Home Blog Page 15

38 parasites in the brain? How the BBC used a 19-year-old parasite case to defame India and promote negative stereotypes

Shriti Sagar
-
0
38 parasites in the brain? How the BBC used a 19-year-old parasite case to defame India and promote negative stereotypes

A 42-year-old woman from Wales has claimed that a trip to India nearly two decades ago changed her life after she allegedly developed a rare parasitic brain infection. The story has recently gained international attention after the BBC reported her account, despite the events dating back to 2007.

Lowri Denman, who now lives in the UK, shared her experience with the BBC, saying that a three-month visit to India in 2007 allegedly led to an infection that eventually left her with a metre-long tapeworm and 38 parasites in her brain.

According to her account, the illness took years to diagnose and resulted in severe headaches, seizures and other neurological complications. The renewed coverage of a nearly two-decade-old case has, however, also triggered debate online, with many questioning the timing of the reports and their impact on India’s image.

What is Neurocysticercosis and how it spreads

The condition at the centre of Denman’s story is neurocysticercosis (NCC), a disease caused by the larval stage of the pork tapeworm (Taenia solium). Medical experts have repeatedly clarified that the disease is often misunderstood. Contrary to popular belief, neurocysticercosis is not acquired simply by eating pork. Instead, it occurs when a person accidentally ingests microscopic tapeworm eggs through food or water contaminated with human faeces or through poor hygiene practices.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), humans develop an intestinal tapeworm infection, known as taeniasis, after consuming raw or undercooked infected pork. However, the more serious condition, cysticercosis, develops when tapeworm eggs enter the body through the faecal-oral route. The larvae can then travel through the bloodstream and lodge in different organs, including muscles, eyes and the central nervous system. When these cysts form inside the brain, the condition is known as neurocysticercosis.

Doctors describe neurocysticercosis as the most common parasitic infection of the central nervous system worldwide. Symptoms vary depending on where the parasites settle but commonly include severe headaches, seizures, epilepsy, cognitive problems, visual impairment and, in some cases, psychiatric symptoms. The disease is considered the leading preventable cause of epilepsy globally and is estimated to account for nearly 30% of epilepsy cases in countries where the parasite is endemic. Diagnosis usually requires brain imaging such as CT or MRI scans along with laboratory tests, while treatment generally involves anti-parasitic medicines, steroids and seizure-control medication.

Importantly, Denman herself stated that she deliberately avoided eating meat during her India trip. Medical experts quoted in reports suggested that if her diagnosis is correct, the infection would have resulted from accidentally ingesting microscopic tapeworm eggs through contaminated food or water rather than from knowingly eating pork.

What Lowri Denman claimed happened

Speaking to the BBC, Denman recalled that the first sign of something being seriously wrong came in 2010, three years after her India trip, when she discovered what she described as a metre-long tapeworm after using a restaurant toilet.

“It looked absolutely disgusting, like Sellotape with little ridges in it,” she said.

Although stool tests came back normal, her health deteriorated over the following year. She began suffering severe headaches and later experienced her first seizure in 2011.

“I was really starting to struggle getting some words out,” she recalled. “The next thing I came around and I was in an ambulance.”

Brain scans later revealed what doctors initially believed could be another infection. Denman said the doctor eventually told her, “We’ve found 38 parasites on your brain.”

“My mum and I were just jaws on the floor like, ‘what on earth, what is that?'” she said.

According to the report, her mother questioned whether the parasites could be linked to the tapeworm Denman had discovered a year earlier. Further investigations reportedly led doctors to diagnose neurocysticercosis. Denman spent two weeks in hospital and underwent treatment with anti-parasitic drugs and steroids. She later enjoyed several healthy years before suffering another medical setback when scans revealed significant swelling around the remaining parasites in her brain.

Why a 19-year-old story is being reported now

The renewed publication of Denman’s account has sparked criticism on social media that a medical case linked to a trip made in 2007 is being widely promoted in 2026.

Publishing a nearly two-decade-old case appears to reflect the anti-India BBC’s intention to create the impression that such infections are uniquely associated with present-day India, even though neurocysticercosis is a recognised parasitic disease found across several developing regions in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The infection described in the BBC report is linked to hygiene and contamination rather than simply travelling to or eating food in India. 

Reviving the story after 19 years contributes to negative perceptions about India, especially when the reports receive wide international circulation.

Social media reactions turn into anti-India remarks

Following the publication of the BBC report, several users on social media posted comments targeting India and Indians as per the motive of the BBC, the British broadcaster with a history of furthering anti-India propaganda.

One user wrote, “Ban immigration from India ASAP,” while sharing the BBC article. Another commented, “Would go anywhere in Africa before I ever went to India.”

Some remarks became even more offensive. One post claimed, “India’s biggest export is parasites, either shaped like humans or worms; they’re all bioweapons.”

Another user mocked Indians by writing, “It’s amazing that 38 Indians actually fit into her brain.”

These highly volatile reactions demonstrate how dated medical anomalies can be easily manipulated by media outlets to feed pre-existing biases, turning a personal healthcare crisis into a tool for geopolitical defamation.

A report to spread hate against India 

The renewed attention has also drawn scrutiny over the reporting itself. The BBC article centres on events that began with a trip in 2007, raising questions about why the case has been prominently highlighted nearly 19 years later.

The author of the article, Journalist Nicola Bryan, has reported versions of the same story across multiple publications over the past week, with differing descriptions of Denman’s location in some reports.

In one version, the woman is from Wales, in another from Scotland, and in another from England. These variations, combined with the revival of an old medical case, have fuelled speculation online that the story is being amplified in a way that reinforces negative narratives about India. 

The reports themselves also acknowledge that Denman had avoided meat during her India trip. According to the BBC article, doctors believed she may have inadvertently ingested microscopic tapeworm eggs through contaminated food or water, rather than because she knowingly consumed pork. Her first seizure occurred about three years after her 2007 trip to India. Given this timeline, it is difficult to conclude solely that the infection was definitively acquired during her visit to India. 

The manner in which the BBC has revived and amplified a nearly two-decade-old medical case also fits into a broader pattern in which sections of the Western media disproportionately highlight stories that reinforce stereotypes about India. While diseases such as neurocysticercosis are recognised by the World Health Organisation as a public health issue across multiple countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the report’s framing risks creating the impression that such infections are uniquely associated with India. Such selective editorial choices often end up fuelling prejudice rather than informing readers about the actual epidemiology of the disease.

The resulting online reaction illustrates how quickly such reporting can morph into casual racism against Indians. The social media responses following the BBC article included calls to ban Indian immigration and dehumanising remarks comparing Indians to parasites.

This echoes previous instances in which Western media coverage of India has relied on caricatures and stereotypes. One of the most widely criticised examples was a 2014 cartoon published by The New York Times after the Mars Orbiter Mission successfully entered Mars orbit. The cartoon depicted a turbaned Indian with a cow knocking on the door of an elite space club, a portrayal that was patronising and rooted in colonial stereotypes. It is such reportages and portrayals that contribute to normalising casual racism against India under the guise of commentary.

‘Clandestine funding of extremism’: Karnataka HC refuses to quash UAPA case against associates of US-based Christian missionary organisation The Timothy Initiative

Anurag
-
0
‘Clandestine funding of extremism’: Karnataka HC refuses to quash UAPA case against associates of US-based Christian missionary organisation The Timothy Initiative

On 1st June, the Karnataka High Court dismissed petitions seeking the quashing of a criminal case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against six persons associated with the Indian operations of US-based Christian missionary organisation The Timothy Initiative. OpIndia accessed judgment in the matter.

While dismissing the petitions, Justice M Nagaprasanna said that “clandestine funding of extremism” is among the gravest threats to national security. He added that courts must remain circumspect about stopping an investigation involving economic subversion and the suspected financing of activities in Left Wing Extremism-affected areas.

The observations were made while dismissing petitions filed by Micah Mark, R Jonathan Sushil, Ajit Mathai, Varghese Chacko, Bablu Kurmi and Supreme Joy. They had challenged the FIR registered by the Kothanur Police in Bengaluru on 11th June 2026 against them, The Timothy Initiative and others. OpIndia’s detailed report on the FIR can be checked here.

The FIR, which was registered on the complaint of an Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), invoked Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the UAPA, dealing with unlawful activities, raising funds for terrorist acts and conspiracy or facilitation of a terrorist act. It also included several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) related to criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and the disappearance of evidence.

“The case concerns national security. National security is the invisible architecture upon which the sovereignty, stability and constitutional order of a nation rest,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.

The court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding whether the investigation should be stopped at the initial stage and would not bind or influence the investigating authorities.

What the case against The Timothy Initiative is about

The criminal case against The Timothy Initiative and its members originated from an investigation initiated by the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). According to the investigating agency, Micah Mark is the key person handling TTI’s financial operations in India.

He was intercepted at Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru on 18th April 2026. Upon being searched, he was found carrying 24 foreign debit cards issued by Truist Bank in the United States. The ED informed the court that all 24 cards were printed in the name of “Santosh Kumar”, a common name in India. Earlier cards were reportedly issued using regional descriptions such as “NE-1”, “NE-2” and “Southern Region-1”.

The ED stated that the common name was deliberately used to conceal the identities of the actual users and was intended to bypass Know Your Customer requirements and prevent law enforcement agencies from tracing the cards to the individuals operating them.

The agency said more than 1,000 such debit cards had been distributed across India over several years. The cards were used by TTI functionaries to withdraw foreign funds from Indian ATMs in repeated transactions, usually amounting to Rs 10,000 each.

The ED’s preliminary examination reportedly found that around Rs 92.55 crore, equivalent to approximately USD 9.99 million, was utilised in India between November 2025 and April 2026 through this mechanism. It further found that approximately Rs 44 crore was withdrawn using foreign debit cards across Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Assam and other states between January 2024 and March 2026.

The ED particularly flagged withdrawals in the Left Wing Extremism (LWE)-affected Dhamtari and Bastar regions of Chhattisgarh. It said around Rs 6.34 crore was withdrawn in these regions over the past few years.

Of this, approximately Rs 3.2 crore was withdrawn through 3,200 transactions of Rs 10,000 each from a single AU Small Finance Bank ATM located at Vijay Plaza on Bastar Road in Dhamtari. The withdrawals were made using two foreign debit cards. The ED said such systematic cash withdrawals had taken place under the supervision of Varghese Chacko, who served as a field-level functionary of TTI and resided in Dhamtari.

According to the agency, a parallel cash-based financial network in Naxal-affected areas posed “a serious threat to the security and financial integrity of India” and could facilitate the movement of illicit funds for unlawful activities.

The ED said in its complaint to the Karnataka Police that, shortly after its search operation, TTI’s global portal became inaccessible to users in India. The data maintained on cloud servers controlled by TTI in the United States was reportedly deleted through remote access.

The agency termed this the destruction of evidence during an ongoing search operation. It also said that Micah Mark had acknowledged that his account had been deleted from the back end.

The ED identified Ajit Verghese Mathai as the overall finance head of TTI’s India operations. It said the debit cards were distributed under his direct supervision and that Rs 37 lakh in cash, withdrawn using such cards, was seized from his premises.

Jonathan Rajan was described as the overall operations in-charge of TTI in India. The ED said he supervised TTI training programmes, selected the persons conducting the training, identified venues and sent fund requirements to the organisation’s finance team.

The finance team, in turn, arranged money from TTI in the United States through the foreign debit cards, the agency said.

What the defence argued against the UAPA case

Senior advocate MS Shyam Sundar appeared for Micah Mark. He argued that the ED had no legal authority to communicate the information collected during the FEMA investigation to the Karnataka Police for the registration of a separate criminal case. He contended that the ED was acting under FEMA and was not conducting an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The defence argued that no Enforcement Case Information Report had been registered under the PMLA.

Section 66(2) of the PMLA, under which the ED shared its findings with the Karnataka Director General of Police, could not be invoked in the absence of a PMLA investigation, the defence submitted.

It was further argued that Section 37 of FEMA permitted the ED to conduct searches and seizures but did not authorise it to share the information obtained during such proceedings with another agency.

The petitioners also challenged the invocation of the UAPA, describing its provisions as drastic and stringent. The defence said there was no basic prima facie material showing that the petitioners had committed unlawful activities, raised money for terrorist acts or conspired to facilitate a terrorist act.

It claimed that the UAPA provisions had been deliberately added as though Micah Mark was involved in terrorism. The petitioners were associated with a Christian missionary organisation that worked for poor people, the defence said.

The lawyers appearing for the other five accused argued that there was no evidence establishing any link between them and Micah Mark. They said the UAPA had been applied merely on the suspicion that the accused might have supported unlawful activities against the country.

Micah Mark’s counsel also drew the court’s attention to an earlier writ petition in which Mark accused ED officials of custodial assault and coercion. Mark had apprehended in that petition that additional offences would be imposed upon him. The defence suggested that the subsequent registration of the UAPA case was connected to this dispute.

What the prosecution and ED told the court

However, State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha opposed the petitions and said the investigation had only just begun. He stated that, given the seriousness of the offences, it should be allowed to continue. He submitted, “It is not that the petitioners are running a missionary. It appears that in the garb of missionary they are indulging in unlawful activities.”

Special Public Prosecutor Madhu N Rao, representing the ED, told the court that the 24 debit cards recovered from Micah Mark were only part of a much wider operation. The ED argued that hundreds of foreign cards had been issued and that close to Rs 100 crore had been withdrawn through the network. It said the funds were used in Left Wing Extremism-affected regions of Karnataka, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand.

Left Wing Extremist organisations were not merely banned organisations but banned terrorist outfits, the ED told the court. Therefore, if the accused were financing such organisations or their activities, the investigation could not be stopped before the money trail and the end use of the funds were established.

The agency described the material uncovered so far as only the “tip of the iceberg”. It also rejected the contention that the FIR was a counterblast to Mark’s allegations against ED officials, saying that the case had been registered over activities affecting national security.

The ED’s complaint to the Karnataka Police accused TTI and its Indian network of creating an elaborate mechanism to bring foreign funds into India without FCRA registration or prior permission and without routing the money through a designated FCRA bank account.

The agency said the cards were circulated among persons who were not the account holders and that the money was withdrawn in cash, making its subsequent movement difficult to trace.

Court says ED had the power to share information

The High Court rejected the defence’s interpretation of Section 66(2) of the PMLA. Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the provision expressly empowered the ED Director or another authorised officer to share information with the appropriate agency if material in their possession indicated a violation of any other law.

The purpose of the provision was to ensure that information uncovered under one enactment did not remain confined to that investigation when it revealed offences under a separate law, the court said.

Accepting the petitioners’ argument that the ED could share information only in relation to offences already being investigated under the PMLA would amount to reading the provision “into irrelevance and rendering the legislative intent nugatory”.

“Statutory interpretation cannot be so myopic as to defeat the plain purpose of the enactment,” the court said. The judge also rejected the argument that the ED could not disclose information gathered during FEMA proceedings.

“Statutes operating in cognate fields must be construed harmoniously, not in watertight compartments,” the court observed, adding that FEMA and the PMLA had to be read in tandem. The court said the case began with the recovery of 24 debit cards carrying the same name. What initially appeared to be a financial irregularity had, during the ED’s searches, reportedly revealed a much wider network.

The Directorate, therefore, could not be faulted for informing the jurisdictional police, the court held.

Prima facie material sufficient to continue UAPA investigation

On the application of the UAPA, the court said it was not required at this stage to decide whether the petitioners were guilty. The limited question was whether there was enough prima facie material to justify an investigation under Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the law.

“The material presently available, particularly the communication under Section 66(2), cannot be said to be so barren as to warrant judicial interdiction,” the order stated. Any deeper examination at the preliminary stage would intrude upon the investigating agency’s domain and could prejudice either the prosecution or the accused, it added.

The court also rejected the argument that accused numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 had no connection with Micah Mark. It noted that the available records identified Ajit Mathai as the person handling TTI’s finances, Jonathan Rajan as the person supervising its India operations and the other accused as functionaries facilitating ATM withdrawals and the deployment of funds.

“This may be the narration of allegation, but the link in the chain of events is established in the communication made under Section 66(2) of PMLA,” the court said.

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that funding becomes “the oxygen that enables extremist movements to survive and proliferate”.

“The danger of extremist financing lies not merely in the money transferred, but in the consequences it unleashes. Left unchecked, such funding can transform ideological extremism into organised violence, threatening national unity and public safety,” the judge said.

The court said that protecting national security required financial monitoring, strict regulatory oversight, inter-agency coordination and action against covert financial networks sustaining extremism.

“In the teeth of such accusations as observed hereinabove, investigation is not merely permissible, it becomes imperative,” it concluded while dismissing the petitions.

What OpIndia’s investigation revealed about The Timothy Initiative

OpIndia had earlier published several reports as part of detailed investigation into The Timothy Initiative, its foreign financial network and the methods used to expand its Christian conversion and church-planting operations in India.

TTI began as “Project India” in 2007 and was renamed The Timothy Initiative in 2009. Its founder, David Nelms, first travelled to India in 1992.

The organisation has projected itself as a rapidly multiplying church-planting network. It has claimed to have planted more than 2.68 lakh churches and created over 23.92 lakh “disciples” through its international operations.

Its system relies upon several layers of local workers identified as “Pauls”, “Timothys” and “Tituses”. Local recruits are trained through a series of books and are expected to train further recruits, establish house churches and expand the network with limited expenditure.

OpIndia’s examination of TTI’s training material found instructions for entering Hindu-dominated villages, approaching local residents and avoiding methods that could attract suspicion.

Its material promoted “softer forms of outreach” in sensitive areas and instructed workers to consider caste dynamics while selecting local leaders. One training book said that choosing leaders from individual castes could be more effective because such persons were “more powerful in reaching the local people to Christ”.

The training material also portrayed Hindu villages as spiritually hostile spaces and referred to villages being under “evil spirits, or a Hindu god that watches over them”.

OpIndia had also documented TTI’s connections with several foreign churches and Christian networks that promoted church planting, missionary training, field visits and fundraising for its India-focused operations.

Though the High Court did not reach a conclusion on whether the money withdrawn through the foreign cards ultimately financed terrorist or extremist activities, it allowed the investigating agencies to continue tracing the network, the cash withdrawals, the deployment of funds and the role played by each accused.

Indian Express targets BJP MP Medha Kulkarni over Vat Purnima rituals at Phule Wada: How historical legacies and manufactured caste divides are used to undermine Hindu traditions

Jinit Jain
-
0
Indian Express targets BJP MP Medha Kulkarni over Vat Purnima rituals at Phule Wada: How historical legacies and manufactured caste divides are used to undermine Hindu traditions

There is something profoundly ironic about invoking the legacy of ‘social reformers’ to deny citizens the very freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

The controversy surrounding BJP Rajya Sabha MP Medha Kulkarni’s participation in the traditional Vat Purnima rituals at Pune’s historic Mahatma Phule Wada has once again exposed an increasingly familiar tendency in sections of India’s self-proclaimed progressive establishment. Their commitment to liberty appears unwavering, until a Hindu seeks to exercise it.

An article published in The Indian Express presents Kulkarni’s participation in the ritual not merely as an act of personal faith but as an ideological provocation against the legacy of Mahatma Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule. The column amplifies allegations that performing Vat Purnima rituals at the site amounts to “Sanatanising” a space associated with social reform and even characterises it as an affront to “Bahujan pride.”

An opinion piece published in Indian Express targeted Medha Kulkarni for observing Vat Purnima rituals

Such arguments may be rhetorically appealing to those eager to manufacture ideological binaries, but they collapse the moment one examines them through the lens of the Constitution rather than political activism.

The Indian Republic is not governed by the personal philosophical preferences of any historical figure, however revered. It is governed by a Constitution drafted under the chairmanship of Dr B. R. Ambedkar, himself one of the greatest champions of the rights and dignity of the Bahujan community.

That Constitution does not classify religious freedom according to whether an activist approves of a particular ritual. It does not empower governments or pressure groups to determine whether a citizen’s faith is sufficiently rational. It certainly does not permit constitutional rights to be suspended because a historical reformer may have disagreed with a particular religious custom.

Article 25 guarantees every individual the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject only to public order, morality and health. The Constitution makes no distinction between an ordinary citizen and a Member of Parliament in this regard. Medha Kulkarni did not cease to be a Hindu the day she entered Parliament. She remains entitled to practise her faith just as a Muslim is entitled to offer namaz, a Christian to attend church, a Sikh to visit a gurdwara or a Buddhist to observe his religious traditions.

Those criticising Kulkarni appear to suggest that merely because she is an elected representative, she should abandon religious observances that some activists consider incompatible with their interpretation of Mahatma Phule’s legacy. That proposition finds no support either in constitutional jurisprudence or in common sense.

Indeed, if the same standard were applied consistently, public representatives from every religious community would constantly be required to justify their participation in religious ceremonies. Fortunately, India’s constitutional framework rejects such selective policing of personal faith.

Equally revealing is the convenient omission of an important fact from much of the outrage surrounding the episode.

The controversy itself arose after the Maharashtra Archaeology Department issued an order seeking to prevent the traditional Vat Purnima rituals at Mahatma Phule Wada, citing the ‘reformist legacy’ of Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule. The order was justified not based on structural damage to the protected monument, nor on concerns relating to public order, but on an ideological interpretation of history.

That decision did not survive scrutiny.

Following objections from Hindu organisations, local devotees and women who had observed the ritual at the site for decades, the department reversed course. Its subsequent communication explicitly directed that the traditions and customary practices that existed before the site became a protected monument should continue, while asking the police only to ensure maintenance of law and order.

This reversal was significant because it acknowledged what should have been obvious from the beginning: the question was never about archaeology. It was about whether the State could selectively extinguish a long-standing religious practice merely because some individuals believed it conflicted with their preferred ideological reading of a historical figure.

The answer, thankfully, was no.

The ritual itself has reportedly been performed for decades near the banyan tree located outside the Wada building. The objectors themselves have not established that the practice damaged the monument or interfered with its preservation. Nor have they demonstrated that it violated any law.

Instead, their principal objection is philosophical. They argue that Mahatma Phule opposed ritualism.

That is undoubtedly part of his legacy. Jyotirao Phule criticised many practices that he thought were inconsistent with his beliefs. Savitribai Phule dedicated her life to women’s education and other issues.

But respecting a historical figure’s personal beliefs does not require converting every place associated with him into an ideological sanctuary where constitutional rights are suspended.

Historical figures are not constitutional authorities.

India does not function according to the personal convictions of MK Gandhi, Swami Vivekananda, Jyotirao Phule, B. R. Ambedkar or any other towering personality. Their ideas continue to influence public discourse, but none of them supersedes the Constitution.

The distinction is crucial.

If one accepts the proposition that religious practices can be prohibited wherever they appear inconsistent with the beliefs of a historical personality associated with a particular site, the implications become absurd. Public institutions across the country would become battlegrounds for competing ideological claims. Constitutional rights would become contingent upon historical interpretation rather than legal principle.

That is not how constitutional democracies function.

There is another contradiction embedded within the criticism directed at Medha Kulkarni.

The Phule couple, as per their followers, dedicated their lives to empowering women. They purportedly fought for women’s education at a time when society denied women even the most basic opportunities. They wanted women to think independently, make their own choices and exercise agency over their lives.

Medha Kulkarni is precisely the kind of woman that vision sought to make possible.

She is educated. She is politically active. She is an elected Member of Parliament. She exercises independent judgment. She participates in public life on equal footing with men.

When such a woman voluntarily chooses to observe Vat Purnima as an expression of personal faith, critics seek to portray her not as an empowered individual making an autonomous choice but as a symbol of ideological regression.

That approach is curiously paternalistic.

It effectively informs adult Hindu women that they are free to make choices, provided those choices conform to the ideological preferences of self-appointed progressive gatekeepers.

Women’s empowerment cannot become conditional upon abandoning traditions that others disapprove of. Agency means respecting a woman’s right to choose, even when that choice is religious.

One may personally disagree with Vat Purnima. One may not observe it. One may critique it academically or philosophically.

What one cannot do is argue that another woman should be prevented from participating in it merely because one’s own ideological worldview finds it objectionable.

That transforms disagreement into coercion.

The repeated invocation of “Bahujan pride” throughout the criticism deserves equal scrutiny. Dr Ambedkar’s constitutional vision did not create separate civil liberties for different caste groups. It created equal citizenship.

Reducing every disagreement involving Jyotirao Phule into a conflict between “Bahujan pride” and Hindu religious practices does little to honour either Ambedkar or Phule. Instead, it risks manufacturing caste antagonisms where none need exist. It is an attempt to sow faultlines within the Hindu society, pitting one community against the other.

Millions of Hindus from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBC communities and other social groups continue to observe traditional festivals and rituals. To suggest that Hindu religious observance is inherently incompatible with Bahujan identity is simplistic, historically erroneous, and socially divisive.

The Constitution envisions citizens first, not permanently competing caste constituencies.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the controversy is the asymmetry with which religious freedom is increasingly discussed in India’s public discourse.

When members of minority communities seek accommodation for their religious practices, constitutional protections are rightly invoked. Religious freedom is celebrated as a cornerstone of liberal democracy. In fact, self-appointed gatekeepers of India’s secularism have repeatedly argued that public spaces should be opened for religious observations like offering namaz.

Yet when Hindu citizens seek to continue a decades-old tradition that neither harms public order nor damages a protected monument, the language abruptly changes. Suddenly, religious liberty becomes “superstition.” Constitutional rights become ideological provocations. Personal faith becomes a threat to social reform.

Rights cannot operate on such selective principles.

Either every citizen enjoys equal protection under Article 25, or constitutional guarantees become dependent upon the identity of the person exercising them.

The Constitution does not permit such discrimination.

One may admire Jyotirao Phule without agreeing with every philosophical position he held. One may celebrate Savitribai Phule for the work she did, but that doesn’t mean they should demonise those who observe their religious traditions without bothering anyone.

These are not mutually exclusive positions.

Indeed, India’s civilisational strength has long rested on its remarkable ability to accommodate diversity, not merely diversity between religions, but diversity within them.

The attempt to transform Mahatma Phule Wada into an exclusionary ideological space in which peaceful Hindu rituals are deemed unacceptable does not strengthen Phule’s legacy. It narrows it.

In fact, increasingly, a troubling pattern has emerged in India’s public discourse. Whenever there is an attempt to delegitimise a Hindu religious practice, it is seldom challenged on constitutional grounds. Instead, self-appointed custodians of social justice invoke the names of historical figures and selectively interpret their legacies to undermine contemporary Hindu traditions and beliefs.

The lives and works of historical personalities are reduced to ideological weapons, deployed not to inspire reform but to police the religious choices of ordinary Hindus. Curiously, this exercise is restricted only to Vedic faiths such as Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. The Abrahamic faiths aren’t accounted for by these self-described ‘social reform merchants’ who routinely invoke past legacy to undermine religious traditions.

Even more troubling is the repeated attempt to frame such controversies through the prism of caste conflict. Expressions such as “Bahujan pride” are casually invoked to suggest that Hindu religious traditions are somehow incompatible with the aspirations of the Bahujan community. This is an artificial binary that finds little resonance in lived reality.

The true tribute to Phules lies not in weaponising their names against fellow citizens but in preserving the constitutional order that protects everyone’s liberty.

Medha Kulkarni’s participation in Vat Purnima did not diminish Mahatma Phule’s legacy.

If anything threatens that legacy, it is the growing tendency to invoke revered historical personalities as instruments to curtail freedoms that the Constitution explicitly guarantees.

India’s constitutional democracy is robust precisely because it protects the rights of those whose beliefs others may not share. That protection extends equally to Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and every other citizen. It also extends to a Hindu woman who chooses to tie a sacred thread around a banyan tree outside Mahatma Phule Wada.

No newspaper article, no activist campaign and no ideological reinterpretation of history can legitimately take that right away.

Pakistan pleads, 61 Indian ‘Aman ki Asha’ enthusiasts amplify: Read how they want PM Modi to revive the Musharraf-Manmohan Kashmir formula

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Pakistan pleads, 61 Indian ‘Aman ki Asha’ enthusiasts amplify: Read how they want PM Modi to revive the Musharraf-Manmohan Kashmir formula

The Modi government’s blatant refusal to restore the Indus Waters Treaty has left Pakistan rattled. Since Operation Sindoor, the Pakistani military and political establishment both pleaded and threatened India. After nothing worked, they have resorted to narrative warfare. On one hand, Pakistan recently held a seminar on the Indus Waters Treaty, and now its ‘intellectuals’ have joined 61 Aman ki Asha enthusiasts in India to write a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani PM Shehbaz Sharif seeking “end of hostilities”.

A letter, titled “Appeal to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan by Concerned Citizens”, has been issued by the Centre for Peace and Progress on 30th June 2026. The ‘appeal’ has been signed by 117 ‘prominent citizens’, including 61 from India and 56 from Pakistan.

“We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully urge the Governments of India and Pakistan to take meaningful and sustained steps towards restoring peace, normalcy, dialogue and cooperation in South Asia,” the letter reads.

The appeal initially gives an impression that there may be a genuine effort at urging governments of India and Pakistan to resume dialogue and resolve disputes through diplomacy. However, the appeal has more to it than the usual ‘Aman ki Asha’ syndrome.

The letter seeks restoration of full diplomatic relations and reinstatement of High Commissioners in New Delhi and Islamabad. It sought resumption of normal visa services for citizens of both countries.

Resumption of structured dialogue on Jammu and Kashmir, lifting ban on artists, easing travel restrictions, and more: Appeal for peace or advocacy for Pakistan’s interests?

Seeking resumption of structured dialogue, the Indian and Pakistani signatories of the letter urged the Prime Ministers of both countries to “resume discussions on Jammu and Kashmir, including revisiting the framework negotiated between 2004 and 2007. Steps towards demilitarisation and de-escalation, to create lasting peace in the region.”

Notably, the ‘framework’ mentioned in the appeal is the Musharraf-Manmohan framework, a four-point formula. It was developed through backchannel diplomacy between the years 2004 and 2007 under Indian PM Manmohan Singh and Pakistani PM Pervez Musharraf.

Under this framework, both countries agreed not to redraw the map of Jammu and Kashmir. Both countries would accept the existing Line of Control (LoC).

Another element of the framework was making the border ‘irrelevant’ by reducing the LoC to just a line on a map, allowing free movement of people and free trade across Jammu and Kashmir and PoJK.

It was agreed that both J&K and PoJK would receive self-governance. The residents would be granted autonomy to manage their internal affairs, while the region would not be granted total independence.

The fourth key point was the formation of a joint supervisory body that would include representatives from India and Pakistan, and both sides of Jammu and Kashmir. The body was meant to coordinate cross-border issues.

In addition, the framework included phased reduction of troops on both sides of the LoC. The framework also featured a review clause.

The formalisation of the framework got delayed for domestic issues before leaders of both countries. By late 2007, Pervez Musharraf lost power amidst widespread public anger. What killed any remaining possibility of this framework working was the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack by Pakistani Islamic Jihadis in 2008.

It was a disastrous framework from India’s perspective, and Indian citizens endorsing any letter/appeal seeking resumption of bilateral talks based on the Musharraf-Manmohan framework is short of treason.

The last Hindu king of Jammu and Kashmir, Raja Hari Singh, signed the Instrument of Accession on 26th October 1947, for the integration of all of Jammu and Kashmir into the Dominion of India. If the signatories of the appeal to PM Modi and Shehbaz Sharif actually want peace, then they should urge Pakistan to discontinue its occupation of PoJK. India’s abrogation of Article 370 made it clear years ago that any demands for a plebiscite gimmick will not be entertained.

Seeking dialogue resumption based on the Musharraf-Manmohan framework essentially means that India recognise PoJK as a legal semi-autonomous region under Pakistan, and Jammu and Kashmir as a semi-autonomous region under India. Basically, Pakistan, which has no legal claim over any part of the entire Jammu and Kashmir, would get to retain PoJK and have access to Indian ide of the region as well, while India would be surrendering its legitimate claim over its territory under Pakistan’s illegal occupation and persistent oppression.

Moreover, allowing self-government for Jammu and Kashmir would have essentially cemented the region’s Special Status within the Indian Union permanently.

In addition, having representatives from both sides of Kashmir to create a joint consultative mechanism would have granted an illegal occupier, Pakistan, a stakeholder status.

Clearly, even the supposed peace effort, involving Pakistan-sympathising Islamo-leftists, Pakistanis shrewdly pursued their own interests. Although it is needless to say that this appeal will be relegated to the same dustbin by the Modi government where the unfair Indus Waters Treaty is consigned.

Moving ahead, the appeal urged leaders of both countries to address legitimate security concerns of both countries.

It further stressed “Facilitating people-to-people contact by easing travel restrictions.”

The appeal also sought enabling exchanges among families, students, academics, journalists, artists, businesspersons and civil society groups.

Besides, the signatories want both countries to encourage cultural, educational, sporting and religious exchanges to rebuild trust between societies.

“Facilitating people-to-people contact by easing travel restrictions. Enabling exchanges among families, students, academics, journalists, artists, businesspersons and civil society groups. Encouraging cultural, educational, sporting and religious exchanges to rebuild trust between societies. Restore Trade and Economic Cooperation. Reopening trade channels and restoring normal commercial relations. Reinstating Most Favoured Nation or equivalent non-discriminatory trade arrangements. Promoting regional economic integration and shared prosperity,” the letter reads.

India is a cultural, educational, and sporting giant that does not really need a treacherous Pakistan, although an economically weak and desperate Pakistan would gain big if Indian markets are opened for Pakistani traders. The same is the story with the sports and entertainment industry; from cricket to Bollywood, India is a dream destination for Pakistanis, while India, being a sporting and entertainment behemoth, does not have much to gain from Pakistan.

The same Pakistani singers and actors Bollywood gave a platform, fame and money, later spewed venom against India when New Delhi called out Islamabad for sponsoring Islamic terrorism against India.

In addition to trade and people-to-people ties, the appeal also sought reopening of transport and connectivity links, including reopening of the Attari-Wagah border, resuming Srinagar-Muzaffarabad and Delhi-Lahore bus service, restarting Samjhauta Express and Thar Express train, opening the Kargil-Skardu route, etc.

“Fully reopening the Attari-Wagah land border for trade and travel. Resume Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service to reconnect divided families. Resuming Delhi-Lahore bus service. Restarting Samjhauta Express and Thar Express train services. Opening of Kargil (Ladakh) – Skardu (Gilgit Baltistan) Route. Reopening airspace for commercial airlines to reduce travel time and costs and improve connectivity. Promote Religious and Cultural Access. Reopening Kartarpur Sahib Corridor as an important confidence-building measure,” it said.

Besides reopening the Kartarpur Sahib Corridor, which Pakistan’s ISI has been exploiting for its own anti-India designs, the signatories of the letter also sought opening of the Sharada Peeth in the Neelam Valley in the PoJK.

India, however, has walked this path earlier and received nothing from Pakistan but betrayal and Jihad. Resuming bus and train services, opening borders for travel, etc, would not subside Asim Munir’s Hindu-hating Jihadist agenda against India. While India will extend a hand of friendship, Pakistan will respond with another Pahalgam-like attack.

The letter’s Indian signatories included National Conference chief Farooq Abdullah, separatist leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti, RJD MP Manoj Jha, and former TMC minister and current AJUP leader Humayun Kabir, Professor Apoorvanand, Jawahar Sircar, Mani Shankar Aiyar, etc.

Unsurprisingly, almost all of the Indian signatories belong to the anti-BJP political-ideological circles, often involved in peddling anti-India and anti-Hindu propaganda.

From the Pakistani side, Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, former diplomat Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, National Assembly member Isphanyar Bhandara, Bharatnatyam dancer Sheema Kirmani, among others, signed the letter.

While the letter’s futility is already known, given the Modi government’s strict “terror and talks cannot coexist” policy, the timing of this ‘appeal for peace’ gimmick is interesting.

On the same day, Indian and Pakistani ‘prominent citizens’ issued a letter urging both countries to resume dialogue to resolve disputes; the Pakistani government held a unilateral seminar in Islamabad to build a narrative against India over the defunct Indus Waters Treaty amidst an aggressive campaign to appropriate the Hindu history of ancient India based on current geographical boundaries.

During the seminar attended by Pakistani and some international ‘experts’, the Pakistani state officials issued the same old empty threats to India that stopping Indus waters would be deemed an ‘act of war’. On one hand, the Pakistani government is indulging in war-mongering and narrative games to villainise India instead of acting against ‘Bharat ki barbadi tak jung rahegi’ screeching Jihadis it harbours. On the other hand, Pakistani elites are doing pretentious ‘peace and diplomacy’ drama by colluding with useful idiots from India.

Swiss giant MSC to acquire 49% stake in Adani’s Vizhinjam Port in India’s largest ever foreign investment in port infra, Kerala govt objects: Read the significance of the deal

Rukma Rathore
-
0
Swiss giant MSC to acquire 49% stake in Adani’s Vizhinjam Port in India’s largest ever foreign investment in port infra, Kerala govt objects: Read the significance of the deal

The world’s largest container shipping company has entered into a definitive agreement in relation to one of the biggest foreign investments in India’s port sector. Switzerland-based Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) Group is set to acquire 49% stake for $1.397 billion or nearly ₹13,220 crore in Adani Vizhinjam Port Private Limited (AVPPL), which is the private concessionaire and operating firm for the Vizhinjam International Seaport in Thiruvananthapuram of Kerala.

The announcement was made by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZ) on 30th June (Tuesday) in a filing to stock exchanges. It informed, “the Company has entered into Share Purchase and Subscription Agreement on June 29, 2026 with Mundi Limited (“Mundi”), pursuant to which Mundi will invest for 49% interest in Adani Vizhinjam Port Private Limited (“AVPPL”).

Mundi Limited is the subsidiary of Terminal Investment Limited (“TIL”), which is the terminal arm of Mediterranean Shipping Company (“MSC”). The company added that “The transaction is subject to customary approvals, including regulatory ones.”

The investment will be undertaken through MSC’s global port operating subsidiary, Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) under an accord inked between Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited. “TIL is one of the world’s largest container terminal operators and part of the MSC Group comprising a portfolio of more than 100 container terminals across five continents and a throughput of more than 70 million TEUs per annum,” the official statement read.

AVPPL has been valued at $2.85 billion or roughly ₹26,960 crore in the acquisition. TIL will invest $1.397 billion for the 49% stack.

We were not consulted: Kerala government protests along with Left leaders

On the other hand, the Indian National Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government has raised objections and declared that its nod is mandatory to proceed forward with the project.

“The Adani Group did not have any communication with the state government. As per the concession agreement, the concessionaire should not affect any change in ownership of the port without prior approval from the authority, which is the state government. Selling 49 per cent stake means there is ownership change, which is not possible without the consent from the state government,” Chief Minister V D Satheesan said in the assembly on 1st June (Wednesday).

He added that Adani Ports has not yet obtained permission for the action, which he only became aware of through media reports and further claimed that clearance from Union Ministries of Ports, Shipping and Waterways and Home Affairs is required because “foreign investment involves national security.”

He referred to the state as “active stakeholder” and insisted that it should have been included in the discussions, but authorities were not approached. According to Satheesan, MSC is more than just an investor, and his government will look into how its role will impact functions of the port, which is slated to be turned over to the state in 2080.

He said, “Since the port is critical infrastructure, national security is a matter of concern. The deal will be allowed only after protecting the interest of the state and safeguarding the public interest. There should be space for fair competition, and we have to ensure that the deal does not lead to monopoly of a particular company in the port. There should be a competitive user facility where all stakeholders will be able to do business without any discrimination. The government would also ensure that the future development of the port would not be influenced with the recent development.”

Satheesan emphasised that the matter will only be considered in light of the complete protection of the state’s revenue interests, long-term development aims, fair competition, national security and investment promotion.

According to former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, it was unexpected that the government was oblivious of the MSC’s intentions to invest in the strategically crucial port. He conveyed that it was marked as an extremely important infrastructure every time there was a terror warning in the nation and hence, obtaining security clearance is essential.

“The news about selling of the share up to 49 per cent is a matter of grave concern. When the shipping firm MSC and Adani group join hands, there is a danger of monopoly. That will be against the commercial interest of the state and port’s development. When one particular firm gains monopoly at the port, all others will have to go by their conditions. This will lead to financial anomalies and eliminate the situation in which the port should grow into a multi-operator venture,” argued the politburo member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

What makes the partnership crucial

It is anticipated that the alliance between the conglomerates will aid the port in increasing its services rapidly by bringing a consistent flow of products. Cargo that is presently routed through rival transhipment hubs in Southeast Asia, particularly those connected to Bangladesh, will also be pulled to Vizhinjam due to MSC’s extensive worldwide shipping web. The joint effort has the potential to boost relay freight flow and improve the port’s connectivity with East Africa.

“Vizhinjam port has emerged as a premier trans-shipment hub and ramped up at an unprecedented pace, becoming the first Indian port to earn the unique distinction of crossing 2 million TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units) within 18 months of operations,” outlined Ashwani Gupta, Whole-time Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of APSEZ.

He expressed, “I am delighted to expand our long-standing partnership with MSC to Vizhinjam as we prepare for the port’s next leg of journey. I am confident that our association will deliver enhanced supply chain efficiencies at a global scale and improve India’s access to key global mature and developing markets.”

Furthermore, the deal has strengthened the bond between MSC and APSEZ as Vizhinjam is the third cooperation between the two sides in the country. They currently jointly own container ports in Mundra and Ennore.

Why does the port hold great significance

The first deep-draft mega transhipment port in India, Vizhinjam, was put into service in December 2024 and has a capacity of 1.6 million TEU. It is being expanded to grow its capacity 3.5 times to 5.7 million TEUs by December 2028. It is also the first automated port in India and integrates state-of-the-art container handling technology, a top-notch IT platform and an AI-enabled domestic Vessel Traffic Management System (VTMS) to promote operational effectiveness, safety and dependability.

The port is well situated about 10 nautical miles from the East-West maritime route that links the Far East, the Persian Gulf and Europe. It is located next to one of the busiest sea trade routes in the world. It has an 800-metre berth, a 2.9-kilometre breakwater, an 18 to 20-metre natural draft alongside innovative facilities such as 24 fully automated yard cranes and 8 quay cranes.

Vizhinjam processed 1.3 million TEUs in the fiscal year (FY)26. It became the fastest port in the country to reach the 1 million TEU milestone in its first year of operation, handling the aforementioned number of TEUs and 615 vessels. It broke another national record in just 18 months when it reached 2 million TEUs and 950 boats.

Vizhinjam welcomed its 1,000th ship last month. The port has handled the most Ultra Large Container boats (ULCVs) of any Indian port, with over 70 ULCVs, 283 boats longer than 300 meters and 98 vessels with drafts longer than 16 meters. It was essentially created to minimise the country’s reliance on foreign ports for transshipment, which formerly accounted for 75% of such activities, retaining revenue domestically and opening up new economic opportunities for Kerala and its people.

The ongoing work

Adani Ports and SEZ Private Limited are using the design, construct, finance, operate and transfer (DBFOT) model to execute the first phase of the Rs 8,860-crore transhipment deepwater multipurpose seaport initiative. The contract is for 40 years with 20-year extensions. The accord was inked between the state’s Congress government and the Adani Group in 2015.

Adani Group provided ₹2,454 crore of the overall investment, while ₹1,635 crore was funded by the state and the centre to meet the viability gap embodying a public-private-partnership (PPP) mode. The 500 acres of area was donated by the state, which controls Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited (VISL), a special-purpose entity. It acts as both the project owner and the landlord.

Now, MSC’s involvement will benefit the infrastructure, draw in more container traffic and solidify Vizhinjam’s standing as a major transhipment hub in the Indian Ocean region.

Desperate Pakistan holds unilateral Indus Waters Treaty conference to issue empty threats: Read why the exercise is futile as India won’t talk until terrorism ends

Shriti Sagar
-
0
Desperate Pakistan holds unilateral Indus Waters Treaty conference to issue empty threats: Read why the exercise is futile as India won’t talk until terrorism ends

On Tuesday, 30th June, desperate Pakistan organised a unilateral international conference on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in Islamabad, where its leaders issued a series of warnings and empty threats against India over New Delhi’s decision to keep the landmark water-sharing agreement in abeyance. 

The conference came as Pakistan continues to struggle with the consequences of India’s decision following the Pakistan-sponsored Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025. While Islamabad tried to project the event as an international effort to defend the treaty, India has made it clear that there will be no discussions on the IWT until Pakistan takes credible action against cross-border terrorism.

Pakistan organises Conference to raise pressure on India

The conference, titled “Indus Waters Treaty as an Enduring Legal and Institutional Framework”, brought together Pakistani officials, local experts and a few international specialists on water and international law. Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar described it as a “first-of-its-kind international seminar” aimed at reinforcing Islamabad’s case against India’s suspension of the decades-old agreement.

Pakistan’s leaders repeatedly argued that the treaty was much more than a water-sharing arrangement and warned that its suspension could have wider consequences for international agreements. Pakistan’s economy is heavily dependent on the Indus River system, with agriculture and hydropower relying on its waters. India’s decision to suspend the treaty has also deprived Pakistan of hydrological data that helped it plan water management.

Addressing the conference, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the treaty was “not merely a water-sharing arrangement but a vital instrument of regional peace, stability, and cooperation.” Pakistan Peoples Party chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari also claimed that the treaty was “never a favour to Pakistan.”

Pakistan has increasingly tried to internationalise the issue after India put the treaty in abeyance. Interestingly, a country founded on the Two-Nation Theory has also started highlighting its pre-Islamic Indus Valley Civilisation heritage while making its case over the Indus River waters.

Ishaq Dar says water should not be “Weaponised”

After the conference, Ishaq Dar shared his message on X, repeating Pakistan’s position on the treaty.

“Shared waters must never be weaponised. They must remain a bridge between nations, guided by cooperation, dialogue, and respect for international law,” Dar wrote.

He further warned that any attempt to deprive Pakistan of its rights under the treaty would have “profound consequences” for regional peace and security and would affect the interests of nearly two billion people in South Asia.

Social media calls it a “Begging Seminar”

While Pakistan projected the conference as a major diplomatic initiative, many social media users mocked the event by calling it the “Begging Seminar.” Several users said the conference reflected Pakistan’s growing desperation after India suspended the treaty and refused to resume engagement despite repeated appeals from Islamabad. 

Screengrab via X

Many posts argued that instead of addressing India’s concerns over terrorism, Pakistan was trying to seek international sympathy through seminars and public statements.

Screengrab via X

Pakistani ministers continue warning India

Several other Pakistani leaders also used the conference to criticise India’s decision.

Pakistani Senator Musadik Malik claimed that the Indus Waters Treaty had survived three wars between two nuclear powers and warned, “If this treaty doesn’t hold, no world order that is on paper post World War II will remain secure.”

Addressing a press conference, Pakistan’s climate change minister, Malik, warned that Islamabad would “cut off those hands” that he claimed sought to control the Indus water. 

Calling the IWT one of the strongest international agreements ever negotiated, Malik argued that international law should be tested by how it protects weaker countries rather than stronger ones. Without naming India, he questioned the value of international treaties if “one powerful country wakes up one day and says the treaty doesn’t apply to me and I unilaterally suspend or put it in abeyance.”

Former Pakistani Foreign Minister and Chairperson of the National Assembly Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Hina Rabbani Khar, also urged Islamabad to aggressively pursue legal and diplomatic options. She argued that the treaty “cannot be held in abeyance through political statements or unilateral decisions” and insisted that any modification or termination would require the consent of both governments through a formally ratified agreement.

Khar further questioned why India believed it could suspend what she described as one of the world’s most successful transboundary water agreements. She expressed concern that the treaty had survived three full-scale wars but was now being challenged through what she called unilateral political decisions.

Information Minister Attaullah Tarar also attempted to portray the conference as a major international event, saying it was the first seminar of its kind as Pakistan sought to strengthen its case against India’s decision.

India makes it clear: No talks until Terrorism ends

Despite Pakistan’s repeated appeals and public statements, India has made it clear that the conference and the statements made there will not change its position.

According to multiple media reports, India will not engage with Pakistan on the Indus Waters Treaty in any form until New Delhi’s concerns regarding cross-border terrorism are addressed and the treaty is comprehensively revamped.

Pakistan’s Water Resources Secretary Syed Ali Murtaza has written several letters to his Indian counterpart, Debashree Mukherjee, requesting India to reconsider its decision and expressing Islamabad‘s willingness to discuss New Delhi’s concerns.

However, India has not responded to any of those letters. New Delhi will not hold any dialogue on the treaty unless Pakistan first takes credible action against terrorism and agrees to a complete overhaul of the agreement.

Responding to remarks by Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said Pakistan was making “desperate attempts to cover up its own failings.”

“Such remarks are desperate attempts by Pakistan to cover up its own failings and divert attention away from its human rights abuses. We categorically reject these fabricated claims with the contempt they deserve,” Jaiswal said.

India has repeatedly emphasised that its decision to suspend the treaty remains unchanged.

Why India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty?

The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, in Karachi by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan’s President Ayub Khan. Brokered by the World Bank, the agreement governs the sharing of the waters of the Indus River system and its six rivers between the two countries.

For more than six decades, the treaty continued despite several wars and periods of military tension.

However, the situation changed after the Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on 22nd April, 2025, in which 26 civilians were killed. Following the attack, India announced that it was placing the treaty in abeyance, arguing that cross-border terrorism and continued cooperation under the agreement could not coexist.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that “Blood and water cannot flow together,” making it clear that India would no longer separate water cooperation from Pakistan’s support for terrorism.

Since then, India has accelerated hydropower and water infrastructure projects on the western rivers and has indicated that it will maximise the utilisation of water available under its control wherever legally and technically possible. New Delhi has maintained that the Indus Waters Treaty will remain in abeyance until Pakistan takes credible, concrete and irreversible action to dismantle the terror infrastructure operating from its territory.

Latest Guardian sob story on Umar Khalid is another indication that NEET is a mask – the real intention is to free Delhi Riots accused

Anurag
-
0
Latest Guardian sob story on Umar Khalid is another indication that NEET is a mask – the real intention is to free Delhi Riots accused

On 30th June, The Guardian published a sympathetic profile of Umar Khalid, presenting the accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots as one of India’s most prominent “political prisoners” and a victim of a government crackdown on dissent. Built around reflections on prison, fading hope, Dostoevsky and Bhagat Singh, the article largely avoided examining the prosecution’s case against him.

The article needs to be scrutinised not just for what it said, but also for what it deliberately left outside the frame. The publication came amid open support for Khalid from the leadership and supporters of the so-called Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), whose protests were launched around the NEET paper leak and youth issues. However, protesters and CJP supporters, both online and offline, have called for Umar Khalid to be freed.

What The Guardian said about Umar Khalid

Titled “‘Humanity is a privilege’: Umar Khalid on his six years in an Indian jail without trial”, The Guardian article was written by Hannah Ellis-Petersen, the publication’s Delhi correspondent who is known for her anti-India propaganda. In the article, she described Khalid as an activist, a left-wing rights campaigner and a fierce critic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. She claimed that he had become a symbol of the alleged weaponisation of the judicial system against government opponents.

Source: The Guardian

The author invoked Umar Khalid’s mental and physical suffering, compared his experience with Fyodor Dostoevsky’s prison memoir and ended with a quote from Bhagat Singh written on the wall of his cell. Khalid spoke at length about propaganda, dehumanisation, Hindu nationalism, the condition of Muslims and what he called India’s transformation into a “post-truth society”.

However, the publication itself admitted that it had agreed not to discuss his legal case. It also did not interview Khalid directly, with the questions and answers conveyed through his relatives and friends.

This arrangement allowed The Guardian to publish an emotional first-person account without seriously confronting Khalid with the material cited by the prosecution. The accusation of a larger conspiracy was reduced to a few phrases, while his physical absence from north-east Delhi at the time of the violence was prominently presented as though conspiracy charges required the accused to be standing at the scene when the riots began.

The report was subsequently amplified by the usual political and ideological ecosystem. Congress leader Shashi Tharoor called it a “moving article” and asked why the accusations had not been proved in court.

Ruchika Sharma, a propagandist who poses as a historian, declared that India’s “collective conscience” was dead, while Kaushik Raj, who has written for The Guardian, claimed that the world was taking note of the “injustice” against Khalid.

CJP founder and spokespersons openly backed Khalid

Support for Khalid was not confined to random CJP followers. It extended to the organisation’s founder and public faces.

Earlier this year, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke questioned why Khalid had remained imprisoned without trial and claimed that he was being treated differently.

Source: X

In a recent interview with Samdish Bhatia on Unfiltered by Samdish, Dipke claimed that he had kept his movement peaceful, Constitution-centric and difficult to discredit. Out of no where, Samdish remarked that his surname was not Khalid, to which Dipke said that had he been a Khalid, Saifi or Muslim, he would have been in jail. Through the remark, Dipke appeared to suggest that so-called Muslim “activists” such as Umar Khalid were imprisoned because of their religious identity, conveniently ignoring the serious criminal and conspiracy charges against them. The forceful insertion of Khalid’s reference was uncanny but gave the idea what exactly they were trying to do.

Spokesperson Saurav Das went further, describing the charges against Khalid as “false” and “frivolous” and calling his imprisonment a blot on India’s judiciary.

Source: X

Another CJP spokesperson, Vijeta Dahiya, attempted to reduce the case against Khalid to a speech quoting Mahatma Gandhi and his presence in a WhatsApp group. When questioned about the larger conspiracy case and the more than 50 people killed during the Delhi Riots, Dahiya fell back on the argument that no trial had taken place and accused the journalist questioning him of being “godi media”.

The argument was framed as a defence of due process. Let the trial happen, punish him if he is guilty and release him if he is innocent. However, the same people repeatedly cited the absence of a conviction as proof that the charges were false. They simultaneously demanded that the court process be allowed to conclude and treated the fact that it had not concluded as a declaration of innocence.

The procedural history was also more complicated than the slogan “six years without trial” suggested. Khalid’s latest plea, which was submitted to the court on 6th June, the same day CJP launched its first protest in Delhi, identified itself as his third bail application. His first and second bail applications were dismissed, as were subsequent appeals before the Delhi High Court. His Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in January 2026, followed by the dismissal of his review petition in April.

Third bail plea of Umar Khalid

The application itself reproduced the Supreme Court’s observation that the case involved several accused persons, voluminous documentary and electronic evidence and accusations concerning a structured and continuing conspiracy. The court also said the record did not show that Umar Khalid and the other accused were in jail only because of prosecution delays or that they had played no role in causing those delays.

While a debate over prolonged pre-trial detention is legitimate in a broader context, in Umar Khalid’s case, the delay in the trial was not caused by the justice system but by the accused themselves. Umar Khalid and the other accused in the larger conspiracy case used every possible tactic to delay the trial and then used the delay as an excuse to seek bail. From repeated bail pleas to pleas seeking to prevent the trial from starting, there was enough evidence to show that India’s justice system was not the culprit behind the six-year-long delay in the trial.

CJP protesters called Umar Khalid their leader

Support for Khalid was also visible at CJP’s first major protest at Jantar Mantar on 6th June. One protester was filmed declaring, “Umar Khalid is our leader.” Another said that he supported Khalid and saw nothing wrong with doing so. A CJP supporter also described Khalid and Sharjeel Imam as potential future occupants of the country’s highest political offices.

When a woman questioned an older supporter about Khalid, he responded with a crude and abusive remark instead of addressing the charges. At another protest, a participant named Faizan Ansari criticised CJP members who supported Khalid, showing that the issue had become a point of conflict even among those present at the demonstrations.

Nevertheless, the repeated declarations of support were not isolated remarks disconnected from the organisation. They reflected the language already being used by the founder, spokespersons and members of CJP’s Discord community.

Calls to free Umar Khalid flooded CJP’s Discord channel

CJP’s Discord channel, which had reportedly gathered more than 20,000 members within days of its launch, provided a clearer picture of the ideological direction in which parts of the movement were heading. OpIndia’s investigation into the channel revealed highly problematic trend to support Khalid.

When a user criticised Dipke for supporting Khalid, another member said that Dipke’s support for Khalid was precisely why he would now fully back both Dipke and CJP. The user called Khalid’s imprisonment a human rights violation.

In another discussion, a member declared, “Umar Khalid is exactly what we need in this country, which is why CJP exists.” Several “Free Umar Khalid” messages appeared across the channel. Khalid was described as a “revolutionary”, while he and Dipke were called “fighters for freedom”. One user imagined Dipke as India’s Prime Minister and Khalid as Defence Minister.

Others insisted that the accusations against Khalid were baseless, claimed that the judiciary was compromised and argued that he had been branded a terrorist because of his religion. One user reasoned that Khalid could not be a terrorist because the charge had not been proved after several years.

When questions were raised about the larger conspiracy case, the discussions routinely shifted from evidence to emotion. Khalid was described as a student, scholar, political activist, victim, revolutionary and symbol of resistance. The police, media and judiciary were portrayed as compromised institutions acting together against him.

This was not an examination of the case. It was a method of making the examination itself appear immoral.

Who is Umar Khalid and what is his role in the Delhi Riots conspiracy?

The prosecution did not present Umar Khalid as a street rioter who personally threw stones or set property on fire. Its case portrayed him as a planner, coordinator and ideological driver of the larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 Delhi Riots.

Therefore, the repeated argument that Khalid was not physically present in north-east Delhi during the violence did not, by itself, answer the accusations against him. In a conspiracy case, the prosecution is required to establish participation in the alleged plan, not physical presence at every location where that plan was allegedly executed.

The prosecution cited Khalid’s speech at Amravati on 20th February 2020, in which he referred to 24th February, the day then-US President Donald Trump was scheduled to visit India. The riots began four days after the speech.

His name appeared in FIR 59, FIR 114 and chargesheets connected to the larger conspiracy. The prosecution referred to the meeting at Shaheen Bagh on 8th January, Khalid Saifi’s alleged role as a link between Umar Khalid and Tahir Hussain, discussions about taking “big action” over the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens, alleged funding and logistical assistance, WhatsApp groups, pamphlets, speeches, meetings, digital trails and witness statements.

The prosecution also cited post-riot conversations with activists, celebrities, journalists and media figures to argue that an effort had been made to build a favourable narrative after the violence.

A structured campaign to present Khalid as a leader while hiding his past

The Guardian profile and the CJP campaign followed the same broad script. First, the charges were stripped of their context. References to conspiracy, secret meetings, funding, coordination and mobilisation were replaced with phrases such as “a speech” and “a WhatsApp group”.

Second, the focus was shifted entirely to Khalid’s identity and suffering. His years in prison became proof of persecution, while questions about the case were presented as dehumanising attacks.

Third, every institution that did not endorse the preferred narrative was delegitimised. The police were accused of fabrication, the judiciary was called compromised and journalists raising inconvenient questions were dismissed as “godi media”.

Finally, Khalid was elevated from an accused demanding bail to a revolutionary, freedom fighter, national leader and even a prospective minister.

The objective was not merely to argue that a prisoner deserved a timely trial. It was to erase the distinction between an accused seeking legal relief and a political icon whose innocence had to be accepted in advance.

How CJP and the campaign for Khalid could be connected

CJP held its first protest at Jantar Mantar on 6th June. Khalid’s third bail application was also moved during the same early-June period, with the supporting affidavit bearing a 5th June stamp. The application sought regular or interim bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and recent Supreme Court developments.

At the protest, CJP supporters publicly called Khalid their leader. On Discord, members demanded his release and described him as exactly what the country needed. The founder and spokespersons had already endorsed the same broad narrative. Weeks later, The Guardian supplied the international human-interest version of that argument, and Congress and left-wing commentators amplified it.

CJP presents itself as an outlet for young people frustrated over NEET, examinations, unemployment and the political establishment. Those issues offer it a broad and emotionally charged recruitment base. Yet within its leadership statements, protest conversations and online forums, Umar Khalid is repeatedly projected as a victim, hero and future leader.

This raises a serious question about whether NEET is the movement’s defining cause or merely the most useful mask for a wider ideological mobilisation.

Conclusion

Every accused has the right to seek bail under Indian law, demand a speedy trial and contest every accusation against him. It is the duty of the judiciary to determine whether the prosecution proves its case. However, the right to a legal defence is not the same as a right to have the allegations erased from public discussion. Nor does prolonged incarceration automatically establish innocence.

The Guardian’s carefully constructed prison memoir, CJP leaders’ public statements, protest-site declarations, Discord campaigns and political amplification all move in one direction, away from scrutiny of Khalid’s role in the Delhi Riots conspiracy and towards his rehabilitation as a persecuted national figure.

Over the past six years, Umar Khalid has been presented as a hero, a rising leader and a person who has been wronged by the Government of India. His role in the Delhi Riots and his views about terrorists such as Afzal Guru are slowly being pushed under the rug with every article like the one published by The Guardian. The orchestrated delay in the trial has provided this so-called “student leader” with an easy way to become a prominent personality in the political arena.

How a war between Israel and Arab nations more than 50 years ago had pushed Brazil to blend Ethanol with Petrol, with India and others getting inspired

Divya Bharti
-
0
How a war between Israel and Arab nations more than 50 years ago had pushed Brazil to blend Ethanol with Petrol, with India and others getting inspired

India’s decision to roll out E20 petrol blended with 20% ethanol has triggered a heated debate. While the government says the move will reduce crude oil imports, improve energy security and cut pollution, many vehicle owners, especially those using older vehicles, have raised concerns over lower mileage, possible engine damage and higher running costs. The issue has even reached the Supreme Court, where a petition related to the country’s ethanol programme is being heard.

The controversy grew after reports claimed that the Centre had described the E20 programme as an “ongoing experiment” before the Supreme Court. The government strongly rejected these reports, saying no such statement was made by the Attorney General and that the ethanol blending programme is a well-planned national policy, not an experiment. The Centre has also clarified that maintaining ethanol supplies is essential to continue the nationwide 20% blending target achieved earlier this year.

Why the government is backing Ethanol blending

The Centre says ethanol blending is not only about fuel but also about India’s long-term energy and economic strategy. According to the government, sugarcane-based ethanol produces around 65% lower greenhouse gas emissions than petrol, while maize-based ethanol cuts emissions by about 50%.

It also says the programme has benefited farmers by increasing demand for sugarcane and maize, improving incomes and clearing long-pending sugarcane dues. Between the Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2014-15 and July 2025, India saved more than ₹1.44 lakh crore in foreign exchange, replaced 245 lakh metric tonnes of crude oil imports and reduced carbon emissions significantly. This year alone, the government expects farmers to earn nearly ₹40,000 crore through ethanol production, while the country could save about ₹43,000 crore in foreign exchange.

Responding to concerns over vehicle performance, the government cited studies by Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL), the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) and the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), saying E20 fuel provides better acceleration, smoother driving in city traffic and lower emissions than E10 fuel. It also dismissed claims that E20 affects vehicle insurance or is unsafe, stating that Indian fuel and vehicle standards have been updated accordingly.

At the same time, concerns remain. Vehicles manufactured before April 2023 were not originally designed for E20 fuel. Owners have reported lower fuel efficiency and worries about wear and tear in certain engine parts, even though the government says most vehicles made after 2009 can use E20 with only minor changes.

Ethanol blending is not a new idea

Although the current debate makes ethanol blending appear like a recent policy, many countries have been using ethanol in transport fuel for decades. Brazil is one of the earliest and most successful examples, while countries such as the United States, Japan and Sweden have also promoted ethanol to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and lower emissions.

In fact, Brazil’s experience became a model that many countries, including India and China, closely studied while shaping their own blending programmes. Brazil’s ethanol journey began not because of climate concerns but because of an oil crisis triggered by war, first by World War II and then the Middle East war in 70s.

Brazil started using sugarcane ethanol as a fuel in 1930s, with the introduction of the automobile in the country. In February 1931, the government issued a historic decree mandating a 5% ethanol blend for all imported gasoline. Later, the mandate was extended to dometic oil too. As a leader in sugarcane production, the country had lots of excess produce to be converted to ethanol.

Use of ethanol fuel peaked during World War II, as the German submarine attacks threatened global oil supplies. The mandate had reached 50% at a point of time during the war. However, after the war, oil prices crashed due to abundant supply, and ethanol use as fuel in Brazil declined sharply.

How the 1973 Middle East war changed Brazil’s fuel policy

In 1973, the Arab-Israeli war led to an oil embargo by Arab nations, causing global oil prices to rise sharply. Brazil, which imported nearly 80% of its fuel at the time, was among the worst-affected countries. Within months, its economy slipped into recession, and almost 40% of its foreign exchange earnings were being spent on buying imported oil.

Officials realised that depending almost entirely on imported fuel was no longer sustainable. As Eduardo Pereira de Carvalho, who served in Brazil’s finance ministry during that period, later recalled, the country faced one central question: How could Brazil continue to grow without relying on imported oil?

To reduce the dependence, in 1975, Brazil’s military government under General Ernesto Geisel ordered petrol to be blended with 10% ethanol made from sugarcane. Over the next five years, the blending ratio gradually increased to 25%. This allowed Brazil to stretch its petrol supplies while creating a steady market for domestic sugarcane farmers.

The government supported ethanol production through loans, investments in technology and expansion of fuel infrastructure. Car manufacturers also developed vehicles that could run on ethanol. Later, Brazil introduced flex-fuel vehicles that allowed drivers to switch between petrol and ethanol depending on which was cheaper. Today, ethanol forms a major part of Brazil’s transport fuel system and is often cited globally as one of the most successful biofuel programmes.

At present, no light vehicle is sold in Brazil that runs on pure petrol. At present, E25 fuel, 25% ethanol mixed with 75% petrol, is widely sold at fuel stations in the country. E100, or 100% ethanol, is also available for those who have compatible flex-fuel vehicles.

Due to these initiatives, Brazil was considered to be the world’s first “sustainable” biofuels economy and the biofuel industry leader, which became a role model for other countries.

India’s ethanol journey began long before E20

India’s ethanol blending policy also predates the current government by many years.

Government records accessed through an RTI show that the first formal push came during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government. After pilot projects in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh showed encouraging results, the Centre issued a notification in September 2002, making 5 % ethanol blending mandatory in nine states and four Union Territories from January 2003. The objective was the same as today reduce pollution, support agriculture and lower dependence on imported fuel.

The programme expanded further under the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government. More states were brought under the blending programme in 2004 and 2006, and in 2013 the government directed oil marketing companies to supply petrol blended with up to 10 % ethanol, laying the foundation for nationwide expansion.

The Modi government accelerated the programme by implementing E10 across most of the country in 2019, legally recognising E100 fuel in 2021 and approving E20 blending the same year. The nationwide rollout of E20 followed in phases before becoming the standard fuel this year.

A policy shaped over decades

The current debate over E20 may focus on vehicle compatibility, fuel efficiency and consumer concerns, but the larger idea behind ethanol blending is neither new nor unique to India. Brazil adopted the policy nearly five decades ago after an international oil crisis exposed the risks of depending on imported fuel. India began moving in the same direction over two decades ago, with successive governments expanding the programme over time.

As India now aims to increase ethanol blending further in the coming years, the discussion is no longer about whether ethanol blending is a new experiment, but about how the country can balance energy security, environmental goals and consumer interests while continuing a policy that has evolved across governments and generations.

Woman forced man’s signature to claim they are married: Read how the Hindu Marriage Act came to his rescue after he approached the Gujarat High Court

Aditi
-
0
Woman forced man’s signature to claim they are married: Read how the Hindu Marriage Act came to his rescue after he approached the Gujarat High Court

In a recent judgment, the Gujarat High Court refused to uphold an alleged marriage between a man and a woman, citing the absence of the essential Hindu rituals required under the Hindu Marriage Act to solemnise the marriage. A Bench of Justices Ilesh J. Vora and R T Vachhani struck down an order passed by the Family Court, Ahmedabad, ordering the trial of a dispute regarding the existence of a valid marriage.

The judges stated that the Family Court should have passed an order declaring the marriage null and void instead of ordering a trial in the case. The Family Court had assumed the existence of a marriage after the defendant produced a marriage certificate to prove the marriage.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by a man against the Family Court judgment order, which rejected his application seeking the passing of a decree based on admission and declaration of the alleged marriage as null and void as per the Hindu Marriage Act. According to the facts of the case, the man lives in the United Kingdom, where he studies and works. The woman, who claims to be his wife, resides in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. She met his parents and presented them with a marriage certificate, claiming that she was lawfully wedded to their son.

The appellant denied the existence of a marriage, stating that no Hindu rituals were performed to solemnise the marriage and that he never lived with the defendant as husband and wife. He said that he used to work in the company of the defendant’s father and that his signature on the marriage documents was obtained fraudulently by inducement of promotion or threat of termination, without his free consent. Notably, the defendant had admitted before the Family Court that no essential Hindu rituals were performed, required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She also admitted that she never lived with the appellant as husband and wife.

Hindu rituals are the foundation of a Hindu marriage: HC

The High Court observed that the essential Hindu rituals, as required under the Hindu Marriage Act, form the foundation of a Hindu marriage. In the absence of the essential Hindu ceremonies, the marriage never came into existence and hence cannot be called valid. “When the very foundation of a Hindu marriage, namely the performance of the essential ceremonies, is admittedly absent, the spiritual, social, and legal status that Hindu law grants to marriage as a sacrament and samskara never came into existence,” the High Court said in the judgment dated June 23, 2026.

Explaining the significance of Hindu rituals in a Hindu marriage, the High Court said, “A Hindu marriage facilitates procreation, strengthens the family unit, and promotes the spirit of fraternity among different communities. Above all, marriage is sacred because it creates a lifelong, dignified, equal, consensual, and healthy union between 2 individuals. It is also regarded as an event that helps an individual attain salvation, particularly when the prescribed rites and ceremonies are duly performed. The customary ceremonies, despite their geographical and cultural variations, are believed to purify and transform the spiritual being of an individual.”

The Court referred to the Rig Veda to elucidate the concept of Saptapadi, the nature of Hindu marriage and the status of the wife in a Hindu marriage. “We observe that, in the context of Saptapadi in a Hindu marriage, the Rig Veda states that after the seventh step is completed, the bridegroom says to the bride: “With seven steps we have become friends (sakha). May I attain friendship with you, and may I never be separated from that friendship.” In Hindu tradition, a wife is regarded as one-half of her husband (ardhangini), while at the same time being recognised as an individual with her own identity and as an equal partner in the marriage. Under Hindu Law, marriage is considered a sacrament or samskara. It forms the foundation of a new family,” the High Court said.

“We are of the considered opinion that, since the respondent herself has admitted that no marriage rites and ceremonies were performed, the basic and essential requirement of a Hindu marriage is absent in the present case. Therefore, the existence of a marriage certificate or its registration cannot override, contradict, or nullify the legal effect of her clear admission that no marriage was ever solemnised,” the Court held.

The High Court said that the Family Court erred in presuming marriage based on the registration certificate and ordering a trial, while overlooking the defendant’s admission. “The learned Family Court committed an error by proceeding on the assumption that registration of the marriage, by itself, creates an irrebuttable presumption and therefore requires a full trial, without first examining whether the fundamental requirement of solemnization under Section 7 had been satisfied,” the High Court stated.

The Supreme Court’s position regarding the Hindu marriage

The Supreme Court, through several judgments, has highlighted the significance of Hindu rituals and ceremonies for granting validity to a Hindu marriage. In a 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court held that a Hindu marriage must be performed in compliance with Hindu ceremonies such as the Saptapadi (seven circles around the sacred fire). “Where a Hindu marriage is not performed in accordance with the applicable rites or ceremonies, such as saptapadi, when included, the marriage will not be construed as a Hindu marriage,” the Supreme Court had said.

West Bengal assembly passes two OBC amendment bills, removes OBC quota granted by the Mamata Banerjee govt to 77 Muslim communities

Divya Bharti
-
0
West Bengal assembly passes two OBC amendment bills, removes OBC quota granted by the Mamata Banerjee govt to 77 Muslim communities

On Monday, 29th June, the West Bengal Legislative Assembly passed two amendment bills that formally changed the state’s Other Backwards Classes (OBC) reservation laws and implemented the directions of the Calcutta High Court issued in May 2024. With the passage of these bills, the OBC status granted to 77 Muslim communities during the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government led by Mamata Banerjee has been removed, while the reservation structure has also been revised.

The two legislations, the West Bengal Backwards Classes (Other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the West Bengal Commission for Backwards Classes (Amendment) Bill, 2026, were introduced by Backwards Classes Development Minister Gourishankar Ghosh.

The bills were passed with 186 MLAs voting in favour and 17 opposing them. A group of rebel TMC MLAs led by Ritabrata Banerjee walked out during the proceedings, while Indian Secular Front MLA Nawsad Siddiqui said the bills should have been discussed in greater detail before being approved.

Laws amended after the May notification

Soon after coming to power in West Bengal in May, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government issued notifications to implement the High Court’s directions. However, although the administrative orders came into effect at that time, the required amendments to the state’s reservation laws had not been passed until now. Monday’s legislation brings the legal framework in line with those earlier notifications.

The amendments revise the OBC reservation quota from the earlier combined 17% to 7% and also reorganise the OBC categories. Along with this, changes have been made to the 1993 law governing the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes, giving the commission a central role in identifying backward communities in the future.

What changes have been made in the OBC list

Following the amendments, only 66 communities remain on West Bengal’s official OBC list for reservation in government jobs and educational institutions. According to the government order issued on 18th May, only those communities that had been included in the state OBC list before 2010 continue to be eligible for reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.

The order also cancelled the earlier arrangement that provided separate reservations of 10% for OBC Category A and 7% for OBC Category B. Under the revised system, eligible OBC communities will together receive 7% reservation.

Among the Muslim communities that continue to remain on the OBC list are Jolah (Ansari Momin), Fakir, Pahadia Muslim, Hajjam (Muslim) and Chowduli (Muslim). At the same time, 77 Muslim communities that had received OBC status during the TMC government have been removed from the list. These include Muslim Nehariya, Muslim Haldar, Muslim Sanpui, Muslim Mali, Ghosi (Muslim), Muslim Darji/Ostagar/Idrisi, Muslim Rajmistri, Muslim Batiyara, Muslim Molla and Dhali (Muslim), among several others.

Government cites High Court directions

Addressing the Assembly, Minister Gourishankar Ghosh said the amendments were necessary to comply with the Calcutta High Court’s judgment. He stated that communities added to the OBC list by the previous TMC government without any survey had been removed, and only 66 communities identified through proper surveys had been retained.

He also said the amended law strengthens the role of the West Bengal Commission for Backwards Classes, which will now conduct surveys to determine whether communities qualify for OBC status. According to Ghosh, the previous government had bypassed the commission while granting OBC status. He added that the changes would help prevent the issue of fake OBC certificates, which, according to him, had become common under the earlier administration.

Background of the High Court ruling

The changes stem from a Calcutta High Court judgment delivered on 22nd May, 2024, by a division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Rajasekhar Mantha. The case was heard after multiple petitions were filed between 2010 and 2020 by three individuals and the human rights organisation Atmadeep.

The petitioners argued that several communities had been granted OBC status after the TMC came to power in 2011 without any proper evaluation of their social, educational or economic backwardness. After hearing the matter, the High Court cancelled the inclusion of 77 communities and directed the state to restore the earlier list that existed before 2010.

In its judgment, the court made strong observations regarding the process followed in granting OBC status. It said the inclusion of the 77 Muslim communities appeared to have been carried out for political reasons rather than through a proper exercise of identifying backward classes. These observations triggered a wider political debate across the state.

How the reservation system has changed

Before these amendments, West Bengal’s reservation system included 22% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC), 6% for Scheduled Tribes (ST), 10% for OBC Category A and 7% for OBC Category B. In addition, a separate 3% reservation was available for persons with disabilities across reserved and unreserved categories. Even with these provisions, the total reservation in the state was capped at 45% under a government order issued on 16th January, 2014.

With the OBC quota now reduced to 7%, the total reservation in the state has come down by 10 percentage points compared to the earlier arrangement.

Across India, OBC reservation varies from state to state. Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh do not have any notified OBC communities. Punjab provides 12% reservation for OBCs, while Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand each provide 14%.

The earlier OBC policy

The roots of the issue go back to 2010, when the Left Front government led by then Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee introduced 10% reservation in state government jobs for Muslims classified as “economically, socially and educationally backward” under OBC Category A. Muslims placed under OBC Category B were given 7% reservation.

The decision to create the 10% OBC-A quota was based on the recommendations of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities headed by Justice Ranganath Mishra. The commission’s report was tabled in Parliament in December 2009.

At that time, 53 of the 108 communities included in West Bengal’s OBC Categories A and B were Muslim communities. After the TMC assumed power in 2011, more Muslim communities were added to the OBC list. The High Court’s 2024 judgment later cancelled the inclusion of 77 of those communities, leading to the changes that have now been formally written into law through the amendment bills passed by the Assembly.

With Monday’s vote, the BJP-led government has completed the legislative process needed to implement the High Court’s directions. The revised OBC list, the reduced 7% reservation quota and the amended role of the West Bengal Commission for Backwards Classes will now form the legal basis for OBC reservation in the state going forward.

1...141516...7,623Page 15 of 7,623