The recently notified Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, have received a massive pushback across the country, with people hitting the streets against the regulations. After days of protests, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan finally addressed the controversy yesterday (27th January) and offered an assurance that the regulations would not be misused. However, the assurance did little to allay the legitimate fears of people opposing the regulations for pushing the stereotype that the general castes cannot be the victims of caste-based discrimination and excluding general category students from the grievance redressal mechanism.
The UGC Equity Regulations 2026 are supposedly an ‘improvement’ over the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2025. But, in reality, the 2026 regulations turned out to be anything but an ‘improvement’. According to Swarajya, unlike the 2026 regulations, the 2025 draft regulations reflected a balanced approach and pragmatic effort in addressing discrimination in educational institutions.
The origins of the UGC regulations on equity
The 2025 draft regulations emerged out of a PIL filed in 2019 by mothers of students of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who died in 2016 and 2019, respectively. Their families alleged that the students committed suicide after being subjected to caste-based discrimination. The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, along with advocates Prasanna S. and Disha Wadekar, sought the implementation of anti-discrimination measures in educational institutions.
The PIL did not reportedly demand an entirely new set of regulations, but a strict enforcement of the existing University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012. The 2012 rules required universities to establish Equal Opportunity Cells to handle complaints of discrimination, particularly against Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) students.
In the PIL, the petitioner alleged caste bias in admissions, evaluations, hostel allotments, and campus life, along with what they termed as the near-total failure to implement the 2012 framework. The petitioner claimed that there was no meaningful monitoring, sparse Equal Opportunity Cells, and zero integration with accreditation bodies like NAAC. The matter kept lying dormant until January 2025, when Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan reprimanded the University Grants Commission (UGC) for non-compliance. The judges directed the UGC to produce data on cells, complaints, and actions. In its response to the Apex Court, the UGC said that it was in the process of drafting updated regulations.
The 2025 regulations adopted a measured approach to address caste-based discrimination in educational institutions
The UGC released the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2025, in February last year for public consultation. The 2025 draft regulations struck a balance between enhancing protections and preserving institutional autonomy, fairness, and due process for all parties involved. While retaining focus on caste-based discrimination against SC/ST students, as demanded by the PIL, the draft rules defined discrimination as “unfair, differential, or biased treatment” based on caste or tribe identity and allowed flexibility for institutions to interpret and apply the rule contextually.
The equity committee under the 2025 draft regulations was to be chaired by the head of the institution to ensure institutional accountability. At least one member on the committee was to be from the SC or ST community. The draft regulations encouraged the broad stakeholder inclusion of faculty, students, and administrative staff to promote collective responsibility. Embodying the principles of natural justice, the draft rules stressed procedural fairness and prevented hasty punishments, considering that the careers and reputations of parties would be at stake. The draft regulations, while accommodating the PIL’s demands, adopted a measured approach and provided a preventive framework and not a punitive one.
The 2026 regulations are modelled on the recommendations of Indira Jaising
However, the petitioners were not happy with the 2025 draft regulations, and Senior Advocate Indira Jaising proposed ten core changes in the draft. The proposed reforms included grievance committees with substantial marginalised representation and grant withdrawal for non-compliance. The Supreme Court fixed an 8-week deadline for the finalisation of the regulations. Finally, the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, were notified on January 13, 2026.
The final regulations were devoid of the balanced approach reflected in the 2025 regulations, and incorporated many of Jaising’s recommendations, such as bans on discrimination with debarment powers (Section 11), explicit anti-segregation clauses (Section 7(d)), diverse Equity Committee representation including OBCs/PwDs/women (Section 5(7)), confidentiality and anti-retaliation safeguards, institutional head duties (Section 4(3)), mandatory counseling (Section 7(f)), and proactive Equity Squads and Ambassadors.
The 2026 regulations ruled out the general castes as victims of caste-based violence by restricting the category of victims to SCs, STs, and OBCs. There is no provision for general category students to raise a complaint when subjected to caste-based discrimination. The 2026 regulations not only assume that caste-based discrimination is only directed towards people from the SC, ST, and OBC communities, but, in a way, promote reverse caste-based discrimination by excluding general castes, which form a large section of the academic community, from protection.
The new framework is blatantly biased against the general category students, who will have no institutional recourse if the rules are misused against them. This is the reason that the 2026 regulations are facing the outrage of people, mostly students, whose lives would be directly affected.
The “Mother of all deals” also referred to as the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the European Union has unsurprisingly triggered shots from outside the borders. The United States, which slapped punitive tariffs on allies and adversaries alike, has yet to finalise its trade deal with India, despite months of talks. However, the US media was observing the developments carefully and has now unleashed backlash at US President Donald Trump.
New Delhi’s impressive success has resonated in America and beyond as the pivotal deal received extensive coverage coupled with strong criticism of Trump’s policies which have already been shown to hurt the US citizens rather than other nations.
United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer mentioned that India stands to gain the most from the FTA while talking to Fox Business. He highlighted much larger market access, labour advantages and potential mobility opportunities for Indian workers.
He stated, “Strategically, it’s important to understand that because President Trump has prioritised domestic production and essentially started charging a fee for other countries to access our market, they are looking for other outlets for their overproduction. The EU is turning to India to try to find a place. The EU is so trade-dependent that they need others if they can’t keep sending all their stuff to the United States.”
Greer then emphasised, “I have looked at some of the details of the deal so far. I think India comes out on top on this, frankly. They get more market access and immigration rights to Europe. India is going to have a heyday with this and low-cost labour.”
BIG BREAKING: America says India got a great trade deal with the EU
"India has come out on top in this deal. They get more market access and immigration to Europe. India is going to have a heyday with this," says US Trade Rep Greer pic.twitter.com/ViQQ5GIa9m
Bloomberg report “EU and India Clinch ‘Mother of All Deals’ in Rebuff to Trump” shed light on how the two sides joined hands in an effort to enhance economic ties that have picked up pace as a result of the harsh US tariffs.
Bloomberg headline on India-EU deal
“The conclusion of negotiations reflects the rapidly shifting global alignment under US President Donald Trump. The EU, despite long clashing with Indian officials on trade policy, is focused on paring back its economic reliance on the US and China. India is trying to shake its protectionist reputation and offset a 50% Trump tariff while at the same time balancing ties with Russia,” the piece stressed.
It informed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is looking for new markets and the current accord was his fourth one since May after similar pacts with the United Kingdom, Oman and New Zealand. According to the article he further intends to obtain strategic resources and broaden India’s global reach by forming alliances with the Gulf Cooperation Council, Chile, Peru and the Mercosur bloc.
It also recounted when Trump labelled India as the “Tariff King” only to initiate a bloodbath in global markets due to his unreliable actions. The report also elaborated on the specifics of the crucial deal and the positive reactions it provoked from both industry groups and business executives.
US tariffs brought EU-India together for the ‘blockbuster trade deal’, says WaPo
Likewise, The Washington Post noted that the FTA is “driven by the need for new partnerships to shield their markets from an erratic America.” The media house in its report “Facing US turmoil, Europe and India announce blockbuster trade deal” conveyed that the agreement “will deepen ties” between the two partners.”
It identified India as one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies and the 27-nation bloc as a commercial behemoth that has historically been Washington’s closest partner. This hints at the debacle by the US in its endeavour to levy tariffs on them. It read, “As Trump upends US alliances and global trade, Europe and India each found themselves staring down the barrel of the president’s tariff threats over the past year.”
The article stated that the Trump administration’s blatant contempt for the European Union and its impending departure from maintaining European security have motivated European leaders to press for the United States to “de-risk.” It is noteworthy that the strategy was previously reserved for relations with China.
“Indian and US relations are at their lowest point in decades, strained by New Delhi’s decision to publicly reject Trump’s claim that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in May,” the piece expressed, delving into the specifics of the pact. India has consistently refuted Trump’s claims of mediation between New Delhi and Islamabad, much to his displeasure.
It added, “India was among the first countries to begin negotiating a trade deal with the Trump administration after the president’s slew of tariffs on dozens of nations last year, but the two sides have not been able to clinch an agreement.” The report highlighted that Washington placed some of the highest tariff rates on India which pushed the latter to ease tensions with China and reaffirmed its commitment of strategic autonomy.
It stated that “the deal comes as India’s economy continues to grow” and “it represents a way to widen markets and attract investment in the hopes of reenergising the domestic economy.” The piece stressed that Trump signed an agreement with the EU but his declarations about Greenland and his threats to impose new tariffs on eight European countries that rejected his quest for US control of the Arctic country, which was later reversed, have not alleviated the concerns about the dependency risk.
India stood firm against US tariffs which encouraged nations to search for different markets
The Wall Street Journal in its report “EU and India Reach Free-Trade Deal as World Responds to Trump Tariffs,” conveyed that the FTA “is the latest example of US trading partners seeking to curb their reliance on America by expanding ties with other markets” while discussing how it will be beneficial for the involved parties.
It pointed out that the EU struck a trade and investment agreement with Indonesia last year and earlier this month it entered into a free-trade agreement with the four South American nations that created the Mercosur customs union. The article talked about the India and United Kingdom trade accord and mentioned that the latter has struck a trade-and-security partnership with the European Union and also amended an existing agreement with South Korea over the past year.
Earlier this month, Canada and China similarly reached a compromise to reduce tariffs on Canadian canola oil and electric vehicles manufactured in China. It is a testament to the reality of a multipolar world where America can no longer act as the global bully that compels other nations to conform. The countries are in a position to look beyond and outside, finding their own paths to continue growing and trading despite pressure from Washington.
The piece even underscored how a strong New Delhi has managed to sustain its position despite the regular threats and tariff hikes from the US. It stated, “India, which is forecast to become the world’s fourth-largest economy this year, has held firm against US demands to open up its markets to dairy products and ethanol. The Indian economy is less dependent on exports compared with countries such as Japan and South Korea, which has allowed New Delhi to hold the line in trade negotiations with Washington.”
Trump’s chaotic trade policy
CNN also termed the FTA as “the largest such deal ever clinched by either side, as they contend with an erratic trade policy from key trading partner the United States.” Its report “India and Europe, both stung by Trump, turn to each other in a ‘mother of all deals’ on trade” noted the frequent threats to invade Greenland and implementation of 50% tariffs on New Delhi, including 25% for taking Russian oil and natural gas.
“Just recently, US President Donald Trump threatened to impose higher tariffs on the European nations opposing his push to annexe Greenland, which belongs to Denmark, though he later backed down from the threats. For the EU as a whole, the United States is its biggest export market. And in August, Trump announced an additional 25% tariff on India as punishment for importing Russian oil and natural gas, building on a previously announced 25% tariff rate,” the article pointed out.
“India also signed trade deals with various countries in 2025, a year marked by Trump’s return to the White House and his chaotic trade policy,” it added and covered the particulars of the fresh deal.
Perfect answer to global hegemons: Canada
The EU-India agreement has attracted substantial favourable reception from America which slammed Trump for his excessive tariff policy. Meanwhile, Canada which Trump has mockingly labelled the “51st US state” took the opportunity to indirectly attack him without taking any names. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Timothy Hodgson called FTA a “perfect” response to global hegemons that employ economic integration and tariffs as coercive measures.
“What is happening in the world today is not a gradual economic transition. It is a rupture. The hegemons of the world have decided that the rules-based order is no longer how the world will work. They have decided that’s not the way the world’s going to work anymore,” he charged at India Energy Week 2026. He maintained that India’s goal to finalise the agreement delivered a clear message in support of free trade and reliable partners.
#BREAKING: Canada after US reacts to India-EU ‘Mother of all deals’, takes potshot on Trump administration for Tariff policy.
Canada's Energy Minister Timothy Hodgson praises India-EU deal, weeks before Canadian PM Mark Carney’s visit to India to yet again kickstart CEPA trade… pic.twitter.com/x2Mk2b7xDm
“What you just did with the EU signing, the mother of all deals, was a perfect example of how to say no (to hegemons). We’re not going to live in a world where the strongest put tariffs on everyone else. We’re going to live in a world where we believe in free trade, where we believe in trusted relationships,” Hodgson asserted.
He declared that Ottawa will “never use our energy for torture” and his country is prepared to boost its energy exports to India in bid to diversify its clientele and reduce reliance on supplies to the US.
Modi surpassed Trump in trade deals, Americans bear the brunt of tariffs
In a CNBC show hosted by Journalist Morgan Brennan, economic policy expert Henrietta Treyz pointed out that India has outpaced the US in inking trade agreements. Additionally, the consequences of the tariffs, denouncing allies and the abject inability to conclude trade deals have created difficulties for both Trump and his party.
She expressed, “India has secured 100% more trade deals than Trump this year. He has merely finalised 2 deals in 10 months with Malaysia and Cambodia, despite the commitment to achieve 90 such agreements in 90 days. The one with South Korea is also not moving forward owing to the myriad issues,” in a CNBC interview.
India has inked 100% more trade deals than @POTUS this year. 90 deals in 90 days? Try 2 deals in 10 months – no wonder the White House is putting the squeeze on South Korea this morning. Great to be with @MorganLBrennan on @CNBC this morning. pic.twitter.com/Gsoa4Cz7jL
Treyz outlined, “96% trade with the nation was covered by FTA with no tariffs but Trump’s repeated condemnation of partners like the EU, Japan and South Korea is not bearing fruit. Moreover, 50% of Americans want the tariffs to be revoked by the Supreme Court. The administration is struggling with its affordability message and the failure of these trade deals. This has resulted in a decline in numbers for not only Trump but also the Republican Conference.”
Conclusion
European Council President Antonio Luis Santos da Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen arrived in India as the principal guests for Republic Day and held the 16th EU-India Summit. The vital Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was announced on 27th January following nearly two decades of negotiations, demonstrating that world economies can pursue their own trajectories regardless of the United States. The evident truth is recognised by Americans as well resulting in the pushback against Trump’s detrimental policies.
There is something uniquely revealing about senior journalists publicly pleading with their owner to spare their jobs. It strips away the carefully cultivated myth of editorial aloofness and exposes the power hierarchy that actually governs legacy media.
Pranshu Verma, the New Delhi Bureau Chief of The Washington Post, did precisely that, taking to X to appeal directly to Jeff Bezos as reports of massive retrenchment at the newspaper rattled its foreign desks.
.@JeffBezos, since I came to India early last summer to be the The Post's India bureau chief, one thing was abundantly clear: in India's media ecosystem very few outlets can do accountability reporting without fear of government censure. The Post is one of them. Since August, we…
Verma’s tweet was not merely a request for professional continuity; it was a résumé, a loyalty affidavit, and an ideological confession rolled into one. Addressing Bezos by name, Verma argued that The Post is among the very few outlets in India capable of “accountability reporting without fear of government censure.”
In one stroke, he positioned himself as a brave dissenter in an allegedly authoritarian media ecosystem, and the paper as a lone moral crusader standing against a repressive Indian state. This has long been a stance taken by hostile foreign publications, which often drum up such imaginary grandstanding to continue soliciting support from their Western patrons.
What followed was even more telling. Verma proudly listed the bureau’s greatest hits: stories on Indian billionaires being “treated far better than others,” insinuations of crony capitalism under the Modi government; pieces on Indian conglomerates allegedly “fueling Russia’s war in Ukraine”; and the framing of India’s efforts to curb illegal immigration as a “draconian deportation campaign of Muslims to Bangladesh.” Each example served a purpose, not to inform Bezos about journalistic merit, but to signal ideological alignment with the worldview that has increasingly defined The Washington Post’s foreign reporting.
In other words, Verma made it abundantly clear what it takes to work and survive at The Post. To be an India correspondent there is not merely to report on India, but to indict it. To view the Indian state not as a sovereign democracy grappling with complex challenges, but as a suspect entity whose actions must be cast through the prism of oppression, majoritarianism, and moral delinquency.
Illegal Rohingya immigration, involving forged documents, border infiltration, and in several cases criminal charges, is not treated as a national security issue, but repackaged as a communal persecution campaign. Billionaires are not business actors in a liberalising economy, but shorthand for regime corruption. Diplomatic friction is not geopolitics, but a “breakdown” caused by India’s presumed moral failings.
This is why Verma’s plea reads less like a defence of journalism and more like a performance for power. The subtext was unmistakable: Look at the damage we do. Look at the narratives we push. Surely this is worth saving.
That such a performance was necessary at all speaks volumes about the crisis engulfing The Washington Post. According to reports by former Post media reporter Paul Farhi, the newspaper is preparing for deep staffing cuts that could eliminate up to 300 jobs, with foreign and sports desks bearing the brunt. Editors have reportedly warned that as much as half the newsroom could face cuts. This follows the elimination of around 240 jobs in 2023, despite Bezos’s initial post-acquisition expansion and investment.
The reasons are neither mysterious nor ideological. Advertising revenues have collapsed, subscriptions have stagnated, and the moral grandstanding that once passed for global journalism no longer pays the bills. Readers are tuning out, not because accountability reporting is unwelcome, but because relentless narrative activism masquerading as reportage has eroded trust.
Verma’s public supplication to Bezos fits into a broader and rather undignified trend: bureau chiefs and senior editors appealing to the benevolence of a billionaire owner while simultaneously claiming independence from power. It is a contradiction that cannot be wished away with hashtags like #SaveThePost.
In the end, the irony is sharp. A journalist who accuses the Indian government of suppressing press freedom finds his own professional fate resting entirely on the discretion of a single American tycoon. It is deliciously ironic that Verma was flaunting his Bureau’s prejudiced reporting on India’s business conglomerates while supplicating an American businessman to keep his job intact.
The problem, however, is not Bezos’s reluctance to keep funding loss-making desks. It is the inability of outlets like The Washington Post to reckon with the fact that contempt-driven, ideologically rigid reporting is no longer a sustainable business model. It is precisely this ideological rigidity that has generated mounting headwinds for The Washington Post globally, pushing the organisation into a position where it is now forced to contemplate large-scale layoffs to stay afloat.
Verma’s tweet was meant to save his job. Instead, it inadvertently laid bare the mindset that has helped push one of America’s most storied newspapers to the brink. And this is why most Indian outlets trying to mimic The Post’s ideological moorings, such as Newslaundry, The Wire, etc., find themselves perpetually soliciting donations and subscriptions for the same reason. Whether it is an American legacy paper or its Indian ideological imitators, audiences have begun to withdraw support from media organisations that dress up advocacy and propaganda as “independent” and “neutral” journalism.
As the assembly elections approach, West Bengal is expected to witness a political realignment of parties relying on Muslim votes. A look at recent political events suggests that a minority front, excluding the TMC, might emerge ahead of the assembly elections. Historically, the TMC has received the electoral support of the Muslim community in West Bengal.
However, last year in December, in what appeared to be a meek attempt to distance itself from hardline Islamic ideology, the TMC suspended its MLA, Humayun Kabir, after he announced that he would construct a replica of the Babri Mosque in Murshidabad.
Humayun Kabir, who is building the Babri mosque replica, has Muslim support
Unbothered by his suspension, Humayun Kabir went ahead and laid the foundation for the replica of the Babri Mosque in Beldanga, Murshidabad. Kabir’s proposal to build a replica of the Babri Mosque found widespread support from the local Muslim community. While the ruling TMC tried to impress its minority vote bank by opposing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), alleging it would disenfranchise a large number of voters, Humayun Kabir’s proposal to build a replica of the Babri Mosque drew massive support from his community. He floated his own political party, named the Janata Unnayan Party (JUP) and now plans to field his candidates in the upcoming state Assembly elections. Moreover, Kabir accused the TMC of being anti-minority and urged the Muslims in the state to unite.
ISF MLA Naushad Siddiqui calls for an alliance against the TMC and the BJP
On the other hand, the Indian Secular Front (ISF) MLA Naushad Siddiqui, who is the only non-TMC and non-BJP MLA in the state Assembly, called on 17th January for an alliance against the TMC and the BJP. Siddiqui’s call found Kabir’s support, who said that the alliance should come into existence at the earliest. Earlier, in December 2025, Kabir, after being suspended from the TMC, had announced that he would ally with All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi ahead of the state assembly elections. Kabir had said that his party’s alliance with AIMIM is aimed at stopping the BJP and the TMC in the state.
JUP and ISF invite the Left and the Congress to join the alliance
Notably, the ISF and Naushad Siddiqui are linked to the Furfura Sharif shrine in Hooghly district, whose chief Abbas Siddiqui is notorious for triggering communal passions in West Bengal over perceived threats ot Islam. According to the Indian Express, the JUP and the ISF are in the process of chalking out a plan to contest the state assembly elections together. In addition to the two parties, other smaller Islamic groups, including the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), the political wing of the banned Islamic extremist organisation, the Popular Front of India (PFI).
Interestingly, the JUP has reportedly submitted proposals to the Left Front and the Congress Party and is awaiting their replies. Speaking about the proposed alliance, Humayun Kabir said on Monday (16th January) that if the Congress did not respond in time, the alliance would proceed without the Party in Malda.
What the future holds in West Bengal
The ongoing political churn in West Bengal raises two significant political questions: First, whether the Congress Party, which has been struggling to maintain its political existence across the country, will join an Islamist-led alliance in the state, and second, whether the proposed alliance, with or without the Congress, would be able to leave a dent in the TMC minority vote bank.
Kabir and Siddiqui are banking on the recent disappointment within the Muslim community in West Bengal over the removal of 37 groups from the OBC list, and the reclassification of 34 more minority groups by the West Bengal Commission for Backwards Classes earlier this month. The announcement triggered protests by the Muslim community in the state, who were already displeased with the TMC government’s acceptance of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, after months of opposing it.
Whether the resentment of West Bengal’s Muslims against the TMC would translate into a shift of electoral support to the proposed Islamist alliance remains to be seen.
On the one hand, the Indian National Congress is suffering from a series of repeated electoral setbacks and on the other hand, senior leaders are leaving the party on a regular basis. Now, a similar situation has arisen that could jeopardise the grand old party’s narrow prospects in the upcoming assembly polls in Uttar Pradesh. Senior leader Naseemuddin Siddiqui unexpectedly resigned on 24th January (Saturday) along with seventy-two other leaders, including two dozen ex-MLAs.
Former Uttar Pradesh Minister and Congress leader Naseemuddin Siddiqui resigns from Congress pic.twitter.com/s4yIkuxXq0
The former senior functionary insisted, “I had joined the Congress along with my associates to fight against injustice rooted in caste and communal discrimination. But I am not able to fight that battle here. That is why I have resigned.” Afterwards, prominent Congress leaders from the state, Avinash Pande and Ajay Rai visited him and had an hour-long conversation. Rai later stated, “We are hopeful that he will not leave the party.”
The development happened alongside the party’s Samvidhan Samvad Mahapanchayat, a series of 30 conventions held around the state on matters such as Special Intensive Reservation of the electoral roll. According to sources, Siddiqui felt marginalised in the party and was dissatisfied with the Congress leadership. On 20th January, he tried to meet the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, who was travelling to his Raebareli constituency however failed despite hurrying to the Lucknow airport from Moradabad.
Siddiqui has stated that he had been trying for about a year to have time for an extensive discussion with him but he had been unsuccessful in gaining a greater stake in the party’s decision-making process. However, he described himself as “a person who works on the ground at the grassroots level” and added that he felt his work style had not been fully used over the previous eight years. “To put it differently, I felt that rust was settling on my work and on my abilities,” he further mentioned.
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh: After resigning from the Congress, Nasimuddin Siddiqui says, “I joined the Congress Party eight years ago, but I am a person who works on the ground, at the grassroots level… Over the last eight years, I felt that my style of grassroots work was not… pic.twitter.com/8lCuS0pTdk
According to Siddiqui, a decision on the future course of action would be made collectively and conversations were in progress with all of the individuals who had resigned with him. He declared, “We are holding discussions with everyone who has stepped down. Whichever direction we agree upon, we will move forward with that and continue the struggle for the people.”
Siddiqui and Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram) supremo Chandrashekhar Azad could forge a new political front. His departure also took place one day prior to the latter’s speech at a rally in Agra. Siddiqui earlier served as a minister in the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) government. He was later removed from BSP due to anti-party activities in 2017 and became a member of Congress in February 2018.
A serious hit to a faltering Uttar Pradesh Congress
The loss of Naseemuddin Siddiqui has dealt a considerable blow to the Uttar Pradesh Congress which is desperately trying to fortify its fragile foundation in the poll-bound state and improve its position within a potential alliance with the Samajwadi Party (SP).
Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee president Ajay Rai and All India Congress Committee (AICC) national secretary in charge of the state Avinash Pande visited his home to try to convince him to change his mind but did not succeed. This immediate response to bring Naseemuddin Siddiqui back to the Congress fold outlined the impact of his voluntary exit, particularly in light of the upcoming elections. However, he didn’t waver and has already started considering alternative political choices for the future.
Insiders disclosed that Siddiqui had been feeling excluded for a while, as he did not have an influential role in the party currently, reported The Indian Express. His action is reported to have been prompted by two recent events, including when he was turned away at the airport during Rahul Gandhi’s trip to the state. However, Siddiqui has denied that it had any bearing on his resignation.
He declared, “I was unable to work in my own style, which is grassroots-based. I did not have any significant work. For long, I felt I was unable to utilise my abilities within the Congress. I have 36 years of experience. I joined the party to contribute, but that did not happen,” at the time of the resignation alluding to his dissatisfaction with the party.
Congress believes that the political message conveyed by the ouster could be more challenging to handle than the loss of a specific person.
According to people close to Siddiqui, he has been contacted by Chandra Shekhar Azad, BSP and SP. Others like former minister and Rashtriya Shoshit Samaj Party (RSSP) chairman Swami Prasad Maurya have also reached out to him but he has not yet made his mind. Siddiqui asserted to have the support of over 70 powerful groups across regions.
Hence, the opposition is vying for his attention in the hope of solidifying its minority votebank ahead of the assembly elections while his departure is akin to a substantial disaster for the already struggling grand old party.
An unending series of blows for Congress
Siddiqui parted ways from the party only a few months following the departure of generational Congressman Shakeel Ahmad in November. Afterwards, Ahmed commenced a barrage of criticism aimed at the senior leadership, referring to the Gandhi scion as a “coward” and an “insecure” politician. Ahmad indicated that the latter is not only undemocratic, harbouring a superiority complex due to his family heritage but also intimidated by his counterparts who possess extensive grassroots support or popularity.
“There is no internal democracy in the Congress and whatever Rahul Gandhi says is final. There are many leaders who are disappointed, but their next generation has joined the party. So they are in Congress even after facing humiliation,” Ahmad mentioned. He emphasised that the Raebareli MP has created a strong group within the party operating only within it. Furthermore, he voiced that his revelations have led to a threat against his life as Congress members are planning to attack his Patna and Madhubani residences under the pretext of burning his effigy.
There is an unceasing array of notable figures who have left Rahul Gandhi and Congress to either join the Bharatiya Janata Party, other political groups or form their own parties. However, there has been a striking similarity behind their move. Each of them has pointed out their discontent with the Congress leadership with some being more candid than others.
Ghulam Nabi Azad who left Congress in 2022 and later formed his own political party, explicitly challenged Rahul Gandhi’s ability to lead in his letter addressed to Sonia Gandhi and also slammed its “remote control” culture. Notably, the veteran politician was one of the 23 leaders, collectively referred to as the G-23, who had been outspoken about the need for Congress to alter its structure of authority and stop relying on the Gandhi family for every important matter.
Azad was among a multitude of notable Congress members including Amarinder Singh, Ashwani Kumar, Baba Siddique and even Kapil Sibal. These leaders not only outlined their humiliation at the hands of the top leadership in New Delhi and the neglect of their critical concerns but also stated how the party has completely lost its connection with the grassroots sparking their decision.
Several popular figures from the core team of Rahul Gandhi, such as Milind Deora, Jitin Prasada, RPN Singh and Jyotiraditya Scindia gradually abandoned his side after disgruntlement with the leadership and its blatant disregard for their grievances.
In December 2025, the Odisha Congress expelled senior leader Md Moquim, the father of MLA Sofia Firdaus, just days after he wrote a letter to former party president Sonia Gandhi, questioning the leadership of current Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge.
Additionally, national spokespersons of Congress such as Gourav Vallabh, Rohan Gupta and Radhika Khera switched their allegiance to represent the saffron party on national television. All three articulated their displeasure with the party’s anti-Hindu stance and opted to leave. Khera even charged that she was subjected to mistreatment for visiting the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya but did not obtain justice from the senior leaders.
Conclusion
Congress has a longstanding tradition of overlooking its leaders, from Mamata Banerjee and Sharad Pawar to Jagan Mohan Reddy and others. Their departure catalysed the formation of powerful regional political parties, creating a substantial dent in voter base of Congress. The same has been consistent over the years, continuing to this day, where either influential Congress leaders are leaving the party or are at odds with the leadership, as illustrated by Shashi Tharoor’s case.
Meanwhile, the power centre within the party remains firmly in the hands of the Gandhi family which is surrounded by its sycophants as Congress jumps from one political defeat after another while simultaneously losing leaders, states and the country. Siddiqui’s move is only a part of this trend and the number of such leaders is only expected to increase in the near future.
The disruption of Maharashtra minister Girish Mahajan’s Republic Day speech in Nashik by a serving Forest Department official is not a minor episode of emotional overreach, nor is it merely a debate about reverence for Dr B. R. Ambedkar. It is a disturbing marker of deeper institutional decay, in which state functionaries increasingly see themselves not as neutral executors of constitutional authority, but as ideological enforcers empowered to confront elected representatives publicly while on duty.
At the heart of the Nashik incident lies a simple fact: Girish Mahajan, while delivering an official Republic Day address after unfurling the national flag, did not mention Dr Ambedkar’s name. This omission, whether intentional or not, was seized upon by Madhvi Jadhav, a Forest Department staffer, who interrupted the speech mid-event to demand an explanation. Police intervened, she was briefly detained, and the matter quickly snowballed into a full-fledged political controversy.
Mahajan later clarified that the omission was unintentional and apologised. He stated that he regularly invokes Ambedkar in his speeches and had no motive to disrespect him. Under normal democratic and civic standards, the episode should have ended there.
Instead, it escalated into a manufactured outrage, replete with allegations of “erasing Ambedkar’s identity,” calls for FIRs, and political leaders demanding the minister’s removal.
Madhavi went a step further, declaring that the so-called “sin” committed by Girish Mahajan was so grave that it was beyond forgiveness, so severe, she claimed, that even a holy dip at the upcoming Maha Kumbh would fail to wash it away.
This escalation is telling. Not only does it reveal a brazen contempt for Hindu rituals of taking a dip at Maha Kumbh, but it also shows how omission has now been weaponised as insult, and how sections of the political ecosystem have transformed Ambedkar into a figure whose invocation is no longer symbolic or reverential, but compulsory.
This is perhaps the first time in India’s recorded history that a leader has been accused of “insult” not for what he said, but for what he did not say.
That shift is dangerous.
There is no constitutional provision, legal mandate, or civic convention that requires every Republic Day speech to name Dr Ambedkar. Speeches are not affidavits. They reflect emphasis, context, and thematic focus. A minister may speak about nationalism, federalism, Shivaji Maharaj, or contemporary governance without enumerating every historical contributor to India’s constitutional journey. The Constituent Assembly itself was a collective body. Ambedkar was undoubtedly its most prominent intellectual force, but he was not its sole contributor.
If the standard of “insult” is reduced to non-mention, then no speech is safe. Every address can be interrupted. Every minister can be accused. Every omission can be reframed as malice.
That path leads not to constitutional reverence, but to perpetual disruption.
Political activism dressed up as personal grievance
What makes the Nashik incident especially troubling is not merely the outrage, but who initiated it. Madhvi Jadhav was not a private citizen exercising dissent. She was a government employee on duty at a constitutional function. Service rules, administrative discipline, and the basic architecture of the Indian state require bureaucrats and uniformed personnel to remain politically neutral while discharging official responsibilities.
Her conduct was not an act of democratic protest; it was indiscipline.
The fact that she later demanded an FIR against the minister, despite his apology, only reinforces the suspicion that the confrontation was less about constitutional values and more about political posturing and self-justification following an emotional outburst.
More alarming still is the reaction that followed. A section of the political ecosystem was quick to appropriate and celebrate Madhavi’s stunt as an ‘act of defiance’, hiding their dishonesty in hailing what has been a serious act of indiscipline and dereliction of duty.
Instead of condemning the breach of protocol, several opposition leaders and ideological commentators rushed to glorify the official. Mumbai Congress MP Varsha Gaikwad framed the interruption as the “voice of every self-respecting Marathi citizen.”
Congress leader Shama Mohamed went further, calling the forest official “brave” and demanding Mahajan’s immediate sacking for allegedly insulting the “architect of the Constitution.”
A few serving policewomen of the Maharashtra Police have alleged that Maharashtra minister Girish Mahajan omitted the name of B R Ambedkar from his Republic Day speech.
If this is true, the minister must be sacked immediately for insulting the architect of our Constitution. LoP… pic.twitter.com/lLovo0jl4d
Pro-Congress social media handles hailed Jadhav with slogans and salutes.
A grand salute to Madhavi Jadhav for boldly teaching a lesson to the minister who dared to omit Dr. Ambedkar’s name from his Republic Day speech. Jai Bhim 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/yDKHkh97EK
When political actors publicly endorse indiscipline by serving officials, they send a clear signal: ideological confrontation will be rewarded, not punished. Neutrality will be penalised; activism will be celebrated.
This is how institutions corrode.
The elevation of Ambedkar as sacrosanct figure beyond reproach
The transformation of Ambedkar into a sacrosanct figure beyond criticism, beyond omission, beyond contextual restraint adds another troubling layer. Much like figures in rigid monotheistic belief systems, any perceived slight now triggers outrage, allegations, and punitive demands. In extreme cases, dissent or critique attracts the threat of stringent legal provisions, social ostracism, or career destruction.
The irony here is profound.
Dr Ambedkar himself was among the fiercest critics of hero worship. In his final speech to the Constituent Assembly, he issued a prescient warning, “Bhaktiin religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictator”
Yet today, many who claim to act in his name have elevated him into precisely the kind of infallible icon he warned against, one whose name must be ritually invoked, whose absence is treated as blasphemy, and whose legacy is enforced through coercion rather than understanding.
This is not homage. It is instrumentalisation.
More importantly, it narrows the space for free political speech. The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression to every citizen, including ministers. Forgetting to mention Ambedkar is not a crime. It is not even misconduct. A Republic Day speech may focus on any number of themes without being compelled to follow a prescribed ideological script.
If tomorrow a minister omits Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Savarkar, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, or any other historical figure, will that too justify disruption India’s freedom struggle and constitutional journey involved countless contributors across centuries. No speech can name them all, nor should it be expected to.
The absurdity of the current outrage becomes clear when viewed against historical precedent. Since Independence, Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, or even people of some prominence have delivered hundreds of speeches on Republic Day and Independence Day. None have ever been forced to list every freedom fighter or Constitution framer. No one has been accused of “insulting” Bhagat Singh or Vivekananda or Ambedkar because their names were not mentioned in a particular address.
Why, then, this exception?
The answer lies in politics, not principle.
CISF official assaults Kangana Ranaut
The Nashik episode fits into a broader and deeply worrying pattern, where the politicisation of the bureaucracy and uniformed services has been steady and irreversible. In recent public memory, the most striking example was the 2024 incident involving CISF official Kulwinder Kaur, who allegedly slapped MP Kangana Ranaut at an airport, a highly sensitive security zone. Kaur later justified her action by citing Ranaut’s past comments on farmres protests.
The act constituted a serious breach of security and protocol. Yet what followed was even more disturbing. While Kaur was suspended and transferred pending inquiry, there was no firm institutional condemnation. Instead, public figures openly normalised the assault. Music composer Vishal Dadlani even offered to secure employment for her if action was taken. Political supporters lauded her conduct as ‘brave resistance.’
The message it sent was unmistakably stark: ideological violence by on-duty officials is acceptable if the target is politically convenient.
The Nashik incident echoes this logic. The official is portrayed as courageous. The minister, despite apologising, is cast as the offender because he is from the BJP, PM Modi’s party, and, therefore, a fairgame for warriors of Congress ecosystem. Discipline is reframed as oppression. Neutrality is dismissed as moral cowardice.
Bareilly Magistrate Alankar Agnihotri resigns over new UGC regulations
The resignation of Bareilly City Magistrate Alankar Agnihotri on Republic Day further underscores this trend. While resignation is an individualrightAgnihotri’sssss public framing of his exit as a political protest against government policies, complete with media briefings, ideological rhetoric, and mobilisation by caste and political leaders, again blurred the line between administration and activism.
When serving or recently serving officers position themselves as ideological actors, governance itself becomes performative. Administration turns into a platform for signalling dissent rather than executing policy.
A constitutional democracy cannot function this way.
The civil services and uniformed forces are not pressure groups. They are not activist collectives. Their legitimacy derives precisely from their neutrality. Once officials begin to see themselves as moral arbiters empowered to confront elected representatives based on personal or ideological conviction, the chain of authority collapses.
The slippery slope of ideological policing by the state
Today, the justification is Ambedkar. Tomorrow, it could be caste, religion, language, reservation policy, or faith. If every official feels entitled to disrupt, resign theatrically, or physically confront politicians while on duty, governance will grind to a halt.
Republic Day commemorates not just the adoption of the Constitution, but constitutionalism itself, restraint, procedure, institutional boundaries, and respect for roles. The Nashik disruption violated all of these principles.
Political activism while on duty is not courage. It is dereliction. And when such dereliction is celebrated, encouraged, and politicised, it ceases to be an aberration. It becomes a contagion.
India should be deeply concerned, not because Ambedkar was forgotten in a speech, but because the state itself is forgetting the meaning of constitutional discipline.
26th January, 1965. The entire country was celebrating Republic Day. The parade was underway in Delhi, the tricolour was waving, and people were filled with enthusiasm. But in Madras (present-day Tamil Nadu), the atmosphere was completely different. The morning sky was gloomy, black flags were flying, and the streets were crowded with young students. This day became not a day of celebration, but of mourning. The movement that began to oppose making Hindi the official language became so violent that many young men lost their lives. Many were killed in police firing, and many committed suicide.
Official figures put the death toll at around 70, but witnesses and activists say the number was much higher. This was a disaster that unfolded on Republic Day. The sacrifices made by students here decades ago were sacrificed to the politics of language. Today, decades later, we must remember that time to understand how a linguistic issue was turned into a political weapon, putting the lives of young people at stake.
This issue isn’t just about supporting or opposing Hindi. It’s about the politics of the DMK, which mobilised youth under the guise of an anti-Hindi movement, and the Congress government mishandled it. The DMK turned it into a North India versus South India issue, while the Congress party tried to retain or regain power by linking its protests to anti-Hindi sentiment. The result: the deaths of innocent students, chaos in the state, and prolonged political change.
Anti-Hindi roots in Tamil Nadu go back to before Independence.
The movement had ancient roots. Even before independence, in 1937, the Congress government in the Madras Presidency, led by C. Rajagopalachari, made Hindi compulsory in schools. Even then, there was opposition, and the government was forced to back down. Even in the Constituent Assembly, leaders like T.T. Krishnamachari warned that linguistic imperialism could endanger the nation’s unity. Consequently, the Munshi-Ayyangar formula was adopted in the 1950 Constitution, making Hindi the official language, but retaining English as an auxiliary language for 15 years.
This period was to end on 26th January, 1965. Leaders in the Hindi belt hailed this as a victory for Hindi. However, in the South, and especially in Tamil Nadu, it was seen as linguistic dominance and a cultural assault. Students feared that civil service exams would be conducted in Hindi, and non-Hindi speakers would be excluded from jobs.
DMK did politics by sacrificing students
Tensions had been rising since 1964. DMK leader C.N. Annadurai initiated large demonstrations. Student organisations also became active. The DMK declared it a “day of mourning.” Madras’s Congress Chief Minister, Bhaktavatsalam, warned that anyone observing Republic Day as a day of mourning was a traitor. Annadurai and several DMK workers were placed under house arrest. The government thought the movement was limited to one party and would be suppressed. But this was a misconception. The real strength lay with the students. The DMK put students at the forefront and tried to gain political advantage under the guise of the movement.
Congress workers resorted to violence to stop the Madurai procession.
On 25th January, students in Madurai took out a procession. They carried placards that read, “Hindi never, English always!” They were about to burn copies of the Constitution, which provided for Hindi to be the official language. Clashes broke out with Congress workers. The small clash quickly escalated into a riot. Stones were thrown, buses were burned, and the strong smell of burning rubber spread. News spread throughout the state, and violence erupted. Several protesters were killed in clashes with police, and others committed suicide.
On 26th January, black flags were raised in Madras. Students took to the streets. Railway tracks were blocked, and railway property was burned. Transportation came to a standstill. The agitation continued until February. Students formed the Anti-Hindi Agitation Council, which united college students. Violence reached its peak, resulting in several deaths in police firing. Two Union ministers, C. Subramaniam and O.V. Alagesan, resigned. They told Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri that they could not remain in a government that was fighting its own people.
English got a permanent place in 1967
Shastri and Home Minister Gulzarilal Nanda were embroiled in legal wrangling in Delhi. Political courage was lacking. Indira Gandhi, then Minister of Information and Broadcasting, broke all protocol and went straight to Madras. She spoke to the protesters and, without consulting the government, acquiesced to their demands, assuring them that English would remain. However, in February, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri himself assured Parliament that English would remain an associate language indefinitely. This was formalised in the 1967 amendment to the Official Languages Act. English would remain so until all non-Hindi-speaking states agreed, virtually forever.
Congress is out of power forever
This agreement wasn’t a complete victory for anyone, but it recognised India’s pluralism. Hindi would be promoted, but not imposed. But what was the cost? Dozens of young people were killed. The DMK turned this movement into a political weapon, turning opposition to Hindi into a North-South divide. It is capitalised by putting students in the forefront while remaining behind the scenes. The Congress government also made mistakes—first attempting to suppress the protests, then delaying the agreement.
The result? The DMK came to power in 1967. Congress was permanently weakened in Tamil Nadu. To this day, Congress has never won an election on its own. Power rotates between the DMK and the AIADMK, with Congress reduced to a mere tail-ender in one coalition or another.
The enemies of that time have now become permanent friends.
Today, the DMK and Congress are together in Tamil Nadu. They cannot survive without each other. But what did the politics of that time do? Young people were made pawns for sacrifice. Under the guise of opposing Hindi, regional sentiments were incited, and power was gained. We oppose the violent form of the anti-Hindi movement, which resulted in the loss of innocent lives. Imposing Hindi would have been wrong (though it wasn’t), but making the movement so violent, using students as a front, and using deaths as a political stepping stone was also wrong. The Congress mishandled this situation, and the DMK capitalised on it.
DMK still uses anti-Hindi as a political weapon
However, the DMK continues to use this issue as a weapon. On Sunday, January 25, 2026, on “Tamil Language Martyrs’ Day,” Chief Minister MK Stalin reiterated his old rhetoric.
Stalin wrote on social media – “Language War Martyrdom Day: Then and now, there is no place for Hindi here! A state that loved its language more than life itself fought against the imposition of Hindi. Every time it was imposed, it fought with the same zeal. It protected the rights and identity of the different linguistic nationalities in the subcontinent. I pay tribute to those martyrs who sacrificed their lives for Tamil. No more lives will be lost in the language war; our Tamil identity will not die! We will always oppose the imposition of Hindi.”
Stalin also shared an old video of the 1964-65 movement, which features images of protests, self-immolations, and violence. He paid tribute to Annadurai and Karunanidhi. He accused the central government of imposing Hindi through the NEP 2020 and the three-language policy. Stalin claimed that Tamil Nadu’s progress was due to its two-language policy (Tamil and English).
But the question is, is Hindi being imposed today? Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has repeatedly stated that Hindi is not mandatory in the NEP, but that all Indian languages are promoted. Yet, Stalin calls it an “imposition.” Why? Because the 2026 assembly elections are near. Reviving old movements, stirring emotions, and awakening regional identities… this is the DMK’s old strategy. They came to power in 1965 through the deaths of students, and now they are remembering those deaths and asking for votes.
Republic Day is supposed to be a day of celebration. But in 1965, it became a day of mourning in Tamil Nadu. Let’s remember the students who thought they were saving language and culture but were sacrificed to the machinations of politics. We must remember that linguistic issues should not be used as a weapon for political division.
King George’s Medical University (KGMU) of Lucknow is presently under scrutiny after a group of doctors has been exposed for trapping Hindu girls into romantic relationships and subsequently forcing them to marry as well as convert to Islam. They blackmailed their victims with explicit photographs and videos as well as fabricated marriage certificates. It has been reported that a maulana was instructing them to focus on two female doctors. Furthermore, the “price” for the conversion of each Hindu woman differed as many such disclosures have been made during the ongoing investigation.
The issue came to public attention on 17th December when a Hindu doctor attempted suicide by ingesting poison. She accused her superior, Dr Rameezuddin Malik alias Rameez Malik, from the pathology department, of pushing her to marry him and become Muslim. She further conveyed that he put her through physical and mental harassment.
Hence, the distressed woman tried to take her own life. Her father lodged a complaint with Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and the State Women’s Commission. Babita Chauhan, the chairperson of the commission, along with vice-chairperson Aparna Yadav, took an active role in the matter. They convened with the Vice-Chancellor of the institution to obtain information and asserted that a gang, rather than a single person, was implicated in the conversions and the perpetrators would be brought to light.
Blackmail and sexual exploitation after making obscene videos
The victim shared her traumatic experience. She stated that Malik pressured her to undergo an abortion. He also recorded explicit videos of her and blackmailed her. She emphasised that he had forced her to embracing Islam for the purpose of marriage. She recounted that he regularly exploited her sexually in the name of marriage. As a result, she conceived and he pressured her into having an abortion by administering medication. She urged him to tie the knot in October 2025 and he began telling her to change her religion.
The Hindu doctor started to distance herself from Malik but he relentlessly pursued her. He continuously blackmail her by displaying the explicit videos and threatening, “I will make these viral. You will not be able to marry anyone. Submit and convert to Islam.” She also mentioned the his first wife, Mansi Saxena, whom she met in September 2026. Mansi was also compelled to become Muslim before marrying Malik.
CM Yogi assures strict action
The victim met with CM Yogi and provided a detailed account of her ordeal. He assured her that decisive action would be taken against the offenders. He noted that anyone found to be involved in the case would face similar repercussions. The Women’s Commission also met with him to inform him about the situation.
Afterwards, Malik was suspended from the university. He participated in the college administration’s inquiry, claiming innocence. However, he soon went into hiding as the police intensified their efforts. The authorities later announced a reward of ₹25,000 for his capture which was subsequently increased to ₹50,000.
A non-bailable warrant had been issued for him and raids were carried out at multiple sites. On 7th January, a property attachment notice was affixed to his ancestral residence in Pilibhit. On 9th January, he was arrested and reportedly intended to surrender before the court.
Malik’s jihadi father
Lucknow police apprehended Malik’s father Salimuddin and mother Khatija, in the Thakurganj area on 5th January after the complaint. Afterwards, startling information surfaced regarding Salimuddin. He had previously married four Hindu women from various states and converted them to Islam. His spouses hail from Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh.
Khatija is also a former Hindu and Malik is the son of his first wife who was of Punjabi descent. Salimuddin operated a homeopathic clinic in Khatima in Uttarakhand where he would attempt to form relationships with women under the pretext of providing treatment. He maintained contact with a qazi from Pilibhit and often travelled to Deoband.
The family underwent a rise in religious extremism which instilled a sense of animosity towards Hindus in his son. Malik excelled academically and was admitted to Agra Medical College in 2012. He was largely influenced by both his father and the qazi.
“Islamic Medicos Meet” at Agra Medical College
Malik enrolled in the MBBS program at SN Medical College in Agra in 2012 when the Samajwadi Party (SP) had assumed power in the state, leading to a rise in the confidence of Muslim radicals. Hence, meetings commenced at Agra Medical College under the title “Islamic Medicos Meet” where maulanas and senior students began grooming their juniors on how to approach Hindu girls. Additionally, a WhatsApp group “Islamic Medicos” was created which connected these extremists.
Several Muslim doctors seduced Hindu girls in relationships within the institution and converted them to Islam. Malik also had four or five close associates who shared the same ideology. One of his acquaintances at KGMU was involved in similar activities for the past year.
It remains uncertain whether the groups at KGMU and Agra were interconnected or functioning independently. Nonetheless, it is evident that the presence of maulanas in medical colleges gradually became a norm. Over the past year, they began visiting Basti Medical College. A first-year Head of Department (HOD) faced accusations of citing exmaples from Hadith during medical science lectures at Bulandshahr Medical College. The practice was swiftly stopped by his colleagues.
An ex-KGMU doctor Bhupendra Singh expressed, “These students became confident during the regime of the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party. Within three to four years, they turned seniors and commenced delivering speeches. This group remained active until around 2011-12.” Muslim medical students were simultaneously being assembled and indoctrinated under the “Islamic Medicos Meet.” The trend of Muslim doctors marrying Hindu women became notably widespread at Agra Medical College.
15 girls pressurised to convert, images of over 50 girls discovered
The police examined Malik’s mobile phone and indicated that he was in contact with 15 Hindu girls whom he was enticing and forcing to embrace Islam. His targets comprised not only students but also professors. These women were from Agra, Noida and several other districts. His network extended beyond Lucknow to other cities as well.
Malik had also ensnared a female professor from KGMU. A girl working in Noida informed the police that in 2012, he drugged and raped her as well as recorded a video. He had been blackmailing and exploiting her ever since. According to the police findings, he was charged with pushing a Hindu female doctor from Agra to change her religion and wedding her through deceit. The victim asserted that he faked a marriage certificate and sexually abused her for a prolonged period.
The marriage was conducted by Qazi Zahid Hasan Rana of Pilibhit with a young man named Shariq as a witness. The marriage certificate was regarded as bogus because neither Malik nor the woman were in Pilibhit at the time of the ceremony. It was produced without their actual presence.
Malik’s mobile unveiles numerous secrets
Malik’s mobile phone and laptop were confiscated amid the probe. He had erased many chats and contact numbers from his device which the authorities are trying to retrieve with the assistance of a forensic team. He underwent strict interrogation by the police, however. didn’t answer various questions. He also failed to provide a definitive response concerning his association with Red Fort blast accused Dr Parvez in Agra. Parveez is the brother of one of the main conspirators Dr Shaheen Saeed in the suicide bombing case.
Cops have secured vital information from his phone and laptop. According to the agencies conducting the inquiry, Malik had made a folder named “Jannat” (Paradise) on his digital devices, where he saved data, objectionable videos and the contact details of Hindu girls. The initial investigations have mentioned that he had been documenting his activities digitally for the past 13 years.
Collected information about Hindu girls
The interrogation revealed that Malik wielded influence over the KGMU medical group and its students which he leveraged to broaden his network. Over 50 videos featuring young women, lewd content and information about dubious contacts were recovered from his laptop. He has also identified several accomplices whose involvement is currently under probe.
Malik kept records of call girls in a distinct folder on his laptop which encompassed their names, phone numbers and additional details. The authorities asserted that he utilised them to entice Muslim youths into his conversion conspiracy. The inquiry uncovered that whenever he interacted with a Hindu girl, he would gather her photographs, personal data and store them.
15 lakh “reward” and conversion network
Many alarming discoveries were made during the inquiry into these religious conversions. It was found that Malik was involved in a major conversion network where a reward of 15 lakh was intorduced for converting medical professionals (doctors) and 5 lakh for others.
The investigation highlighted that Malik had wed a Hindu doctor in February for which he received 15 lakh. Call records pointed out that he was also in communication with 15 other female resident doctors, manipulating and forcing them to convert. There is also suspicion at KGMU that this entire operation was orchestrated through a structured network that allocated substantial funds to facilitate conversions.
The inquiry stated that Malik, along with certain medical personnel linked to this gang, were attending distinct sessions led by different maulanas who were giving particular messages to the doctors. They directed their audience to wed two Hindu women each, framing it as a commendable deed and encouraging them to comply. Each doctor linked with the group was assigned similar objectives.
KGMU management’s collusion
Two professors have been implicated in relation to this conspiracy and accused of aiding Malik. Call records outined that he had extensive discussions with them. Likewise, they not only assisted him in evading capture but also coerced the victim into withdrawing the case. KGMU’s inquiry committees are currently interrogating the duo over their failure to notify the administration in light of her suicide attempt.
Moreover, Wahid Ali, the head of the Pathology Departmen was made aware of the incident on 17th December yet the issue was concealed for several days. It had been reported that many complaints were lodged against Malik previously but the officials who were expected to act were shielding him.
The KGMU administration chose to remain silent on the matter until the police submitted a First Information Report (FIR). They only acknowledged the sensitive situation and took action on Malik afterwards. Wahid has also been dismissed from his position and Dr Rashmi Kushwaha succeeded him.
Another KGMU doctor arrested
The police nabbed Mohammad Adil, an intern doctor at KGMU for sexually exploiting a female student over an extended period by making marriage promises and threatening to release her personal photos and videos. He first befriended her and then began inviting her to his apartment, assuring her of marriage.
He engaged in physical relations with her multiple times. However, when she reminded him of his promise, he would consistently avoid the subject and intimidate her. Adil warned her that if she did not stop he would publish her photos and videos. The victim became fed up with this behaviour and filed a complaint regarding sexual harassment and intimidation at the Kaiserbagh police station on 29th December. Adil initially went into hiding and often changed his locations but he was arrested on 14th January.
Delhi blast case and Malik’s connection to Zakir Naik
The investigation 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.
Malik had suspicious chats regarding religious conversion and several videos featuring the controversial Islamic preacher and fugitive Zakir Naik were on his mobile phone. The authorities suspect that he used these to weave the web of religious conversion. Dr Bhupendra mentioned that some medical students at KGMU interacted with Naik around 2004.
Over time, the wearing of beards and hijabs became prevalent in certain areas of the campus. During this time, extremists linked to Naik’s ideology began to target Hindu girls. BDS students were notably involved in this activity which gradually established itself as a norm.
The police have stated that Malik’s phone held not only coversations with the victim but also with various other Hindu girls and doctors. Some nude images were also retrieved from the device during the data recovery process. These conversations clearly demonstrated that he was simultaneously in contact with multiple women and was luring them into his trap.
The police, along with the STF (Special Task Force), are currently looking into this matter. Malik’s close associates have erased mobile data and WhatsApp conversations and many individuals have gone into hiding.
Illegal mazars/dargahs at KGMU campus
Over six illegal mazars or dargahs have been constructed on the KGMU campus, creating a considerable security risk. Vishva Hindu Parishad stated that a team attempting to remove encroachments near a structure located behind the Ophthalmology Department was assaulted, resulting in injuries to several doctors in last April.
The illegal shops in the area were dismantled with assistance from the police administration, however, the mazar remained intact. The organisation argued that more Islamic structures can be found in proximity to the Trauma Center, Queen Mary’s campus, the newly constructed OPD and dental building, the RLC Building in Daliganj and the Pulmonary Department.
KGMU served as a massive center for religious conversions during the governance of the Samajwadi Party and the BSP, approximately 10-15 years ago. Maulanas from local mosques regularly frequented the campus at the time. The atmosphere was peaceful for an extended duration after the Yogi government stormed to power in Uttar pradesh. However, these notorious activities have recommenced in recent years.
On 25th January, the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi acknowledged “serious concerns” raised over the “Critical Philosophy of Caste and Race” conference held on its campus between 16th and 18th January. In an official statement, IIT Delhi said it has sought an explanation from the concerned faculty members and constituted a fact-finding committee with independent members to examine objections related to the choice of speakers and the nature of the content presented.
"Critical Philosophy of Caste and Race" conference (Jan 16-18):
Serious concerns have been raised over the choice of speakers and content of the conference.
The Institute has sought an explanation from the concerned faculty, and a fact-finding committee with independent…
The institute further stated that appropriate action would be taken in accordance with institutional protocols once the committee submits its findings. The institute reiterated its commitment to national goals, academic integrity, and established institutional guidelines.
What the conference was about
The three-day event, titled “Critical Philosophy of Caste and Race” or CPCR3, was organised at the Senate Hall of IIT Delhi’s main building. It was positioned as an academic conference marking 25 years of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa.
According to the organisers, the conference aimed to examine caste as a form of descent-based discrimination and to frame it alongside race within global human rights discourse. The programme brought together academics, activists, writers, and international speakers for keynote lectures, panel discussions, round tables, book launches, and film screenings centred on caste, race, gender, religion, and global advocacy.
While it all sounds good from the outside, the conference provided a biased platform to a one-sided narrative of caste politics. The whole structure was designed to show that there are high levels of discrimination everywhere against minorities and marginalised communities in India.
The conference was organised by Divya Dwivedi of IIT Delhi and Sowjanya Tamalapakula, with support from the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences. Divya Dwivedi is the same professor who once claimed that Hinduism was invented in the 20th century during a debate on a news channel. She also called Hinduism a “hoax” in an article she wrote for The Caravan.
Among the speakers, there were international “activists” and “scholars”, including Thenmozhi Soundararajan, founder of Equality Labs, whose work has been controversial for its framing of caste within race-based and international advocacy narratives. Equality Labs has been pushing a caste narrative in the United States, claiming that upper-caste Indians who have migrated to the US often indulge in caste-based discrimination against Indian-origin colleagues and employees from the SC/ST community.
Several sessions explicitly linked caste with race, global governance, religion, and contemporary political movements, including discussions comparing Dalit issues with other international conflicts. These sessions called for transnational alliances to address “caste-based discrimination”. The ideological orientation of these sessions and the speakers in the sessions, as well as the activist-driven framing of caste within an elite technical institution, have now come under scrutiny.
Who is Divya Dwivedi and what she represents
Divya Dwivedi is a professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at IIT Delhi who is behind the CPCR conferences. She teaches philosophy and literature. Over the past decade, she has emerged as an ideologue who consistently frames Hindu identity, caste, and Indian society through a confrontational political lens that is rooted in race discourse and global activist frameworks.
Her academic career includes publications with international publishers, fellowships in European institutions, and advisory roles linked to UNESCO affiliated platforms. This global positioning is central to her work, as it means she is not confined to classroom debate. She actively seeks to shape how India’s social structure is interpreted, critiqued, and judged in international intellectual and political spaces.
Her public record on Hinduism and the Hindu identity
The ideological positioning of Dwivedi is in itself highly problematic. During a television debate in 2019, she declared, “The Hindu religion was invented in the early twentieth century in order to hide the fact that the lower caste people are the real majority of India.” She went on to claim that Mahatma Gandhi “helped construct a false Hindu majority and a new Hindu identity”, adding that this political construct must be “discarded”.
These views were elaborated further in the essay she co-authored for the controversial magazine, The Caravan. The essay, titled “The Hindu Hoax”, presented Hindu identity as a deliberate political fiction created by upper caste elites. In the essay, she argued that there is “no innocent use of ‘Hindu’” and portrayed the term itself as inseparable from caste oppression and political domination.
Such claims are not framed as one strand of interpretation among many. They are presented as definitive conclusions, leaving little room for historical continuity, internal reform traditions, or the lived religious experience of millions of Hindus across caste. By presenting Hinduism as a “hoax”, she effectively denies the followers of Sanatan Dharma their legitimate place in India’s religious and civilisational space, reducing a living faith to a political construct and disregarding how millions of people understand and practise their own religion.
G20 intervention and internationalisation of the narrative
Dwivedi’s ideological posture became even more explicit during the G20 meeting in India in 2023. During that time, she used an interview with the French broadcaster France 24 to argue that India’s future must move beyond Hinduism itself.
🔴🇮🇳 Philosopher and author Divya Dwivedi says there are two Indias: ➖ Past India of racialized caste order oppressing the majority population. ➖ The idea of a future egalitarian India without caste oppression and Hinduism.
She said, “There are two Indias. One is the India of racialised caste order and then there is the India of the future, an egalitarian India without caste oppression and Hinduism.”
When confronted with on-ground stories of social mobility and economic change, she dismissed them as “mediatised anecdotes” and reiterated that “10% of the upper caste occupy 90% of the lucrative and powerful positions”. She further described Hinduism as a “false to hoax representation” and went on to label the RSS as a “fascist organisation” representing “upper caste supremacist interests”.
This was not a casual remark. It reflected a consistent attempt to export a specific narrative about India to global audiences at a time when the country was hosting world leaders. She sought to reinforce the same ideological framework she advances in her academic work.
What she argued at the IIT Delhi conference
At CPCR3, Dwivedi presented a paper titled ‘Remnants of Durban: Towards a Critical Philosophy of Caste and Race’. While the full text of the paper or a video of her presentation is not publicly available yet, the abstract of the paper itself is revealing.
Source: IIT Delhi
In the paper, which was published by Oxford Press in March 2025, Dwivedi reiterated the claim that “caste is race plus”, a slogan that originated from the 2001 Durban conference. She argued that caste and race share a deep structural homology rooted in what she described as the pre-colonial and colonial “Aryan doctrine”. According to her, this constitutes not merely discrimination but a form of “paleo racism”, predating modern racial categories.
Source: Oxford Press
She further suggested that opposition to equating caste with race exists primarily to prevent confrontation with this so-called homology. The abstract framed caste as possessing “calypsological powers” which allow it to perpetuate oppression through concealment and denial. It concludes by calling for new global anti caste and anti-racist struggles, presented as unfinished political projects awaiting activation.
The aim of the argument is to prove that Hindu society is not viewed as reformable or internally plural. It shows society as an inherently racialised order whose very foundations must be challenged through global ideological mobilisation.
Why this framework is deeply problematic
Dwivedi’s approach collapses religion, history, social practice, and political power into a single accusatory framework. Hinduism is reduced to a tool of domination, caste is racialised in absolute terms, and dissenting interpretations are treated as moral evasions rather than scholarly disagreements.
This is one of the major problems with Left-liberal intellectuals. In their view, it is “my way or the highway”. Anyone presenting an alternative narrative or perspective to counter theirs becomes a right-winger, no matter how rational the argument is.
Her work invites external interventions into India’s internal social processes by framing caste as race and Hindu identity as a hoax. It delegitimises indigenous reform movements, philosophical traditions, and social mobility that do not align with her thesis. It replaces social complexity with ideological certainty.
Most critically, her repeated use of global platforms, whether academic conferences or international media during the G20, demonstrates how this narrative is not merely academic inquiry, but political advocacy presented as scholarship.
Why her role at IIT Delhi matters
When such an ideological framework is institutionalised within a publicly funded premier institution like IIT Delhi, it raises legitimate concerns. Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has long been seen as a hub of Left-liberal, anti-Hindu, and anti-India narratives, largely because such ideologies have been allowed to flourish without meaningful administrative intervention.
Academic freedom does not mean ideological monopoly. Yet the conference curated by Dwivedi overwhelmingly reflected her worldview, with little evidence of balance or counter scholarship. The concern is not that she holds controversial views. It is that these views are advanced as academic consensus, amplified through elite institutions, and projected internationally as representative of Indian reality. That is precisely why scrutiny of her role, her conferences, and her intellectual networks has become unavoidable.
Who is Thenmozhi Soundararajan, founder of Equality Labs
Thenmozhi Soundararajan is the founder and executive director of Equality Labs. She describes herself as a transmedia artist, theorist, and futurist. She is a Dalit American commentator on religion, race, caste, gender, technology, and justice, with highly objectionable views on Hinduism, Hindu society, and culture. Her topic for the conference was “25 Years of Racial and Caste Equity Impact of Durban on Dalit Americans”.
Source: IIT Delhi
Her organisation, Equality Labs, has emerged as one of the most influential anti-Brahminism advocacy groups in the United States. She is also the author of The Trauma of Caste and has positioned herself as a key voice seeking to internationalise caste discourse by framing it within the language of race, systemic oppression, and genocide.
Source: Instagram
Under Thenmozhi Soundararajan‘s leadership, Equality Labs has actively pushed narratives portraying Hindu society, particularly Brahmin communities, as structurally oppressive, often using sweeping generalisations rather than case specific evidence.
Equality Labs and its activism record
Equality Labs gained global attention when former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey posed with a placard reading “Smash Brahminical Patriarchy”, a poster designed by Soundararajan herself. The image became emblematic of the organisation’s confrontational activism, which promotes social antagonism rather than reform.
Source: File photo
The organisation has collaborated with the Organisation for Minorities in India (OFMI) on reports claiming widespread caste discrimination among South Asian Americans. OFMI was founded by Bhajan Singh Bhinder, a known ISI operative, and included Pieter Friedrich, who has repeatedly targeted Hindu political figures and organisations. Despite these associations, Equality Labs continued to be cited by activist lawmakers and media outlets as an authoritative voice on caste.
Political lobbying and ideological campaigning
Equality Labs holds significant influence within the Justice Democrats wing of the US Democratic Party. The organisation actively campaigned against India’s Citizenship Amendment Act in the United States, amplifying allegations of genocide and popularising slogans such as “Stop Hindu fascism”.
Controversial claims and workplace pushback
Soundararajan has made repeated controversial assertions, including claims that Sanskrit was exclusive to Brahmins in the Vedic period and that the Manusmriti ordered molten lead to be poured into the ears of Dalits, assertions that have been disputed by multiple scholars. She has also accused yoga traditions and instructors of promoting sexual control and predatory behaviour under the guise of ancient practices.
In April 2022, Google cancelled a scheduled talk by Soundararajan after internal concerns that her presentation could create division and rancour within the workplace. The tech giant clarified that while caste discrimination has no place at Google, it would not host sessions that risked polarising employees.
Links to Khalistani elements and SB403 controversy
Soundararajan has also drawn attention for appearing on the same stage as Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun of Sikhs For Justice, a fact highlighted by US Congressional candidate Ritesh Tandon. The event took place in Washington DC, and photographs of the gathering were later shared by Hindu advocacy groups.
I strongly condemn the reported acts of vandalism, attempted arson, and fire targeting the Indian Consulate in San Francisco @nagentv@SandhuTaranjitS. These criminal offenses are highly reprehensible. It is disappointing to witness the lack of action from California Governor… pic.twitter.com/mXxl9aHva2
— Ritesh Tandon US Congressional Candidate, CA 17 (@tandon4congress) July 4, 2023
Equality Labs was among the strongest backers of California’s SB403, a proposed anti caste discrimination bill that relied heavily on the now collapsed Cisco caste case. Despite the bill being returned by Governor Gavin Newsom, Soundararajan described the setback as “heartbreaking”, signalling the organisation’s continued push to legislate caste narratives into American law.
Aarushi Punia and the Dalit Palestinian comparison
During the conference, one of the speakers, Aarushi Punia, spoke on the topic “What’s common between Dalits and Palestinians?”. Aarushi is a scholar trained at IIT Delhi, where she completed her PhD comparing Dalit and Palestinian literature and narratives of suffering.
Source: IIT Delhi
Her academic work focuses on caste, Palestine, gender, and what she describes as racialised structures of oppression. She has also been a visiting fellow at the University of Cambridge and has written for platforms such as the Indian Express, Middle East Eye, and other left leaning publications.
In an article published in the Indian Express in May 2024, she argued that Dalits and Palestinians share comparable experiences of oppression, humiliation, segregation, and erasure at the hands of ‘ethno-national states’. She equated the Indian social order with the Israel Palestine conflict by portraying both as “carceral” systems in which dominant groups allegedly exercise racial control over subordinated populations.
Her article repeatedly framed Hindu society and the Indian state as structurally analogous to Zionism, asserting that caste operates as a form of racial domination similar to Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank.
This comparison is deeply problematic. Dalits are citizens of India with constitutional rights, political representation, affirmative action safeguards, and legal remedies. Palestinians, by contrast, are located within a geopolitical conflict involving borders, war, terrorist groups like Hamas, and competing national claims. Collapsing social discrimination within a civilisation into an active military conflict between states and non-state actors is not scholarship, but ideological flattening.
She drew moral equivalence between caste oppression and war driven territorial conflict without considering the fact that such arguments erase historical specificity, reduce complex realities into grievance narratives, and have the potential to push specific communities towards armed conflicts.
This framing does not advance reform or justice. Instead, it feeds into a broader academic tendency to recast Indian society as inherently oppressive and comparable to global conflict zones, a move that aligns more with political advocacy than rigorous analysis.
Not an isolated event, but a growing pattern
The controversy around the CPCR3 conference at IIT Delhi points to a larger issue within India’s academic spaces. What was presented as an academic discussion on caste and discrimination ended up promoting a narrow and one sided narrative that portrayed Hindu society as inherently oppressive and beyond reform.
The conference was organised by Divya Dwivedi, and the presence of Equality Labs founder Thenmozhi Soundararajan makes the nature of the conference clearer. Their past statements and activism show a consistent pattern of framing Hindu identity as a political conspiracy and caste as a racial system comparable to global conflict patterns. This approach is less about reform and more about confrontation, often aimed at international audiences.
Such conferences do not exist in isolation. Similar events are increasingly being organised across campuses, where activist narratives are presented as academic consensus, while alternative perspectives are ignored. When caste is repeatedly equated with race and India’s social realities are compared with war zones, it creates division rather than dialogue.
Academic freedom does not mean ideological monopoly. Institutions like IIT Delhi have a responsibility to ensure balance, intellectual rigour, and genuine debate. The institute’s decision to seek explanations and set up a fact finding committee is an important step, but the larger issue remains.
This episode is only the tip of the iceberg. Unless such narratives and conferences are examined more closely, academic spaces will continue to lean towards ideologically driven political advocacy rather than serving as centres of learning and inquiry.
Every Republic Day, India rolls out the Padma awards to celebrate everyday folks doing extraordinary things. This year, on 26th January, the government announced the list, spotlighting 45 unsung heroes with Padma Shri in exceptional work across fields like social service, medicine, education, public affairs, and community development. These aren’t big celebrities, they’re regular people making real change. From a retired IPS officer cleaning streets, to a bus conductor building the world’s largest free library, the list celebrates people who chose service over comfort.
Among them are names like Budhri Tati, a social worker from a Naxal-affected region of Chhattisgarh, and Dr Armida Fernandez, a pioneering paediatrician and neonatologist who transformed infant healthcare in India. Both are getting the Padma Shri for their lifelong dedication.
Budhri Tati: A quiet force of change in Naxal-affected Bastar
Budhri Tati, from the Naxal-hit Hiranar village in Dantewada district, South Bastar, Chhattisgarh, is one of those rare gems earning the Padma Shri this year. She’s spent over 36 to 40 years pouring her heart into social work in one of India’s most dangerous and backward spots, the hardcore Naxal area of Abujhmad.
Watch: According to sources, Budri Thati from Chhattisgarh will be conferred the Padma Shri 2026 in the field of Social Work pic.twitter.com/q6SdWMfEs1
Locals fondly call her “Badi Didi”, like a big sister everyone looks up to. She’s all about lifting girls, women, and the elderly in places where violence and poverty keep dreams out of reach.
Budhri’s work is hands-on and tireless. She runs sewing training programs to make women self-reliant. Over 500 have learned skills to stand on their own feet, stitching clothes and earning a living.
She pushes education hard, setting up schools and spreading the word to kids who’ve never seen a classroom because of the Naxal shadow. In old-age homes, she lends a hand, making sure the forgotten aren’t alone. Even the Chhattisgarh government has honoured her before for this quiet revolution. In Abujhmad, where outsiders fear to tread, Budhri’s built trust and change, one stitch, one lesson at a time. Her story shows how one woman’s grit can light up the darkest corners.
Speaking to PTI, on being conferred with Padma Shri, Budhari Tati says, “It’s a proud moment for my tribal community, nearly 545 women were educated through my efforts.”
VIDEO | Dantewada, Chhattisgarh: On being conferred with Padma Shri, Budhari Tati says, "It's a proud moment for my tribal community, nearly 545 women were educated through my efforts."
Social worker Budhari Tati, a native of Hiranar village in Dantewada district, began her… pic.twitter.com/bME9rVWgFt
83-year-old Dr Armida Fernandez from Karnataka is being awarded the Padma Shri too; she’s one of 15 from the state. Based in Mumbai, this neonatologist is known as the ‘mother of Indian neonatology’ for revolutionising baby care. Back in 1989, she set up Asia’s first human milk bank at Sion Hospital (Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital). It was a game-changer, slashing infant deaths by giving preterm babies donated mother’s milk when their own moms couldn’t provide it.
Before machines could breathe for newborns, Dr Armida Fernandez taught a nation to care.
In a crowded Mumbai ward in 1989, when fragile lives slipped away because mothers’ milk didn’t reach them, she dared to imagine something radical—a human milk bank.
Dr Fernandez didn’t stop there. She’s trained over 2,000 nurses and kicked off one of India’s earliest doctoral programs in neonatology. She served as dean of Sion Hospital till retiring in 2001, and her innovations were low-cost and smart, like using overhead lamps to keep newborns warm.
At a time when hospitals banned moms from neonatal units over infection fears, she let them in, proving it actually protected the babies. Her peers rave about her vision. Dr Jayshree Mondkar, a close colleague and former dean, recalls how Dr Fernandez started as her teacher, then became HOD, and later dean. “She persisted despite pushback on milk banks,” Mondkar says. Donors kept it going for five years until the Mumbai civic body took over.
Armida Fernandes from Maharashtra will be conferred the Padma Shri in Medicine for her contributions to reducing infant mortality, including establishing Asia’s first Human Milk Bank and training over two thousand nurses, doctors, and hospital teams across Maharashtra.… pic.twitter.com/CdOfU3TsOT
— Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (@MIB_India) January 25, 2026
Pioneering health beyond hospital walls
Dr Fernandez always thought bigger than bedsides. In 1999, she co-founded SNEHA, the Society for Nutrition, Education and Health Action, an urban health NGO operating in Mumbai’s slums. It started with moms and newborns, fighting violence against women and kids, then grew to childcare, nutrition, and teen health.
Today, SNEHA has over 500 staff tackling informal settlements, a shift from rural-only health talks back then. Dr Shanti Pantvaidya, former anaesthesiology head, remembers her summoning all department heads as dean to craft a shared hospital vision, something totally new and exciting.
No possessiveness for her; she built these setups and handed them off. When the milk bank idea faced scepticism, people weren’t used to donated human milk – she pushed through. Her work transformed pediatric care, focusing on nutrition and community reach.
A personal touch: Palliative care legacy
In 2017, Dr Fernandez added another layer by starting a free palliative care centre in Mumbai, honouring her daughter Romila, who passed away from cancer. Run mostly by volunteers, it’s open to anyone with life-limiting illnesses, offering emotional support and medical relief. Colleagues like Dr Pantvaidya call her a joy to work with, full of genuine care, vision, and stick-to-it-ness. “This award shows there’s still room for goodness,” Pantvaidya says. Dr Fernandez’s life proves that one doctor can save thousands of tiny lives, build lasting institutions, and touch hearts in slums and beyond.
The Padma Shri awards for Budhri Tati and Dr Armida Fernandez are a reminder that lasting change often comes not from grand speeches or headlines, but from years of quiet, persistent work.
