumption, rather than blaming every individual man.

However, the original remarks raised questions about the tendency to turn complicated environmental challenges into ideological arguments.

Climate change is driven by several interconnected factors, including fossil fuel consumption, industrialisation, deforestation, corporate emissions and government policies. Reducing this enormous challenge to patriarchy is hardly an adequate explanation.

For someone who frequently speaks about environmental awareness, a more substantive discussion about practical solutions would arguably have been more useful.

3. The environmental footprint of celebrity lifestyles

Mirza has built a public identity around sustainable living and reducing environmental damage. She has frequently advocated limiting plastic consumption and adopting environmentally responsible practices.

But celebrity activism also raises a question that is rarely addressed with sufficient seriousness: what is the environmental footprint of the lifestyles enjoyed by the very celebrities who lecture ordinary people?

Mirza has often seen in luxury automobiles, and there is a video of Mirza driving a motorcycle doing the rounds on the internet.

Environmental responsibility cannot be measured only by the number of awareness videos a celebrity records or the number of campaigns she endorses. It must also involve consistency in everyday consumption.

4. From environmental campaigns to a Diwali lecture: The latest controversy

The latest episode began after the Bombay High Court pulled up the BMC over rising air pollution and its failure to effectively regulate firecracker use.

The court suggested that celebrities should participate in public awareness campaigns without charging fees. Acting on the observations, the BMC approached several prominent personalities, including Mirza, Madhuri Dixit and Ajinkya Rahane.

Mirza’s video urged citizens to avoid bursting firecrackers and contributing to noise pollution.

Satam objected to her inclusion, saying Indians did not need celebrities to teach them how to celebrate their festivals.

Shiv Sena spokesperson Shaina NC also questioned the message, emphasising Diwali’s cultural significance. Union Minister Ramdas Athawale, meanwhile, said that while excessive pollution was a concern, people also had a constitutional right to celebrate their festivals.

Mirza responded that her message was about public health and a healthier celebration, not an attempt to undermine Diwali.

The BMC eventually deleted her video, although it has not explained why similar videos featuring other celebrities remain online.

5. The larger question about celebrity activism

There is nothing wrong with Dia Mirza advocating cleaner air, reduced plastic consumption or sustainable living. These are legitimate concerns, and celebrities can certainly use their popularity to promote public awareness.

But public awareness should not become public sermonising.

Indians do not need to be treated as though they are incapable of understanding their traditions or making decisions about their celebrations. Nor should people working ordinary jobs become convenient examples in stories about a celebrity family’s environmental consciousness.

The same environmental standards that celebrities expect ordinary citizens to follow must also apply to them. Advocacy becomes more credible when it is accompanied by humility, consistency and an understanding of ground realities.

The BMC’s decision to delete Mirza’s video may have settled the immediate controversy, but it has reopened a much larger debate about celebrity activism, cultural sensitivity and the tendency of Bollywood personalities to assume the role of moral instructors.

Bangladesh’s garment industry on the brink: Why are thousands of workers taking to the streets?

Shriti Sagar
-
0
Bangladesh’s garment industry on the brink: Why are thousands of workers taking to the streets?

Demonstrators in Bangladesh blocked highways and clashed with police as protests in the ready-made garment (RMG) sector entered their third consecutive day on Monday, 2nd November. Demanding a substantial increase in their minimum wages, workers took to the streets across major industrial hubs, forcing several factories to suspend operations amid rising security concerns and fears of violent attacks. 

protesters were prominently reported in Gazipur’s Konabari and Chandra areas near Dhaka, home to a massive concentration of garment manufacturing units. Fearing vandalism and arson, numerous factory owners proactively declared holidays, bringing production to a halt across key manufacturing belts.

Despite the government forming a new wage board on Sunday, 1st November, workers continued their agitation, insisting on a minimum monthly wage of Tk 30,000.

The violence and disruption were not confined to Monday alone; tensions had already flared over the weekend. On Sunday, 1st November, readymade garment workers staged protests across various areas of Savar and Gazipur on the outskirts of Dhaka, pressing their primary demand for a minimum monthly wage increase to Tk 30,000. 

Local media reports indicated that at least 80 factories across these two districts declared holidays on Sunday to protect their facilities. While the situation appeared relatively normal on Sunday morning, it began to deteriorate rapidly in Savar by midday. 

More than 50 factories shut in Savar, police deployed

Police were heavily deployed at key transit points and outside factory gates to maintain law and order. Mohammad Mominul Islam Bhuiyan, superintendent of police of Ashulia Industrial Police-1, confirmed the extent of the disruption while speaking to Prothom Alo, “More than 50 factories in Savar declared holidays.” According to witnesses and officials from Ashulia Industrial Police-1, most factories had opened as normal in the morning. However, workers at Al-Muslim Apparels in Nishchintapur, alongside units belonging to the New Age Group and Trouser Line Ltd, stopped work and remained inside their workplaces, signalling growing internal solidarity with the movement.

The protests quickly turned destructive in several locations. In Gazipur’s Kaliakair upazila, a warehouse storing garment factory waste fabric and a pickup van were set on fire in the Chandra Palli Bidyut on Sunday. At least 30 garment factories in the immediate vicinity declared holidays as a direct consequence of the violence. 

Warehouse and pickup van torched in Gazipur

According to a report by Prothom Alo, a warehouse of a readymade garment industry was set on fire in the Chandra Palli Bidyut area of Kaliakair upazila in Gazipur on Sunday. Earlier that morning, workers from several factories, including Korni Knit Composite and Knit Asia in Ratanpur, Kaliakair, refrained from starting their shifts. After marking their attendance inside their factories, they gathered on the highway near Shafipur Bazar to demonstrate, prompting neighbouring units to shut down for safety.

Shortly after, when a warehouse storing waste fabric belonging to Tropical Garments was set ablaze, a unit from the Kaliakair Fire Service attempted to respond but was actively obstructed by demonstrators. 

To prevent further collapse of public order, five platoons of the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) were deployed to support police forces in controlling the situation. Meanwhile, in Dhaka, workers from several parts of Mirpur blocked a key arterial road, forcing the closure of local metro station gates as police rushed to secure the capital’s transport infrastructure.

Why are garment factory workers protesting?

At the centre of the ongoing unrest is the demand for a substantial increase in the minimum monthly wage for garment workers. The existing minimum wage stands at Tk 12,500, while workers are demanding that it be raised to Tk 30,000, more than double the present amount.

Workers argue that the current pay structure is completely inadequate to cover essential household expenses like food, housing, transport, and healthcare. Their demand has also gained momentum following the Bangladesh government’s recent announcement of a new pay scale for government employees, which is expected to substantially increase government salaries and benefits. Workers are now seeking a comparable revision in their own wages.

Factory owners, however, have voiced strong reservations about meeting such a steep pay raise. Manufacturers point to severe operational headwinds, citing a decline in international export orders, stagnant pricing from global buyers, and soaring costs for imported raw materials. They maintain that these combined financial pressures make a jump to BDT 30,000 virtually impossible without risking widespread factory. 

Outstanding salaries and other workplace grievances

Apart from the minimum wage demand, the protesters have raised several other workplace grievances. These include the payment of outstanding salaries and dues, reinstatement of dismissed employees and an end to the practice of blacklisting workers who participate in labour movements. Workers have also complained that the actual take-home salaries in some factories do not adequately reflect the statutory minimum wage.

The current minimum wage of Tk 12,500 was established in December 2023. Under provisions in the Bangladesh Labour Act, sectoral wages are scheduled to be reviewed every three years to adjust for inflation, meaning the garment sector’s formal wage structure is technically due for its next legal review in December 2026. However, escalating inflation has forced workers to demand immediate relief rather than waiting for the standard statutory schedule.

As the unrest intensified, the situation took on a distinct political dimension. Law enforcement agencies alleged that leaders from ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League, which was banned by the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government, had joined the protests in Dhaka and Gazipur. Affiliated groups like the Sramik League and Chhatra League were also accused of taking part in the workers’ demonstrations.

PM Tarique Rahman holds meeting amid unrest

Amid the escalating protests and clashes, Bangladesh Prime Minister Tarique Rahman held a meeting on Sunday, 1st November, with Home Affairs Minister Salahuddin Ahmed, Labour and Employment Minister Ariful Haque Choudhury and other relevant officials. The meeting took place in the Cabinet Division conference room at the Secretariat in the evening to review the deteriorating situation in the country’s garment industry.

The meeting came as protests, road blockades and incidents of arson were reported in Mirpur, Kaliakair, Savar and Ashulia. Around 300 factories in these areas had declared holidays amid the unrest, while production and transportation were affected.

Following the meeting, the government directed law enforcement agencies and other concerned authorities to take steps to protect garment workers, factories and public property while ensuring that industrial production and export activities continued without disruption. Concurrently, the administration appealed directly to factory owners to keep their units open and work out solutions with labour representatives through constructive dialogue.

Factory closures and supply Chain strains threaten Garment industry 

With the latest protests, Bangladesh’s export engine faces severe economic fallout. The garment sector forms the backbone of the national economy, employing roughly four million workers, generating over 80% of Bangladesh’s export revenue, and contributing around 10% of total GDP. 

Bangladesh serves as the world’s second-largest garment exporter after China. Representatives from both the BGMEA and the Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BKMEA) have warned that extended unrest could force widespread, indefinite closures. Labour and Employment Minister Choudhury similarly cautioned that ongoing operational delays risk causing missed export deadlines and delayed payments from international buyers, placing immense pressure on both factory owners and daily wage earners.

Compounding these sector-wide troubles are major structural closures within top-tier manufacturing groups. Pacific Jeans Limited, the flagship unit of Pacific Group, one of Bangladesh’s premier readymade garment manufacturers and a leading denim supplier to the US and EU, is set to shut down permanently after its building was declared structurally unsafe on Saturday, 31st October, putting approximately 5,500 jobs at risk. 

The major closure of Pacific Jeans Limited occurs alongside broader systemic strains across the entire supply chain. In a move that poses severe risks to the national economy, the Bangladesh Textile Mills Association (BTMA) announced an indefinite operational shutdown of textile mills across the country from 1st February. 

BTMA President Showkat Aziz Russell announced during a press conference at the association’s office in Dhaka on 22nd January this year, emphasising that the decision was based on necessity and was not intended as a threat. The association cited crippling financial losses and government inaction in safeguarding domestic yarn producers as the primary drivers behind the shutdown, pointing to a challenging period ahead for Bangladesh’s primary export sector. 

Bar and Bench suffer meltdown over Gujarat court citing Manusmriti and Vedas while awarding life sentences to three Muslims for cow slaughter: Here’s why the statutory maximum in the Kalol case does not mean enforcement of a “theological code”

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Bar and Bench suffer meltdown over Gujarat court citing Manusmriti and Vedas while awarding life sentences to three Muslims for cow slaughter: Here’s why the statutory maximum in the Kalol case does not mean enforcement of a “theological code”

Hindu religiosity, particularly in legal contexts, has long been portrayed as an antithesis of constitutional secularism and religious tolerance. When courts cite Sharia while deciding criminal cases, such references are met by self-appointed defenders of secularism either with silence or anfractuous justifications. However, when courts refer to Hindu scriptures while sentencing Muslim men involved in cow slaughter and beef sale, it is painted as a departure from statutory discretion and a pivot toward enforcement of a theological code. 

On 30th October 2026, legal reporting portal Bar and Bench published an article headlined, “Holy cow, unholy sentence”.  

Source: Bar and Bench

The article, authored by Ritwik Choudhary, lamented the fact that an additional sessions court at Kalol in Gandhinagar district of Gujarat recently cited Manusmriti, Rig Ved, and Harivamsa Purana, while awarding life imprisonment sentences to three Muslim convicts, Wasim, Mohammad Rafiq and Ashfaq, in a 2024 cow slaughter case “based on the recovery of 277 kilograms of beef, seized during a raid on a village house in Jamla.” 

“Drawing directly from the Rigveda, the Manusmriti and the Harivamsa Purana, the court noted that the cow houses 33 crore deities; that the sun and moon dwell within its eyes; that Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh inhabit its horns; and that the four legs of the bovine represent the four Vedas. Then came the judicial diagnosis: if those who slaughter cows are not handed life sentences, “Gau Mata will become extinct from the earth.”,” the Bar and Bench article reads. 

Besides the shallowness of the arguments put forth by the Bar and Bench author, the article’s claim that India has “over 300 million head of cattle” is inaccurate. 

The 2019 census puts the total bovine population, which includes buffalo, Mithun, and yak, at 302.79 million; however, the cattle population is recorded at 192.49 million.  

The Gujarat Animal Preservation Act grant absolute protection to cows from slaughter given their religious significance and economic utility; there are provisions for conditional slaughter of buffaloes. 

Instead of questioning why the three Muslim men indulged in the slaughter and sale of cow meat despite laws in place against such acts, the Bar and Bench Article suggested that if three men slaughter a few cows, they will not go extinct.  

It further suggested that it is not deliberate slaughter but “ingestion of municipal single-use plastic, starvation in decrepit, State-funded gaushalas and road accidents” that pose a risk to cattle. While these issues are real, it is juvenile to expect the court to address these issues during the hearing of a case involving slaughter of cows and sale of cow meat. This is a part of the liberal playbook, which presents other factors about an issue bigger than the one at hand, to deviate from the root cause and to gaslight Hindus.  

The article highlighted the amended Section 8(2) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017 Section 8(2) which states that imprisonment for cow slaughter “shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 

Subtly questioning the Kalol Sessions Court judge Brijeshkumari Rameshwarsinh Rajput’s intellect and integrity, the Bar and Bench article suggested that the judge did not appropriately assess aggravating and mitigating circumstances, criminal antecedents, age, socioeconomic background, and the role played by the accused while deciding their punishment.  

The Bar and Bench article claimed that the Gujarat court disregarded the defence’s plea that the accused Muslim men were young (one was nineteen), that they were the sole breadwinners of impoverished families and that they had no prior convictions, based on “a collection of Sanskrit verses and an imaginary ecological apocalypse.” 

Throughout the article, the author conveniently downplays the crime the three men have been convicted for. Long paragraphs on the judge’s reference to Hindu scriptures, but only a “recovery of 277 kg beef” mention about why they have been awarded life imprisonment? 

Author Ritwik Choudhary conveniently ignored the distinction between the statutory minimum and the statutory maximum.  

Even though the author identifies that Section 8(2) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act provides for imprisonment ranging from ten years to life, he suggests that imposing life imprisonment, particularly by disregarding the defence’s pleading that the convicts are sole breadwinners and poor, is an inherently disproportionate exercise of judicial discretion. 

The range of punishment, be it minimum or maximum, does not become automatically appropriate because the prosecution has established guilt. In the Kalol case, the court did mention that “cow would go extinct” if cow slaughterers are not punished, this apprehension alone did not drive the court to award sentence to the accused to life in prison. 

When a law prohibits cow slaughter, the public of the state understands such a law exists, and what consequences will follow if they violate the law, and yet they slaughter cows, attempt to carry out an illegal organised cow meat trade; is it alarming that the court awarded maximum punishment? No! Statutory maximum is not decorative, nor does it exist to demonstrate mere on-paper strictness of the law. 

Recovery of 277 kg of beef alone drove a Gujarat Sessions Court judge to sentence three men to life imprisonment? 

Contrary to the framing by the Bar and Bench, the basis of the conviction of Wasim Qureshi, Mohammad Rafiq Qureshi and Ashfaq Behlime was not only the recovery of 277 kg of beef.  

In fact, this ‘recovery’ framing is vague and downplays the seriousness of the acts the convicts were accused of. Bar and Bench‘s framing of the Kalol case suggests that three men were found possessing cow meat whose origin and legal status are disputed.  

In reality, the court’s observations were devoid of any ambiguity about the role of the accused persons. The Bar and Bench article skips mentioning an important detail that two persons were acquitted by the same scripture-citing judge. The acquittal of two accused persons is in contrast with the Bar and Bench’s suggestion that the Gujarat court enforced theological code or demonstrated ideological biases. 

It is, thus, pertinent to know what the police found and what the court said. 

On 22nd August 2024, the Kalol police in Gandhinagar raided a house in Dhankani Vas, located in Jamla village, and apprehended individuals allegedly involved in cow slaughter. The police recovered 277 kilograms of meat from the premises. Laboratory testing subsequently confirmed that the meat was cow meat. 

The police also seized weapons allegedly used for cattle slaughter, vehicles and other items worth a total of ₹3.61 lakh. 

Subsequently, a case was registered against five accused at the Kalol Taluka police station under Sections 325 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Gujarat Police Act, the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act and provisions of the central government’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The accused were arrested. A separate case was later registered against a sixth accused. The accused were released on bail at different times between September and December 2024. 

According to the police chargesheet, Lalabhai Senma, a resident of Jamla, and his son, Vitthal Senma, allegedly purchased weak cows and buffaloes that had stopped producing milk from surrounding areas at low prices. They would then call the other accused, who allegedly slaughtered the animals and sold the meat. 

Lalabhai Senma, Wasim Qureshi, Mohammad Rafiq Qureshi and Ashfaq Behlime were apprehended at the scene, while the remaining two accused, Ghulam Moin Qureshi and Vitthal Senma, were arrested subsequently. 

 Later, Ghulam Moin Qureshi and Vitthal Senma were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.  

In its judgment, the court quoted a shloka from Mahabharat’s Anushasan Parv, stating that the cow is regarded as the mother of the world and is beneficial to human life and society. 

The court cited the Manusmriti, stating, “According to Hindu religious scriptures, the cow is not merely an animal but is regarded as a pillar of dharma. According to the Vedas and religious texts, when drops of divine nectar fell upon the Earth from Brahma’s mouth during his penance, Kamadhenu emerged from these divine drops. She is regarded as the mother of all cattle on Earth.” 

The court also cited the Rigveda, stating that the cow is described as ‘Aghanya’, meaning one that must never be killed or slaughtered. 

While pronouncing the sentence, the court stated: “Despite being aware of the consequences, the accused mercilessly slaughtered a cow regarded as a mother and attempted to sell approximately 277 kilograms of beef obtained from it. If those who cruelly slaughter cows are not punished as prescribed by law, Gau Mata will gradually become extinct from the Earth. Therefore, it is necessary to award the accused the maximum punishment permitted under the law.” 

Scriptural reference is contextual, not legal reasoning 

While the Bar and Bench article downplayed the aggravating factor, the court noted that the accused persons were aware of the fact that cow slaughter was illegal in Gujarat and also that cows hold religious significance for Hindus, and yet they slaughtered cows, obtained beef and sold it.  

Contrary to the Bar and Bench article’s insinuation that “discretion collapsed entirely”, courts in Gujarat do differentiate punishments based on the seriousness of the offence.  

Even if we go by just ‘recovery of XYZ kg of beef ‘framing, an Ahmedabad court awarded eight years for about 12 kg of cow meat in July 2026. In the Kalol cow slaughter case, the accused slaughtered cows, planned to sell their meat, and 277 kg worth Rs 55,000 was seized. Clearly, commercial, organised trade designs were the primary reason for the judge choosing the upper end of the imprisonment range under the relevant law.  

The Kalol Sessions Court’s references to Hindu scriptures only highlight the religious significance of cows; the court did not utilise them for legal reasoning behind the life sentence for the accused. If courts begin to rely on Hindu scriptures like the Vedas and Manusmriti for operative reasoning while deciding punishment for cow slaughter, the convicts will have to be executed.  

Bar and Bench’s ‘penal exchange rate’ contention is both illogical and misleading 

In pursuit of painting the Gujarat court and Judge B. R. Rajput as enforcing religious code instead of legal reasoning, author Ritwik Choudhary compared the life sentence for cow slaughter with punishments for stalking, sexual harassment, outraging the modesty of a woman, negligent driving and cruelty to a wife. The Bar and Bench article implied that somehow the law, the courts, and the judges are considering the killing of a cow more serious than violations of a woman’s dignity and human life. 

Source: Bar and Bench

“In the Republic of India, you can destroy a woman’s dignity, extinguish human life through reckless violence, or drive a spouse to suicide and still expect to walk free before the decade is out. Slaughter a cow in Gujarat, however, and the State demands your entire mortal life,” the article reads. 

While this argument is rhetorically appealing, it is legally unsound. 

Various offences have different statutory elements, circumstances, and legislative objectives.  

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita does not mandate a single universal punishment for all offences relating to women. Different offences, be it assault, sexual harassment, voyeurism, rape, aggravated rape, or gang rape, etc., have different punishments prescribed. 

Comparing the maximum punishment for one form of crimes against women with the maximum punishment for a separate statutory offence does not automatically establish a hierarchy of human and animal worth. Does making punishment for outraging the modesty of women require strengthening the relevant law, or does it require reduction of punishment under a cow slaughter law?  

The Bar and Bench article further highlights an SUV driver running over a pavement dweller and argues that the offender faces a maximum of five years in prison. The article, however, skips mentioning the fact that even in such cases there is a distinction between negligence (covered in BNS Section 106(1)) and a deliberate act (BNS Section 106(2). 

Taking the punishment for one category of negligent conduct and using it to establish the argument that the law values cattle more than human life is irrational.  

Furthermore, the article draws a comparison between cow slaughter law and dowry-related cruelty. Relying on Section 85 of the BNS, the article claims that a family can torment a young bride until she attemptsself-immolation and still suffer only three years in prison. The article, however, ends up conflating the legally distinct cruelty, attempted suicide, abetment to suicide and dowry death offences. 

The article misleadingly suggests that the three-year maximum punishment for one offence is the statutory maximum for all the dowry-related offences against women. 

It further claims that beating a stray dog to death, mutilating a horse or poisoning a cat may attract only a fine of Rs 50 for a first offence under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; cow slaughter in Gujarat can lead to life imprisonment. 

This comparison between the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act is carefully crafted to make the life imprisonment provision of Gujarat’s cow slaughter law appear irrational and inhuman.  

However, laws don’t price human lives against animals. Statutes are meant to set penalties based on the harm to a protected interest and the extent of deterrence the legislature wants.  

Under BNS Section 178, counterfeiting Indian currency carries a life-term ceiling; does that mean the law considers banknotes more valuable than human beings?  

The Bar and Bench article also referred to the State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat case. 

Notably, in the 2005 State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat case, a seven-judge Supreme Court bench ruled that the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994, which imposed a complete ban on the slaughter of cows and bulls, was constitutionally valid, noting its economic usefulness. 

There is an interesting contradiction in Choudhary’s article. On one hand, it argues that the Supreme Court justified the cow slaughter ban based on agrarian and ecological grounds, not religious significance or sacredness. On the other hand, it benchmarks the same judgment against BNS Section 299, which concerns the offence of outraging religious sentiments.  

If the Act is an economics-driven measure, isn’t Section 299 a wrong comparator? If it is indeed a sentiment-driven law, then doesn’tif defeat Choudhary’s Mirzapur argument? 

Also, Section 299 has a high mens rea threshold, and it safeguards all religions equally; it is not some Talibanic blasphemy law against “insulting God”. Cow slaughter is prosecuted under varying state agricultural or animal-related statutes, not essentially as religious insult. 

Equating American or British animal cruelty laws with cow slaughter law is wrong 

The Bar and Bench piece also equates the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act with the UK’s five-year jail sentence ceiling and America’s seven-year ceiling under the PACT Act. However, these are cruelty-to-animals statutes penalising suffering inflicted on an animal. 

The Gujarat Act, on the contrary, is a preservation and prohibition statute which essentially bans a category of killing even when it may be painless and the animal, cow specifically, is owned. The comparison doesn’t hold. 

Courts citing Manusmriti represent the theological zeal of judges; citing the Quran doesn’t? 

The Bar and Bench article argues that citing Manusmriti while deciding criminal cases dissolves the constitutional wall separating Church and State. 

“When a criminal court begins citing the Manusmriti to calibrate the deprivation of fundamental liberty under Article 21, the constitutional wall separating Church and State does not just crack; it dissolves. The Supreme Court established long ago in SR Bommai that secularism is the basic structure of the Constitution. A citizen cannot have their prison term dictated by a magistrate’s theological veneration of an animal, regardless of how deeply held those religious beliefs may be in private life,” the article reads. 

There is no constitutional obligation on Central or state governments to follow the American model of separation of powers. India has its own moral and legal understanding of secularism.  

In fact, the SR Bommai case actually endorses the accommodative model of principled engagement with all faiths. It does not hold that any single ritual performed by a government or constitutional official establishes theocracy. The problem would have been only when there was systemic favouritism, and the governments or those holding constitutional offices were using state machinery to propagate their religion or suppress others. 

There have been many cases wherein courts have cited Sharia law while deciding cases. In 2023, the Madras High Court cited Sharia to annul a Muslim marriage 

In 2025, Kerala HC turned to Sharia in a case about a blind beggar threatening his wife with polygamy and cited the Quran in the judgment. Did that mean the judges were driven by some theological zeal and their personal beliefs were governing their judicial decisions? If yes, then why are no questions raised about such cases? Why does only the citing of Hindu scriptures attract ‘constitutional scrutiny’ in the media? 

Bottom line: Many cases have seen courts phrase deterrence in sweeping terms. Claiming that the judge BR Rajput’s “Gau Mata will become extinct” remark is mythical zoological forecast governed his decision to sentence Kalol case convicts to life in prison is a dishonest assessment. The stray cattle menace and failing gaushalas issue requires serious administrative attention; however, to imply that the cow slaughter law is irrational or that imposing the statutory maximum is excessive is wrong. 

The Print platforms Marxist historian Irfan Habib to distort the history of Ram Mandir: Read how he opposed ASI excavation and questioned archaeological evidence

Shriti Sagar
-
0
The Print platforms Marxist historian Irfan Habib to distort the history of Ram Mandir: Read how he opposed ASI excavation and questioned archaeological evidence

In another attempt by leftists to distort the history of the sacred Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, Shekhar Gupta’s ThePrint platformed Marxist historian Irfan Habib and published an interview with him on Friday, 30th October. The Marxist historian claimed that the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid verdict was “totally illegitimate”. 

During the interview, Irfan Habib claimed that the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid verdict was “totally illegitimate” and questioned the archaeological evidence presented in support of the temple that existed at the disputed site.

Speaking to ThePrint in Aligarh, the 95-year-old historian claimed, “It is illegitimate because there is no proof that there was a temple there. They assumed, but archaeologically, there was no proof… The evidence for Babri Masjid being a temple is very slight.”

Habib further alleged that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had selectively interpreted the findings from the excavation. He claimed that bricks associated with Muslim construction were discarded while stones were presented as parts of Hindu idols. “You first destroy a mosque, and then you start digging. So when a brick comes out of Muslim construction, you throw it away. But when a stone comes out, you say it is a part of an idol,” he said.

He also questioned whether the archaeological findings could establish that a temple had existed at the exact location. According to him, stones recovered from the site could have been brought from elsewhere and reused in the construction of the mosque. He claimed that no archaeologist of repute had supported the conclusion that a temple stood beneath the Babri Masjid.

Pre-excavation manoeuvres: Unmasking Habib’s earlier stance

This latest commentary is a continuation of his long-standing strategy to derail historical truth. Habib’s position on the Ayodhya dispute was discussed by a veteran journalist, Arvind Singh, in his book, “India’s Rogue Historians – How They Fought Against Hindus at Ayodhya & Lost.”

The book describes how, even before the ASI excavation began, Habib had written an article in Hindustan Times arguing that the archaeological team should not dig deeper than two metres.

According to the account in the book, Habib argued that the dispute concerned medieval India and that digging beyond two metres could take the excavation into much older historical layers. He suggested that the ASI might then discover remains from ancient India, including bricks from the Kushan period. Such discoveries, he feared, could be presented as evidence of an earlier Hindu structure at the site.

The Muslim side even adopted Habib’s argument and asked the High Court to restrict the ASI’s excavation to two metres. The court then asked the ASI to respond.

The ASI opposed the demand, arguing that imposing an arbitrary depth limit would violate established archaeological principles and make the excavation incomplete and meaningless. Archaeologists need to examine the layers of earth to understand the history of a site. Restricting the excavation in advance could prevent archaeologists from examining important evidence lying beneath the surface.

The book also points out that, a couple of months before the excavation, Habib had admitted the existence of a structure beneath the ground but described it as a “residential quarter for marginalised sections”. 

Constant subversion of Archaeological evidence

This is not the first time Habib has openly backed the Muslim side in the Ayodhya dispute and questioned the archaeological findings that supported the existence of a temple beneath the demolished Babri Masjid.

In August 2003, Habib accused the ASI of tampering with the evidence to suit its own conclusions and claimed the findings from the site suggest that the structure below the demolished Babri Masjid could well have been a mosque and not a temple. The leftist historian claimed that the presence of animal bones was decisive evidence against the existence of a temple.

“Bone fragments with cut marks are a sure sign of animals being eaten at the site and therefore rule out a temple existing at the site at that time,” he argued.

Similarly, he alleged, glazed ware, often called Muslim glazed ware, also constitutes an equally definite piece of evidence which militates against the temple theory, as this was not used in temples. 

These arguments were part of the objections raised by the Marxist historian Habib. However, the ASI’s findings were subsequently examined during the legal proceedings in the Ayodhya dispute. The Allahabad High Court’s 2010 judgment discussed the archaeological evidence, including the remains of a large structure beneath the demolished mosque. The Supreme Court later considered the evidence and other material before delivering its November 2019 verdict.

Attacks on Prime Minister Modi and school curricula

Apart from the Ram Mandir, the leftist historian made another outrageous claim in the same interview. Habib used the interview to target Prime Minister Narendra Modi and defend former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and claimed, “Nehru is one of the most important minds and what people like the present Prime Minister say about him is useless. It’s hardly worth any attention. What has he done in history?”

Habib also criticised the changes being made to social science textbooks and the school curriculum. Referring to the recent changes in NCERT textbooks, he accused the present government of rewriting history and claimed that India was now going ahead of Pakistan in falsifying historical accounts. The leftist historian claimed, “Unfortunately, that is present in India. Earlier, Pakistan glorified it. But now we are practically outpacing Pakistan by falsification.” 

He also accused the current government of rewriting history. “The syllabus drawn up in the name of the Government of India and the Ministry of Education is atrocious. As if somebody who has drawn it has no idea of Indian history, no idea of the origins of the caste system,” Habib added.

Irfan Habib admitted Aurangzeb demolished temples in Varanasi and Mathura

These statements add to the long list of controversial statements about Hindu temples and Mughal rulers in the past. In January 2024, an old video of the Marxist historian from May 2022 went viral on social media. In the video, he admitted that Mughal emperor Aurangzeb had demolished temples in Varanasi and Mathura to build mosques.

The video had surfaced days after the discovery of a Shivling-like structure inside the Gyanvapi complex in Varanasi. Habib acknowledged the demolition of temples but questioned whether the government could act against structures that had existed since the 17th century.

“It is correct that Aurangzeb demolished the temple, but it is not specified that it was Lord Shiva’s temple. It became a Shiv Temple after they found a Shivling. Aurangzeb demolished this temple in Varanasi. Another temple was demolished in Mathura. There’s no two ways about it,” he said.

He then questioned the demand for the restoration of the temples, asking, “Can the government demolish something that was built in 1670? It is against India’s Monument Protection Act.”

Habib has constantly targeted Hindu organisations and the administration. In an interview with NewsClick, he remarked that Mughals would not disappear from history just because the Sangh wished so.  In another interview with The Quint in May 2022, Habib had also acknowledged the destruction of temples by Aurangzeb but questioned whether the discovery of old temple stones should lead to the demolition of existing mosques.

Habib has also repeatedly made controversial remarks against the RSS and the BJP government. In January 2020, a legal notice was sent to him over his remarks at Aligarh Muslim University, where he claimed that the RSS had been formed to attack Muslims. He had also targeted Hindutva ideologue Veer Savarkar, accusing him of being responsible for India’s Partition and claiming that there was circumstantial evidence linking him to Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. He had also referred to Prime Minister Modi as ‘Jahil’.

Ideological roots: Whitewashing separatism and demanding class history

Notably, Irfan Habib is the son of Marxist historian Mohammad Habib of Aligarh Muslim University. Mohammad Habib had turned to Marxism after the Anglo-Soviet Pact of 1941, when previously banned communist literature entered India. He was among the early influential converts and was the first to propound the notion in his 1927 work Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni that Muslim rulers of medieval India razed temples purely out of avarice and greed, denying any religious motivation behind the destruction.

Mohammad Habib maintained a close friendship with the Nehrus and was a protégé of Motilal Nehru. His theories regarding Mahmud were directly echoed in Jawaharlal Nehru’s The Discovery of India (1945), where Mahmud was painted as a warrior interested in culture who broke temples merely for building materials. After independence, Nehru relied heavily on Marxist historians to justify his pro-Muslim policies, providing them the blueprint to push class as the primary organising principle. 

In his 1947 presidential address to the Indian History Congress, Mohammad Habib called upon historians to use their pens to fashion a society based on class, asserting that past historical works suffered from “bourgeois” biases and urging scholars to lead India to the “shrine of her newfound, classless God.” Through such ideological frameworks, Marxist historians sought to whitewash the violent history of Islamic rule and smooth over fault lines, laying the groundwork for decades of historical distortion.

Conclusion

The publication of Irfan Habib’s latest interview by ThePrint underscores a persistent effort by leftist platforms to amplify discredited ideological narratives under the guise of historical commentary. By providing an uncritical platform to a Marxist historian whose career has been defined by selective archaeology, political activism, and explicit legal manoeuvring to block pre-excavation truths at Ayodhya, ThePrint effectively enables the revival of claims already settled by exhaustive archaeological evidence and the highest court of the land.

Promoting Habib’s assertion that the Supreme Court’s 2019 verdict was “illegitimate” ignores both the extensive findings of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and Habib’s own long history of attempting to pre-empt and restrict scientific excavation. 

Who is the scam-accused Archbishop Peter Machado, who wants Karnataka’s anti-conversion law repealed and the cow slaughter ban reviewed? 

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Who is the scam-accused Archbishop Peter Machado, who wants Karnataka’s anti-conversion law repealed and the cow slaughter ban reviewed? 

On 30th October 2026, Archbishop of Bangalore, Peter Machado, urged the Congress government in Karnataka to fulfil its promise of repealing the state’s anti-conversion law. During a media interaction in Bengaluru, Peter Machado said that a meeting of minority communities, Dalit communities, and farmer communities was called to press their demands pertaining to the repeal of the anti-conversion law in the state. 

A day prior to the meeting, the Karnataka United Christian Forum for Human Rights issued a statement identifying three priority areas requiring government intervention, including religious freedom, protection against communal hostility and fulfilment of electoral promises. 

c He said that it has been around three years since the Congress Party formed government in the state and that it also has numbers in the State Assembly to repeal the law. 

“Today we have called a press conference of the minority communities, the Dalit communities, the farmer communities, especially those that have been experiencing certain difficulties with the laws of the State. First of all, we Christians have come strongly asking the government to repeal the anti-conversion law that was passed in 2022. “…it was passed by the previous government, and this government, which was trying to get into power that time, they have put it in the manifesto that if they came to power, they would withdraw immediately the anti-conversion law as such…” Machado said. 

In addition to the anti-conversion law, Peter Machado also said that the Congress government had made promises to different communities, including the Muslim community, regarding the anti-cow slaughter bills. He alleged that “it doesn’t look to be very good on their part because Muslims and farmers are suffering because of it.” 

He then claimed that ageing cattle needed to be taken care of and “if they cannot go to cowsheds…,” insinuating that slaughterhouses were the only other destination. “In some places, the government has done it. It’s okay,” he added. 

In September this year, Machado took a Christian delegation to visit Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge at his Bengaluru home, where Kharge’s son and Karnataka home minister, Priyank Kharge, was also present. The delegation sought the abolition of the state’s anti-conversion law and a special 1% reservation for the community. 

Peter Machado’s public expression of discontent over the anti-conversion law and anti-cow slaughter law even though these laws only target illegal practices, has sparked outrage. 

Who is Archbishop Peter Machado? 

Born in 1954 in Karnataka’s Uttara Kannada, Peter Machado became an ordained priest on 8th December 1978 for the Diocese of Karwar.  

In February 2006, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Machado the Bishop of Belgaum and ordained him bishop in March 2006.  

After serving there for around 12 years, Peter Machado was appointed the Archbishop of Bangalore in March 2018 by Pope Francis. 

Archbishop Peter Machado is also President of the Karnataka Regional Catholic Bishops Council and of the All-Karnataka United Forum for Christian Human Rights. 

Last year, Machado was elected Vice-President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India (CCBI) and chairs its Commission for Laity. 

Machado has consistently been pushing the ‘Christians under attack’ bogey through his speeches, petitions in courts, and engagements with political parties. 

In June 2022, the Supreme Court admitted a plea, which alleged that attacks on Christian priests and Churches have increased in the country. The petition was filed by the National Solidarity Forum, the Evangelical Fellowship of India and Archbishop of Bangalore Diocese, Peter Machado. 

The petition claimed that about 40-50 attacks, on average, were taking place on Christian institutions each month, alleging that 57 such attacks took place in May 2022 alone. 

In January 2020, the Bangalore Archbishop Peter Machado had appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to ‘reconsider’ his decision on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Machado’s opposition to the CAA came even though minorities in the Islamic or Muslim-majority countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh faced persecution due to their religious identity, and there’s no way Muslims would be persecuted by Muslims in an Islamic country for being Muslims. 

In June 2020, the former judge of the Bombay High Court, Michael F Saldanha, had accused Machado of colluding and covering up murders allegedly committed by Bishop of Mysore KA William. He had accused Peter Machado and Bishop K A William of ‘criminally misappropriating’ ₹49.5 crores collected for Coorg Disaster Relief work in 2018.  

Accusing Machado of misappropriation, ex-Judge Michael F Saldanha wrote, “Perhaps Archbishop Peter Machado can tell us how many night shelters for homeless persons he has constructed because this was one of his appeals made more than a year back at the time of the concert. If it is there in writing in the annexure, then he is certainly accountable.” 

In 2020, the Karnataka Catholic Christian Association (AKCCA) accused him of being involved in a multi-million-dollar scam. Pope Francis appointed Machado, a vocal critic of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), as the Metropolitan Archbishop of Bangalore. 

In August of that year, the AKCCA demanded a probe by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) into the financial misappropriation of Asha Charitable Trust, which is owned by the archdiocese. At a press conference in Bangalore, the group accused the Trust of siphoning off ₹3 billion ($42 million). 

“It is a scam worth three billion, and it needs investigation, AKCCA leader Raphael Raj informed the media. Raj stated that even though the archdiocese collected funds from foreign donors, it was not used as promised. 

Raj added that the annual audit report highlighted financial irregularities, but the archdiocese ignored it and did not act against the ‘guilty’.  

In 2021, Peter Machado was at the forefront of opposing the anti-conversion law in the State of Karnataka. Machado had handed over a memorandum to the Karnataka Chief Minister, saying the proposed anti-conversion law was unwarranted and would lead to ‘unnecessary communal issues’ and ‘unrest’ in Karnataka.  

In March 2024, Machado had urged PM Modi to ‘rein in’ his party (BJP) leaders, “who fail to rise above petty politics and hate speeches.” 

This came after a parent of a student filed a complaint in February that year at the Mangaluru South police station against a teacher from St. Gerosa Catholic Girls School in Mangaluru for allegedly making derogatory remarks against the Hindu religion, Lord Ram and PM Narendra Modi. 

The accused teacher named Prabha was reported to have used curse words against Lord Sri Ram and the Prime Minister while teaching students of class 7 while teaching the chapter ‘Work is worship’ on 8th February. 

After the incident, parents, Hindu organisations, and BJP MLA from Dakshin Kannada, Vedavyas Kamath, staged a protest demanding strict action against the accused teacher for making insulting and derogatory remarks about the Hindu religion and trying to convert students to Christianity. Instead of condemning the Christian teacher, Peter Machado vilified BJP leaders for backing Hindu victims. 

BJP government enacted an anti-conversion law in Karnataka

The previous Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government passed the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022. Conversion from one faith to another through “use or practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by any of these means or by promise of marriage” is forbidden by law.

Forced conversion is punishable by three to five years in prison and a fine of Rs 25,000.

Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cow Bill 2020

The Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cow Bill 2020, passed by the state’s previous BJP government, took effect in February 2021. According to the Act, slaughtering any cattle, except buffaloes over the age of 13, is a serious offence punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Targeting Hindus, religious discrimination, Islamist propaganda and more: UP STF submits report on love jihad, religious conversion activities at KGMU Lucknow; Yogi govt directs action against accused

Aditi
-
0
Targeting Hindus, religious discrimination, Islamist propaganda and more: UP STF submits report on love jihad, religious conversion activities at KGMU Lucknow; Yogi govt directs action against accused

The Yogi Adityanath government in Uttar Pradesh on Friday (October 30, 2026) directed the Registrar of King George’s Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow, to take strict departmental action against university personnel found complicit in Love Jihad, forced religious conversion, and other related activities at the university. The directive follows findings enclosed in a Special Task Force (STF) inquiry report. The University is required to submit an action taken report to the government.

The STF report dated October 25, 2026, was compiled following an investigation into allegations of religious conversion, love jihad, mental harassment, and sexual exploitation of female Hindu students and staff on campus. The investigation was initiated by the UP STF based on a complaint filed by Shri Shivam Srivastava, President of the UP Youth Association, requesting an inquiry into reports of religious conversion and Love Jihad that took place in the K.G.M.U. campus.

Findings of the STF Inquiry

Below are the details of department-wise findings noted in the STF Inquiry Report prepared by Inquiry Officer Pramod Kumar Shukla, Deputy Superintendent of Police, STF, Lucknow. The report notes findings on the activities relating to religious conversion and mental and physical harassment of Hindu students and employees, the conduct of certain faculty members and employees, incidents and complaints reported across different KGMU departments, and action taken by concerned authorities on the complaints.

Pathology Department

The report cites two major cases filed in December 2025 at the Chowk and Kaiserbagh police stations by resident doctor Dr Devarti Mitra and nursing staff Maviya from KGMU, Lucknow, under various provisions of the BNS and the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 against resident doctors in the Pathology Department, Dr Rameez (Rameezuddin) Malik and Mohd. Adil, respectively. Dr Rameez Malik was arrested in January 2026 and was found guilty by KGMU’s internal Vishakha Committee.

The inquiry found collusion among the Muslim faculty of the Pathology Department, shielding of Muslim staff, harassment of Hindu junior doctors/nursing personnel, and specific faculty members in relation to the above-mentioned two cases. “If any female employee raises her voice in protest against the same, full effort is made by the departmental faculty to suppress the matter by threatening to ruin her career, declare her mentally deranged, or terminate her from service,” the finding stated.

According to the report, resident doctor Dr Rameezuddin trapped Dr Devarti Mitra, who was his junior resident doctor, in a relationship and mentally and physically exploited her. He forced her to convert to Islam and perform a Nikah with him. Dr Devarti Mitra later came to know that Rameezuddin had already married Dr Mansi Saxena, his batchmate at Sarojini Naidu Medical College (SNMC), Agra, in February 2025. Dr Mansi Saxena told Dr Devarti Mitra that Rameezuddin had trapped several Hindu girls and planned to convert and marry them.

Screenshot from the STF inquiry report

After learning the truth about Rameezuddin, Dr Devarti became distressed and attempted suicide by consuming a large number of antidepressants and fell unconscious. After recovering, she filed the case against Rameezuddin. During the inquiry, names of several other Hindu female doctors emerged who had been similarly trapped by Rameezuddin. His victims included Dr Kritika Pandey and Dr Muskaan, both resident doctors at KGMU Lucknow, and another unidentified Hindu female doctor who graduated from SNMC Agra.

Faculty complicity and suppression of complaints

The inquiry revealed that the Head of the Pathology Department, Suresh Babu, along with Additional Professor Sumaiya Qaiyum, shielded Rameezuddin and indulged in character assassination of Dr Devarti Mitra. After she filed the case against Rameezuddin, HOD Suresh Babu declared Rameezuddin innocent and termed Dr Devarti Mitra a psychopath. He pressured the family of Dr Devarti Mitra to agree to a compromise.

The report states that HOD Suresh Babu follows Dalit ideology and is known to be anti-Hindu. He is also said to be deeply influenced by Additional Professor Sumaiya Qaiyum and to take decisions under her influence. “It is often also said that Prof. Suresh Babu is anti-Hindu to the extent that even in his phone, he first saves category and then name. It is also said that after taking charge, he had got the list of residents of each batch prepared category-wise,” the report noted.


Screenshot from the STF inquiry report

The inquiry findings regarding Professor Sumaiya Qaiyum also highlight alarming details with respect to her discriminatory conduct towards Hindu students. Professor Sumaiya Qaiyum is a native of Kashmir and is married to Khaliq-ur-Rahman, a Professor in the Pathology Department of SGPGI, Lucknow. They are both graduates from Aligarh Muslim University and are known for having a hardcore Islamic ideology. Professor Sumaiya Qaiyum is entrusted with sanctioning leave for resident doctors.

The inquiry revealed that she discriminates against Hindu resident doctors in sanctioning leave and shows leniency towards Muslim resident doctors. “…it was found that the 2023 batch resident, Dr Sabina, was granted leave without replacement despite posting in the Trauma Lab in an irregular manner, whereas the resident, Dr Harshit Jain, appointed in her place, was subjected to harassment,” the inquiry report said.

The report cites an instance when resident Dr Harshit Jain requested leave for Chhat Puja and to take part in the last rites of his grandfather; Professor Sumaiya Qaiyum harassed him and made a derogatory remark saying, “Will you himself light your grandfather’s funeral pyre?” On the other hand, she easily granted permission to Muslim resident doctors to participate in Namaz, weddings, or any other personal work. Professor Sumaiya Qaiyum is said to have dismissed Dr Devarti Mitra’s case as a “small incident” and advised her batchmate residents not to blow it out of proportion. She also threatened resident doctors who supported Dr Devarti Mitra.


Screenshot from the STF inquiry report

Another member of the Pathology Department, Dr Wahid Ali, is also found to have given preferential treatment to Muslim students and provided them separate seating and praying space inside the Biochemistry Lab of the Pathology Department. Dr. Wahid Ali, who holds an M.Sc., PhD, is the in-charge of the Biochemistry Lab.

According to the STF report, he provided exclusive space for Muslim students to gather, offer namaz, and hold meetings in an HPLC Lab inside the Biochemistry Lab. He follows hardline Islamic ideology and discriminates against Hindu resident doctors. The report states that Dr Wahid Ali harassed Dr Harshit Jain by making him do double duty and giving him negative feedback about him. He also supported Rameezuddin against Dr Devarti Mitra.

Gandhi Ward

The STF Inquiry Report cites three incidents where Hindu female employees were trapped and mentally and physically exploited by Muslim staff members. In one incident, nursing staff Nafees trapped nursing employee Jyoti Singh. physically and mentally exploited her, converted her to Islam, and performed Nikah with her.


Screenshot from the STF inquiry report

In another case, nursing staff Furkan is accused of trapping nursing employee Jagriti Gupta, physically and mentally exploiting her, and coercing her to marry him after converting to Islam. The third incident involves resident doctor Adil, who targeted multiple women and exploited them. Adil lured nursing staff members Maviya, Meenakshi Pandey, and others into relationships and physically exploited them on the pretext of marriage. A case was filed against Adil by Maviya at Police Station Kaiserbagh, and an oral complaint was made by Meenakshi Pandey against him regarding the exploitation.

Microbiology Department

The report highlighted a similar pattern of harassment of Hindu employees in the Microbiology Department of the university. As per the inquiry report, a 25-year-old Hindu computer operator, Jyoti Rao, was teased and stalked by 50-year-old employee Shafaat Ali Khan, who also forced her to convert and perform Nikah with him.

Jyoti Rao’s oral and written complaints against Shafaat Ali Khan to the Head of the Department remained unaddressed. Instead, she faced retaliatory action and was terminated from her service, after which she went into depression.

Radiology Department

The report notes inquiry findings relating to the Radiology Department of the varsity involving resident Dr Rizwan. As per the report, Dr Rizwan has been forcing resident Dr Avanjala Singh and Dr Ishita to convert to Islam and subjecting them to blackmail. When the victims made oral complaints regarding the same to the department, they were suppressed and given threats of ruining their careers and failing them in examinations.

Islamic Medicos: A network of Muslim students

The report exposes an organised group of Muslim students from SNMC Agra and KGMU, which includes Dr Rameezuddin, Dr Rizwan Malik, Dr Adnan Ansari, Dr Sam Anees, and several others from the 2021/2022 batch. The members of the group maintain close ties, engage with Hindu female residents, and promote hardline Islamic ideology, supported by Prof. Sumaiya Qaiyum.

The report names a book titled Islamic Medicos published at SNMC, Agra, containing details of Muslim medical students of the 2012 to 2016 batches who are part of the group. Apart from the book, a similar magazine is also published at SNMC, Agra. According to the inquiry findings, new Muslim students taking admission to the college are organised and trained by these “Islamic Medicos”.

Dr Rameezuddin had introduced Dr Mansi, Dr Devarti, Dr Kritika Pandey, Dr Muskaan, and several other female Hindu students to the network. The report notes that when Rameezuddin introduced Dr Sam Anees to Devarti, he said that Anees, a resident of Saharanpur, had raped 19 Hindu women.

Screenshot from the STF inquiry report

Many members of the Islamic group, including Mohd. Kaif (SNMC 2021 batch), Mohd. Ehsaan, Aman Malik, Shadan Shameem, Mohd. Ayaan (all KGMU 2021 batch) and Mohd. Zaheer, Mohd. Aman and Shabir Khan (all KGMU 2022 batch) had close relations with Hindu female resident doctors, whom they had been grooming to be assimilated into Islamic ideology.

Administrative nexus within the university

The report uncovers an administrative nexus at KGMU that created a conducive environment for the harassment and exploitation of Hindu female students. The report states that most of the incidents of religious conversion happened at KGMU between 2006 and 2012. This period fell within the tenure of Dr Abbas Ali Mehdi as the H.O.D. of the Medicine Department.

The report also names S.A. Abbas, who worked as a clerk in various departments of KGMU and retired around 3 years ago. Abbas is said to have close ties to Dr Mehdi, who got all his work done through him. After retirement, Abbas was appointed as a P.S. to Dr Mehdi, who had taken VRS and currently owns Era Medical College.

The report states that the names of the members of committees formed to examine religious conversion complaints and other issues involving Muslim students are suggested by Dr Mehdi to the V.C. through Abbas. Notably, most Muslim doctors from the KGMU have invested their money in Era Medical College.

According to the report, since the retirement of Abbas, Professor Usman Kausar, a Nephrologist in the Medicine Department, has been leading the Muslim faculty and resident doctors at the KGMU. Having strong oratory skills, he is often entrusted with defending Muslim students and employees in cases involving them.

Screenshot from the STF inquiry report

Professor Kausar runs a private clinic named Diabetes Health, but does not write prescriptions himself in the clinic and keeps a compounder/assistant named Rizwan for the job. It is mentioned in the report that Dr Kausar’s brother-in-law, Dr Haider Abbas, who supports his ideology, is also appointed in the Medicine Department.

Furthermore, the report states that Assistant Professor Dr Ahmad and Assistant Professor Dr Kaleem in the Biochemistry Department play a key role in motivating and supporting Muslim students.

Another name in this series that is mentioned in the inquiry report is Dr Naseem Khan, currently in the Physiology Department of Integral University, Lucknow, and formerly worked in the Dental Department of KGMU Lucknow. As per the report, Dr Naseem Khan propagated the hardliner ideology of fugitive radical Islamic preacher Zakir Naik among Muslim students at KGMU.


Screenshot from the STF inquiry report

Citing unverified sources, the report states that Dr Naseem Khan is married to Dr Khalida Naseem, who resigned from Integral University following action against Dr Shaheen in connection with the 2025 Delhi Red Fort Blast Case. Before joining Integral University, Dr Khalida Naseem worked as an eye surgeon at KGMU. The inquiry revealed that under the influence of Zakir Naik’s ideology, the second floor of the gym at KGMU was converted into a Muslim Ibadatkhana (prayer room) in 2013 on the direction of Dr Naseem Khan, while a mosque already existed inside the university. The Muslim Ibadatkhana was frequently visited by Muslim clerics from places like Etawah, Mainpuri, and Karkhal who delivered religious speeches.

A wider network of Islamic radicalism

The renowned medical university has emerged as a den of Islamic radicalism and harassment and victimisation of Hindu female doctors. Rameezuddin has been named as a main accused in the sexual exploitation and religious conversion activities targeting Hindu female students on the campus. The investigation into the case filed against him disclosed that he was part of a major conversion network where a reward of ₹15 lakh was introduced for converting medical professionals (doctors) and ₹5 lakh for others.

The investigation also revealed Malik’s association with Dr Shaheen Saeed, who was apprehended in connection with the Delhi blast case. According to media reports, he encountered her at a medical conference. Afterwards, he became very influenced by her ideology and accepted his ties with her during the interrogation. Information recovered from his electronic devices revealed that Rameezuddin was in contact with multiple Hindu women, whom he had been enticing and forcing to embrace Islam. Photos of around 50 women were also found on his devices.

123...7,677Page 2 of 7,677