Rapido Rider, Cancer-Stricken Mother, and an MBBS Dream

0

Kolkata: Between 2022 and 2023, Shaukat Ali rode for Rapido, ferrying passengers across the city to survive. In between trips, he sold small household items from a dala—a bamboo basket—in some of Kolkata’s busiest lanes. His father had died in 2008, and his mother, who worked as a domestic help in several homes, single-handedly raised him.

In 2024, the Khidirpur resident cracked NEET and secured a dental seat at North Bengal Medical College. But his mentor urged him to aim higher. Ali reappeared for NEET in 2025 and secured an MBBS seat. Tragically, his mother, who was battling cancer, did not live long enough to see him advance in his medical journey. His younger sister has just completed her senior secondary education. The orphaned siblings are now the only surviving members of their immediate family.

From Rapido Rides to MBBS Seat: Triumph Over Hardship

“My life changed after I came in contact with Urooj and Minhaj sir (Dr Minhajuddin Khurram). Urooj helped me clear NEET in 2024, and Minhaj sir pushed me to try again in 2025,” Ali said.

He added, “Minhaj sir also helped me deposit the bond at Raiganj Medical College. Now my goal is clear — I want to pursue MS (Master of Surgery).”

Financial struggles persist. “I used to give tuition earlier, but staying in the hostel makes that impossible. We now depend on support from my nana’s family,” he shared.

kolkata rapido rider cracks neet 2025 secures mbbs seat urooj students
(Clockwise) Shaukat Ali felicitated by Dr Adil, Dr Arif Faizan and Dr Ansari felicitate a student, Dr Haseeb felicitates Surekha Sahu, Sahu with her mother

Ali’s story reflects the fragile distance many underprivileged aspirants must travel between survival and success.

Surekha Sahu grew up in similarly difficult circumstances. Her father went missing years ago, leaving her mother, Pramila Sahu, a small grocery shop owner, to raise her and her elder daughter, who is physically challenged. Today, Surekha is pursuing paramedical studies but dreams bigger.

“I will appear for NEET next year with the aim of securing an MBBS seat. Minhaj sir has taken my promise,” she said at Urooj’s felicitation ceremony, which she attended with her mother and sister.

Abhishek, another student who cleared MBBS, could not attend; his father collected the memento on his behalf. Along with Ali, Abhishek, Sahu, Shahnawaz Alam and several NEET 2025 qualifiers were present as senior Kolkata doctors felicitated them.

Mohammed Sadiqu Ahmed, now a second-year MBBS student at Calcutta National Medical College, shares a similar arc. Ahmed once worked with Blinkit while preparing for exams. He first secured a BDS seat but later cracked MBBS.

“Sadiq was first spotted listening to chemistry teacher from outside the class (from the corridor) because he did not have money to attend the class. The teacher made him sit in class and later same day he was introduced to me. He was allowed classes for free. He got BDS that year. Next year he was encouraged and took under mentorship and he delivered MBBS,” recalled Dr Minhajuddin.

“After BDS, I had lost the motivation to attempt MBBS again. Minhaj sir pushed me. Today, I am pursuing MBBS,” Sadiq said while addressing the gathering.

kolkata rapido rider cracks neet 2025 secures mbbs seat
Dr Minhajuddin Khurram with NEET 2025 qualified Urooj students | eNewsroom

How Dr Minhaj Mentored NEET Rankers from the Margins

This marks the third consecutive year that Urooj, a NEET coaching centre, has helped underprivileged students clear one of India’s toughest entrance exams. In 2024 alone, over 23 lakh students competed for around 1.1 lakh MBBS seats, underscoring the scale of competition.

Beyond classroom preparation, mentorship has been central to these outcomes. Dr Minhajuddin Khurram, while acknowledging the students’ appreciation, remained understated about his role and reiterated his commitment to supporting those from economically weaker backgrounds.

Helping Hand, a partner organisation, co-organised the event, strengthening a support ecosystem that continues to turn hardship into opportunity — and aspiration into white coats.

How Haq Rewrites the Shah Bano Case by Erasing Law, History, and State Accountability

Cinema that claims lineage from history does more than narrate events. It curates collective memory, directs moral attention, and shapes how audiences interpret law, justice, and social identity. Legal scholarship consistently observes that when films selectively extract facts while suppressing context, they do not merely simplify history; they actively reconstruct it to serve contemporary ideological ends. Haq, which presents itself as inspired by the Shah Bano case, operates precisely within this terrain. Beneath its courtroom rhetoric lies a narrative that privileges moral certainty over historical integrity.

This critique does not oppose reform or internal critique. Constitutional governance itself rests on the premise that social progress emerges through debate, disagreement, and accountability. The concern here lies in how Haq frames its subject: portraying Muslims as a collective moral obstacle while strategically oscillating between fiction and historical authority. In doing so, the film replaces critical examination with ideological certainty.

Shah Bano’s Case: Legal History as Documented Fact

Judicial records and legal histories establish that Shah Bano Begum was born in 1916 in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. She married Mohammed Ahmed Khan in 1932 and remained married for forty-three years. The Supreme Court judgment in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) records that the couple had five children—three sons and two daughters. In 1978, at the age of sixty-two, Shah Bano was divorced through talaq al-bid‘ah and left without adequate financial support.

The Supreme Court noted that she approached the court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a secular provision designed to prevent destitution irrespective of religious affiliation. In its 1985 ruling, the Court affirmed that Section 125 applied uniformly to all citizens and that maintenance could extend beyond the iddat period.

Legal scholar Upendra Baxi has observed that this judicial affirmation provoked intense political backlash, exposing the fragility of constitutional commitments when confronted with electoral pressures. The result was the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which restricted maintenance largely to the iddat period. Any serious engagement with the Shah Bano case must therefore confront this legislative retreat. Haq largely bypasses this reckoning.

Islamic Rulings on Talaq: What Jurisprudence Actually States

One of the most consequential distortions in Haq is its depiction of talaq al-bid‘ah as an unregulated and arbitrary practice. Classical Islamic jurisprudence treats divorce as a structured legal process governed by ethical restraint, procedural discipline, and moral accountability.

The Qur’an frames divorce as a measured and deliberate act:
“Divorce is twice. Then retain in kindness or release with good treatment” (Qur’an 2:229).

Islamic jurists traditionally classify divorce into two principal categories, precisely to discourage impulsive dissolution of marriage.

The first is talaq al-sunnah—the approved or Prophetic method—which reflects normative Islamic legal and ethical standards. As A.A.A. Fyzee explains in Outlines of Muhammadan Law, this form accords with Prophetic practice and is therefore ethically preferred. Within this category, talaq-e-ahsan involves a single pronouncement during a period of ritual purity (tuhr), followed by abstinence during the iddat period. The divorce remains revocable throughout iddat, allowing space for reflection and reconciliation.

Al-Marghinani, in Al-Hidayah, describes talaq-e-hasan as involving one pronouncement in each of three successive tuhr periods. Reconciliation remains possible after the first and second pronouncements, with irrevocability arising only after the third. The requirement that each pronouncement occur in a distinct period of purity underscores the juristic emphasis on deliberation and restraint.

By contrast, talaq al-bid‘ah represents a disapproved innovation. Scholars such as Fyzee, Mohammad Hashim Kamali, and John L. Esposito note that instantaneous triple talaq, though historically treated as legally effective by some jurists, was consistently condemned as sinful, impulsive, and contrary to Prophetic guidance. Crucially, it was never regarded as morally legitimate or ethically endorsed, even where its legal consequences were reluctantly acknowledged.

Hadith literature reinforces this ethical framework. Reports in Sahih Muslim establish that during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and the early years of Umar ibn al-Khattab, triple talaq pronounced in one sitting was treated as a single divorce (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Talaq, Hadith 1472). Narrations in Sunan Abu Dawood further distinguish legal permissibility from moral approval, describing divorce as lawful but deeply discouraged (Hadith 2178). Traditions in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal indicate that the later enforcement of instant triple talaq as final emerged as an administrative response to misuse, not as a continuation of Prophetic practice.

Classical jurists such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah strongly argued that instant triple talaq contradicts the Qur’anic design of divorce as a phased and reversible process (Qur’an 2:229–230). By collapsing these layered juristic debates into a monolithic narrative, Haq erases centuries of Islamic legal reasoning and replaces jurisprudential complexity with caricature.

Narrative Compression and Ideological Filtering

Media theory suggests that propaganda operates less through fabrication than through strategic omission. Haq exemplifies this tendency by compressing a complex legal and political struggle into a simplified moral arc. The same political system that upheld Shah Bano’s rights in 1985 retreated in 1986, yet this reversal remains largely uninterrogated. Responsibility is displaced from institutions and redirected toward cultural identity.

Critical commentary, including analysis published in The Quint, has noted that Haq foregrounds cultural blame while minimising political accountability, transforming the Shah Bano case into a moral allegory rather than a nuanced legal history.

Sociological studies of legal storytelling show that when individual suffering is abstracted into symbolism, ethical engagement weakens. Shah Bano’s vulnerability stemmed from age, prolonged economic dependence, and abandonment after decades of marriage. In Haq, these realities function as narrative cues affirming a predetermined conclusion rather than inviting structural reflection.

Representation and Cultural Attribution of Blame

Scholars examining law and minority representation warn that repeated portrayals of a community as morally obstructive contribute to cultural othering. In Haq, Muslim characters are consistently positioned as impediments rather than ethical interlocutors. Works by Esposito and Kamali demonstrate that Islamic legal traditions have long accommodated debate, reinterpretation, and reform—traditions conspicuously absent from the film.

The film opens with an acknowledgment to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, situating the narrative within a specific ideological ecosystem, before declaring itself fictional. Such dual positioning allows the film to claim moral authority from history while evading factual accountability.

Law, Cinema, and the Politics of State Withdrawal

Constitutional analysis shows that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, emerged from political pressure rather than theological necessity. By omitting this context, Haq relocates responsibility from state institutions to cultural identity, transforming political compromise into cultural indictment.

Cinema functions not only as entertainment but as an informal educator, particularly in societies where legal literacy is shaped as much by popular culture as by formal instruction. Misrepresentation does not end at the box office; it enters public consciousness, shaping attitudes and hardening assumptions.

Narrative Construction and the Erasure of State Accountability

All religious personal laws contain contested practices and histories of reform. Hindu, Christian, and other personal laws have undergone judicial and legislative intervention amid resistance and debate, yet these processes are rarely framed as evidence of civilizational incompatibility. By isolating Muslim personal law as uniquely regressive, Haq contributes to an asymmetrical public discourse.

Shah Bano herself never framed her struggle as a civilizational conflict. Legal records show that her case centred on survival, dignity, and security in old age. Recentring Shah Bano as a person—rather than a symbol—restores ethical clarity to a narrative burdened with meanings she never claimed.

The ethical stakes are not abstract. The Times of India reported that Shah Bano’s daughter approached the High Court seeking a stay on the release of Haq, alleging distortion of her mother’s life and legal struggle. This intervention underscores the consequences of appropriating real lives for ideological storytelling.

Legal, religious, and cultural scholarship converge on the view that historical cinema carries ethical responsibility. Haq does not merely retell the Shah Bano case. Through selective history, legal simplification, and representational distortion, it converts a complex constitutional struggle into an ideologically convenient narrative.

Shah Bano’s story was that of a sixty-two-year-old woman with five children navigating abandonment, law, and political retreat. Any retelling that sacrifices complexity for moral certainty does not preserve her legacy—it repurposes it. When fiction assumes the authority of history, critical reading becomes indispensable.

Bangladeshi? Why a Political Label Is Becoming a Death Sentence for India’s Migrants

0

Across India’s vast and uneven labour market, a shared experience has gradually become normalised in the lives of Bengali Muslim migrant workers over the past decade: fear. The fear of being suspected, labelled, detained, attacked, or killed—not for what one has done, but for who one is perceived to be.

This fear is not abstract. It is shaped by names, accents, faces, and rumours. It travels with workers across state borders—into construction sites, brick kilns, factories, railway platforms, marketplaces, and rented rooms. Incident after incident has made one reality impossible to ignore: the harassment, humiliation, and killing of Bengali Muslim migrant workers are no longer aberrations or isolated crimes. They constitute a structural social and political condition of contemporary India—one that demands serious reckoning, particularly in the context of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.

In Odisha’s Sambalpur, Jewel Rana, a young man from Murshidabad, was allegedly lynched on suspicion of being “Bangladeshi.” In Karnataka, a migrant worker from Malda died after being assaulted, though official narratives attempted to attribute his death to unrelated causes. In Howrah, the body of a worker was recovered bearing severe injury marks; his family insists that his only “offence” was speaking Bengali. In Delhi-NCR, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha, Bengali-speaking Muslim workers have repeatedly reported detention, interrogation, and humiliation under the pretext of identity verification. The most recent addition to this grim list is Alai Sheikh, a street vendor from Murshidabad, killed in Jharkhand—allegedly after revealing his home address.

These cases are connected not by geography, profession, or circumstance, but by identity. They are not outcomes of workplace disputes or criminal altercations. They are deaths rooted in suspicion. Identity itself has become a site of lethal vulnerability.

Dehumanisation, Identity, and the Politics of Suspicion

Viewed collectively, these incidents reveal more than episodic failures of policing or law enforcement. They point to a deeper and increasingly normalised process of dehumanisation. Bengali Muslim migrant workers occupy a space of triple marginality: they are workers in a largely informal economy, religious minorities in a majoritarian political climate, and in many states, linguistic minorities whose accents immediately mark them as “outsiders.” This layered vulnerability pushes them perilously close to the edge of state protection.

At the centre of this suspicion lies a single word that has acquired extraordinary power: “Bangladeshi.” In contemporary India, this term no longer functions as a neutral geographical or national descriptor. It has become a political weapon—one that transforms doubt into justification.

The irony is stark. This tagging directly contradicts historical and documentary reality. The draft voter list under SIR 2026—an official exercise of the Indian state—demonstrates that a substantial portion of West Bengal’s Muslim population consists of pre-Partition residents. These families did not migrate to Pakistan in 1947. They consciously chose to remain in India, often at great personal cost. Their roots in the land predate independence itself. Their citizenship is not merely legal; it is historical, social, and documented.

Yet the “Bangladeshi infiltrator” narrative persists—not because it is true, but because it is politically useful. It offers a convenient explanation for economic stress, demographic anxiety, and political polarisation. It allows structural failures to be displaced onto vulnerable bodies. This is not casual misinformation; it is organised political propaganda. And its consequences are not rhetorical. They are written in injuries, detentions, and deaths.

The Right to Life and the Reality of Conditional Citizenship

This reality compels a renewed examination of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life. Traditionally understood as protection from arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty, judicial interpretation has expanded this right to include dignity, livelihood, and personal security. Yet the lived experience of Bengali Muslim migrant workers exposes a widening gap between constitutional promise and social reality.

The question today is no longer merely whether people survive, but whether they are allowed to live with dignity and without fear. If the Right to Life does not translate into a practical right to live—to exist freely in public spaces without constant threat—then constitutional guarantees remain symbolic.

For Bengali Muslim migrant workers, citizenship itself has become conditional. Such conditional citizenship strikes at the core of democracy. Citizenship is not a privilege granted by social approval; it is a constitutional right. When citizenship becomes subject to public suspicion rather than legal recognition, the consequences are predictable. Streets turn into courtrooms. Mobs assume the role of judges. Doubt becomes verdict.

International human rights law has long recognised that dehumanising language precedes violence. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights obligate states to protect life and dignity without discrimination. India’s own Supreme Court, in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs Union of India (2018), recognised lynching as an assault on the rule of law and issued clear preventive directives. Yet implementation remains uneven. Many states have failed to enact comprehensive anti-lynching legislation. In West Bengal, despite repeated incidents linked to linguistic and citizenship-based suspicion, there is no specific law addressing identity-driven dehumanisation, nor an effective interstate protection framework for migrant workers. Safety thus depends more on administrative discretion than on enforceable rights.

2026 and the Test of Democratic Conscience

It is against this backdrop that the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections acquire meaning beyond routine political competition. This election is not merely about governance or development; it is about dignity, security, and the right to live.

The question before political parties is unavoidable. Will Bengali Muslims continue to be treated primarily as a vote bank—mobilised during elections and forgotten thereafter? Or will they be recognised as citizens whose lives demand institutional protection?

Genuine commitment would require more than rhetorical invocations of secularism. It would demand concrete measures: laws against dehumanising labels and hate-based suspicion; recognition of lynching as a distinct offence; interstate mechanisms to protect migrant workers; mandatory constitutional training for law enforcement; and active use of official records such as SIR 2026 to counter disinformation.

These demands are not radical. They are remedial. They seek equality, not exception.

Silence in the face of ongoing dehumanisation is not neutrality—it is consent. And the cost of this consent is paid by people like Jewel Rana and Alai Sheikh, whose only act was seeking livelihood. If the right to live does not occupy the centre of political discourse in 2026, the implications will extend far beyond West Bengal. They will confront the democratic conscience of the republic itself.

Can India guarantee unconditional security to its minority citizens, or will suspicion continue to define belonging? This question can no longer be postponed. It demands an answer—not in slogans, but in laws, institutions, and action.

A Packed Court, a Woman Leader, and a Question of Democracy: Inside Mamata Banerjee’s SC Appearance

0

Delhi: Mamata Banerjee (Didi) in the Supreme Court — why this was historic, and what was oh, so regular.

  1. There was a palpable energy in the Supreme Court that could be felt by everyone present in Courtroom No. 1. Everyone was waiting for the same moment — will she be allowed to speak?

She did. And what an epitome of intelligence, humility, and grace.

She was interrupted a few times, but the message was clear: she would not leave without making her voice heard. She spoke — and asked some deeply pertinent questions:

A) The #SIR process, which should properly take at least two years — why is it being rushed through in just three months?

B) Why is the SIR exercise being carried out by the states?

C) Why has the Election Commission not responded to the various letters written by her and by the State?

D) She pointed out that crores of people stand at risk of disenfranchisement because they may not have the time to get corrections done in such a short window — especially during festival and harvest seasons.

  1. I heard whispers from some quarters — “Ah, the DRAMA… political drama!”

But why does no one notice the alleged drama of the State counsels — who repeatedly need instructions, argue on technicalities, and are willing to say anything that does not require them to argue on merits today?

When the State counsels tried to stop her, the CJI remarked: “Let her speak. She has travelled a long distance.”
(Mild laughter in court.)

  1. What was most heartening was the bated breath with which people listened on both sides — those who had somehow managed to squeeze themselves in and were still standing in an utterly packed courtroom.

Most heartening for me personally were the exchanged glances with women in the room — soft smiles that said everything. They knew what was happening beyond what was being spoken. The subtext. The power of a woman taking on power itself.

  1. The Court listed the matter for Monday. It said it would also hear the petition filed by the Election Commission and asked the State of West Bengal — represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan ji — to provide a list of government officers who could assist with correcting discrepancies arising from Bengali spellings and names.

So what’s historic is this — a tigress leading from the front, not yielding an inch, arguing for her people.

What’s regular is this — no debate on the meta questions, technical nitty-gritties dominating the discourse, and of course… the next date.

My only regret: not being able to tell her, as she got into the car and waved goodbye — “Didi, you are a warrior princess.”
This moment will stay etched in my memory for as long as I live.

I love my profession on days like these — when you witness history being made, firsthand.

But all legal battles like this are long ones. Someday, perhaps in our lifetimes, we will be able to argue — and the Court will hold — that matters impacting the very foundation of our Constitution must be heard within fixed timelines and resolved within fixed timelines. No drama. Just swift and substantive access to justice for all.

P.S. Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayan raised two important points — that different states are being forced to raise different issues regarding SIR. The subtext, I believe, was that the meta questions surrounding SIR must be heard and settled once and for all, so that SIR-related litigation does not become a never-ending relay race.

To this, the Bench responded that this is how it is going to be — that it is only natural. (Not verbatim.)

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also intervened and, on a lighter note, was told by the CJI: “Mr Sibal, you are not well. You should rest today!”
(Mild laughter in court.)

Deep breath — and on to the next day in the Supreme Court.

I am not a journalist, but who can resist documenting history?

And yes, lawyers — we all pretend this is business as usual. But there are days when everyone knows that it is not.

When power and law interact in full public view. When the occasional haughtiness of lawyers gives way to their humanness. When what is not said in words must be read in eyes, silences, and energy.

Inside Jaipur’s Amrapali Museum and Its New Immersive Experience

The month of January in Jaipur is the most vibrant time of the year in India’s new cultural capital — the Pink City. Art, culture, literature and sports come alive across the city, as Jaipur truly comes into its own. Add to this the magical January weather, and the city transforms into a soulful celebration year after year.

Every January, my friend Rajiv Arora brings together a remarkable gathering — a true who’s who from across the country — inviting them to witness an exceptional collection and experience Jaipur at its finest. The Amrapali Museum in Jaipur aspires to be just that — a pervasive presence in India’s cultural space that touches lives far beyond its 10,000 square feet address in Jaipur.

After all, India’s jewellery is not an accessory. It is archive, inheritance, invocation.

Across centuries, ornaments in this land have carried far more than precious metal or gemstones. They have held prayer and power, belonging and belief. They have marked life stages, social worlds, regional identities, and spiritual thresholds. To speak of Indian jewellery, therefore, is to speak of India itself — layered, intimate, symbolic, and alive.

It is this deeper understanding that finds one of its most compelling contemporary expressions in the Amrapali Museum in Jaipur. With its recently unveiled expansion — now spread across three floors and over 10,000 square feet — the museum does something rare and vital. It reminds us that heritage is not meant to be frozen in vitrines, admired from a distance, but experienced, felt, and emotionally engaged with.

A barefoot moment that changed everything

Every institution rooted in authenticity has an origin story that feels almost mythic in retrospect. The Amrapali Museum’s beginnings lie not in grand ambition, but in a moment of human encounter.

On a scorching May afternoon in 1980, an elderly couple walked barefoot into a modest office in Jaipur, carrying a heavy cloth potli. When it was untied, silver ornaments spilled across a table — hair adornments, amulets, earrings, anklets — interspersed with flashes of gold and gemstones. Each piece bore the weight of extraordinary craftsmanship and lived memory.

That moment transformed Rajiv Arora and Rajesh Ajmera, the co-founders of the Amrapali Museum. What began as instinctive fascination soon evolved into a life’s calling. They travelled across India, into remote villages, artisan homes, pawn shops, and collectors’ archives, rescuing ornaments from the melting pot and, in the process, rescuing stories from oblivion.

This was never about acquisition alone. It was about preservation with purpose. Over decades, that commitment laid the foundation for what would become the Amrapali Museum — named after the legendary Amrapali, the courtesan of Vaishali in ancient India, revered not just for beauty, but for intellect and spiritual awakening.

Today, the museum houses over 4,500 rare objects, with approximately 1,500 on display. Tribal, ceremonial, temple, and everyday jewellery from across the Indian subcontinent sit together in quiet dialogue — crafted in silver, gold, and enamel; worn from head to toe; shaped by region, ritual, and reason.

Jewellery as language, not luxury

To understand Indian jewellery is to recognise that it has always functioned as language.

A nose ring signalled marital status and regional identity. Anklets marked rhythm and femininity. Amulets carried protection, invoking divine guardianship against illness or misfortune. Temple jewellery was devotion cast in metal; tribal ornaments were maps of community and cosmology.

In many parts of India, jewellery has historically been a woman’s movable wealth, her insurance, her dignity. It has been passed down not merely as inheritance, but as memory — each piece carrying the imprint of a grandmother’s hands, a mother’s milestones, a daughter’s becoming.

What the Amrapali Museum does with rare sensitivity is restore this context. The ornaments are not displayed as isolated objects of beauty. They are presented as social artefacts, anchored in geography, belief systems, and lived experience. One begins to see patterns: how climate influenced material choices, how trade routes shaped design vocabularies, how faith found expression through form.

This is where the museum transcends being a repository and becomes a cultural text, one that scholars, designers, students, travellers, and connoisseurs can read in layers.

When heritage meets immersive storytelling

The newly unveiled expansion marks a significant shift in how Indian museums can imagine the future.

Spread across an additional floor, the Amrapali Museum now integrates projection mapping, immersive video narratives, special effects, and interactive digital applications. But crucially, these technologies are not performative distractions. They are restrained, thoughtful, and deeply respectful of craft.

Visitors are no longer passive observers. They step into layered narratives. They watch techniques unfold. They encounter the human hands and histories behind each ornament. The experience moves from visual admiration to emotional connection.

As Rajiv Arora articulates: “Jewellery has always carried stories of people, places, and moments in time. With this expansion, our aim was to give those stories a larger voice. By combining traditional displays with immersive storytelling, we want visitors to connect emotionally with India’s heritage, not just admire it visually.”

That distinction — between admiration and connection — is where the future of heritage truly lies. Rajesh Ajmera adds another essential dimension: “India’s jewellery traditions are vast and deeply human. Every ornament carries meaning of faith, celebration, protection, or belonging. The immersive floor allows us to convey this richness in a way today’s audiences can truly experience and feel.”

In an age of shrinking attention spans and algorithm-driven consumption, this approach recognises a simple truth: stories, when well told, still hold us.

 Why India needs spaces like this

India stands at a paradoxical moment. We are producing more wealth, more design, more global cultural capital than ever before — yet we are also at risk of flattening our own inheritance into trend and commodity.

Jewellery today is often discussed in the language of fashion cycles, red carpets, and investment value. All legitimate, but incomplete. Without institutions like the Amrapali Museum, we risk forgetting the deeper grammar of adornment — the why before the what.

This museum does not romanticise the past. Instead, it offers continuity. It shows how traditional forms inspire contemporary design, how heritage can remain relevant without becoming diluted, and how artisans of the past continue to shape aesthetic conversations today.

Importantly, the museum positions itself as a living resource. Each visit promises new discoveries, through historical context, material innovation, or human narrative. It bridges generations: honouring artisans whose names history forgot, while shaping how future designers think about authenticity and cultural depth.

An invitation, not a monument

Perhaps the most powerful thing about the Amrapali Museum is that it does not behave like a monument. It behaves like an invitation.

An invitation to move beyond glass cases and timelines. To listen to jewellery whisper tales of devotion, power, celebration, and beauty. To understand that heritage is not something we visit once and tick off, but something we return to, again and again, with new questions.

Rooted in Jaipur’s artistic legacy yet global in outlook, the museum stands as a quiet but confident statement: that India’s craftsmanship does not need translation; it needs attention and care.

In reimagining how jewellery heritage can be experienced, the Amrapali Museum does more than expand its physical footprint. It expands our cultural imagination. It reminds us that some of the most precious things we inherit are not objects, but the stories that teach us who we are.

 I was truly impressed by the newly created floor, which evokes the sensibility of leading international museums. The immersive LCD installations across the walls, the thoughtfully placed benches narrating the journey of jewels and history, and the evocative lighting on the Goddess together create a powerful, contemporary museum experience.

Thank you, Rajiv, for bringing such a refined global perspective to the Pink City — Jaipur is richer for it.

बगोदर में ‘मैं हूं महेंद्र सिंह’ की गूंज, 21वें शहादत दिवस पर उमड़ा जनसैलाब

बगोदर (झारखंड): “महेंद्र सिंह कौन है?”—यह सवाल 16 जनवरी 2005 को हत्यारों ने किया था। 21 साल बाद वही सवाल भाजपा के मौजूदा विधायक नागेंद्र महतो ने सत्ता के घमंड में दोहराया। लेकिन शहीद कॉमरेड महेंद्र सिंह के 21वें शहादत दिवस पर बगोदर की जनता ने दहाड़ कर जवाब दिया—“मैं हूं महेंद्र सिंह।”

झारखंड की राजनीति के पुरोधा और जन मुद्दों की धारदार आवाज रहे बगोदर के जननायक विधायक कॉमरेड महेंद्र सिंह की 21वीं शहादत दिवस के मौके पर भाकपा (माले) की ओर से बगोदर बस स्टैंड में विशाल जन संकल्प सभा का आयोजन किया गया। सैकड़ों की संख्या में लोग—किसान, मजदूर, महिलाएं और नौजवान—सभा में पहुंचे और अपने प्रिय नेता को याद किया।

इससे पहले शहीद कॉमरेड महेंद्र सिंह के पैतृक गांव खम्भरा में उनकी आदमकद प्रतिमा पर पुष्प अर्पित कर श्रद्धांजलि दी गई। भाकपा (माले) महासचिव दीपांकर भट्टाचार्य, बगोदर के पूर्व विधायक विनोद सिंह, विधायक अरूप चटर्जी, पूर्व विधायक राजकुमार यादव, आरवाईए के राष्ट्रीय महासचिव नीरज कुमार सहित कई वरिष्ठ नेताओं और कार्यकर्ताओं ने माल्यार्पण किया।

सत्ता, कॉरपोरेट और जनता की राजनीति पर दीपांकर का सीधा हमला

जन संकल्प सभा को संबोधित करते हुए भाकपा (माले) महासचिव दीपांकर भट्टाचार्य ने भाजपा विधायक नागेंद्र महतो के बयान पर तीखा पलटवार किया। उन्होंने कहा,

“जो लोग पूछ रहे हैं कि महेंद्र सिंह कौन हैं, उन्हें आज इस जनसभा को देखना चाहिए। महेंद्र सिंह जनता की चेतना में जिंदा हैं। सत्ता बदल सकती है, लेकिन जनता के दिलों से महेंद्र सिंह को कोई हटा नहीं सकता।”

दीपांकर भट्टाचार्य ने केंद्र की मोदी सरकार पर भी कड़ा हमला बोला। उन्होंने कहा कि आज देश की सरकार आम जनता के लिए नहीं, बल्कि अडानी जैसे कॉरपोरेट घरानों के लिए काम कर रही है।

“मोदी सरकार ने देश की नीतियों को कॉरपोरेट के हाथों गिरवी रख दिया है। अंतरराष्ट्रीय स्तर पर भी यह सरकार अमेरिका के सामने घुटने टेकती नजर आती है। डोनाल्ड ट्रंप जैसे अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति के सामने आत्मसमर्पण की नीति ने देश की संप्रभुता को कमजोर किया है,” उन्होंने कहा।

भाजपा ही नहीं, जरूरत पड़ी तो गठबंधन सरकार से भी सवाल: विनोद सिंह

सभा को संबोधित करते हुए बगोदर के पूर्व विधायक विनोद सिंह ने कहा कि भाकपा (माले) की लड़ाई सिर्फ भाजपा के खिलाफ नहीं है।

“हम भाजपा की जनविरोधी राजनीति का तो मुकाबला करेंगे ही, लेकिन अगर झारखंड की गठबंधन सरकार भी जनता के मुद्दों से भटकेगी, तो भाकपा (माले) वहां भी सवाल उठाएगी। सत्ता में कौन है, इससे फर्क नहीं पड़ता—हम जनता के साथ खड़े रहेंगे,” उन्होंने कहा।

सभा में कॉमरेड महेंद्र सिंह के वे बेबाक शब्द भी याद किए गए, जो उन्होंने अपनी शहादत से कुछ दिन पहले बगोदर की एक जनसभा में कहे थे—

“हम आपकी जिंदगी के सारे सवाल हल कर देंगे, इसकी गारंटी नहीं देते। लेकिन हम जनता के साथ हैं। जूते की तरह पार्टी नहीं बदलते, न वोट बेचते हैं। हमारे लोग मारे जा सकते हैं, जेल जा सकते हैं, लेकिन आपकी लड़ाइयों से दगा नहीं कर सकते।”

नवंबर 2024 के विधानसभा चुनाव में बगोदर में भाजपा की जीत का जिक्र करते हुए वक्ताओं ने कहा कि चुनावी नतीजे विचारधारा को खत्म नहीं कर सकते। “शहीद महेंद्र सिंह अमर रहें”, “लाल सलाम” और “मैं हूं महेंद्र सिंह” के नारों के साथ यह शहादत दिवस एक बार फिर संघर्ष के संकल्प में बदल गया।

Who Was Mahendra Singh? The People’s Leader Power Tried to Forget

0

“Who Is Mahendra Singh?”

This question says less about the man—and more about the one asking it.

When Bagodar’s sitting BJP MLA Nagendra Mahto recently asked this question from a public stage, it was not innocent curiosity. It was a political jibe—an attempt to belittle a mass leader whose memory still unsettles those in power. But history does not answer such questions with words. It answers them with truth.

Mahendra Singh was not just an MLA.

He was an idea.

A Leader Born From Struggle, Not Power

Mahendra Singh’s rise in Bagodar politics did not come from patronage or privilege, but from grassroots struggles. He was elected MLA three times—in 1990, 1995, and 2000—when the region was still part of undivided Bihar. Land rights, wages, displacement, and the fight for the poor formed the core of his politics.

He was not a leader who appeared only during elections. He stood with the people in every season.

A Movement Leader, Not Just a Legislator

Mahendra Singh’s identity was not shaped only inside the Assembly. It was forged on streets, in villages, and at protest sites. After incidents in places like Markaccho and Telodih, when people were trapped between fear and anger, Mahendra Singh organised them, stood beside them, and led the resistance.

He was not a distant leader on a stage—he walked in processions with the people. Speaking out against police repression, administrative silence, and state apathy carried risks, but he never stepped back. These struggles made him a true people’s leader—someone who did not merely speak about pain, but carried it on his shoulders.

The Lone Voice in the Assembly That Spoke for the People

After the formation of Jharkhand in 2000, new power structures emerged. At a time when most political parties were busy negotiating power equations, Mahendra Singh often stood as a lone opposition voice in the Jharkhand Assembly.

Whether it was displacement, farmers’ distress, or neglect of Adivasi and Dalit regions, he raised every issue in the House. He may have been alone in numbers, but not in voice. Behind him stood the people of Bagodar and surrounding areas.

This moral strength is why even senior leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav respected Mahendra Singh. Such respect in politics is not easily earned—it comes from public trust and ethical courage.

“I Am Mahendra Singh”: The Moment That Became History

Mahendra Singh’s most powerful introduction did not come inside the Assembly, but on January 16, 2005.

During a public meeting, armed attackers arrived and asked the same question that is echoed today:

“Who is Mahendra Singh?”

In that moment—when silence could have saved his life—Mahendra Singh chose not to hide. He stood up and said:

“I am Mahendra Singh.”

Moments later, he was shot dead on the spot.

This was not just a murder.

It was the martyrdom of a people’s leader who refused to bow to fear and power.

Why Bagodar Still Remembers Him After Two Decades

In today’s politics, where memories fade fast and principles shift easily, Mahendra Singh’s legacy makes those in power uncomfortable. Perhaps that is why attempts are made to shrink his identity.

Yet more than twenty years later, every January 16, thousands gather in Bagodar and nearby areas. These are not formal events—they are tides of memory.

People remember a leader who walked from village to village, who sat on the ground to listen, who drew strength not from power but from the people.

Mahendra Singh does not live in statues or government advertisements.

He lives in collective memory.

So the question rises again:

Who is Mahendra Singh?

He is an answer that cannot be erased.

A name that bullets could not silence.

बीस साल बाद भी लोग पूछते नहीं, जानते हैं—महेंद्र सिंह कौन थे

“महेंद्र सिंह कौन हैं?” — यह सवाल उस आदमी के बारे में कम, पूछने वाले के बारे में ज़्यादा बताता है।

जब हाल ही में बगोदर से मौजूदा भाजपा विधायक नागेंद्र महतो ने सार्वजनिक मंच से यह सवाल उछाला, तो यह कोई भोली जिज्ञासा नहीं थी। यह एक राजनीतिक तंज था—एक ऐसे जननेता की हैसियत को छोटा करने की कोशिश, जिसकी याद आज भी सत्ता को असहज करती है। लेकिन इतिहास ऐसे सवालों का जवाब शब्दों से नहीं, सच्चाई से देता है।

महेंद्र सिंह सिर्फ विधायक नहीं थे।
वह एक सोच थे।

बगोदर की राजनीति में महेंद्र सिंह का उदय किसी सत्ता संरक्षण से नहीं, बल्कि जनसंघर्षों से हुआ था। 1990, 1995 और 2000 में वे तीन बार विधायक चुने गए—उस दौर में जब यह इलाका अविभाजित बिहार का हिस्सा था। ज़मीन, मज़दूरी, विस्थापन और गरीबों के हक़ की लड़ाई उनकी राजनीति का मूल था। वे चुनावी मौसम के नेता नहीं थे; वे हर मौसम में जनता के साथ खड़े रहने वाले नेता थे।

आंदोलनों से निकले नेता, सिर्फ विधानसभा तक सीमित नहीं

महेंद्र सिंह की पहचान सिर्फ विधानसभा में दिए गए भाषणों से नहीं बनी। वे सड़कों, गांवों और आंदोलन स्थलों से उभरे नेता थे। मरकच्चो, तेलोडीह और ऐसे कई इलाकों में हुई घटनाओं के बाद जब जनता गुस्से और डर के बीच फंसी थी, तब महेंद्र सिंह ने लोगों को संगठित किया, उनके साथ खड़े हुए और विरोध का नेतृत्व किया।

इन आंदोलनों में वे मंच पर खड़े नेता नहीं, बल्कि जुलूस में चलने वाले साथी थे। पुलिसिया दमन, प्रशासनिक चुप्पी और सत्ता की बेरुखी के खिलाफ़ आवाज़ उठाना उनके लिए जोखिम था, लेकिन वे पीछे नहीं हटे। इन्हीं संघर्षों ने उन्हें जनता का नेता बनाया—ऐसा नेता जो लोगों के दुख को सिर्फ बयान नहीं करता था, उसे अपने कंधे पर उठाता था।

विधानसभा की वो अकेली आवाज़, जिसने सत्ता को हमेशा जनता के प्रति जगाया

साल 2000 में जब झारखंड राज्य बना, तो नई सत्ता संरचनाएं उभरीं। उस दौर में, जब ज़्यादातर दल सत्ता के समीकरणों में उलझे थे, महेंद्र सिंह झारखंड विधानसभा में अक्सर अकेली विपक्षी आवाज़ बनकर खड़े रहे।

कभी विस्थापन का मुद्दा हो, कभी किसानों की बदहाली, कभी आदिवासी और दलित इलाकों की अनदेखी—महेंद्र सिंह ने हर सवाल को सदन में उठाया। संख्या में वे अकेले हो सकते थे, लेकिन आवाज़ में अकेले नहीं थे। उनके पीछे बगोदर और आसपास के इलाकों की जनता खड़ी थी।

यही वजह थी कि बिहार की राजनीति के दिग्गज नेता लालू प्रसाद यादव भी महेंद्र सिंह का सम्मान करते थे। राजनीति में ऐसा सम्मान आसानी से नहीं मिलता—यह जनता के भरोसे और नैतिक ताक़त से मिलता है।

“मैं हूँ महेंद्र सिंह हूँ”: वो पल जो इतिहास बन गया

महेंद्र सिंह का सबसे बड़ा परिचय विधानसभा में नहीं, बल्कि 16 जनवरी 2005 को सामने आया।

एक सार्वजनिक सभा के दौरान हथियारबंद हमलावर आए। उन्होंने भी वही सवाल पूछा जो आज दोहराया जा रहा है—
“महेंद्र सिंह कौन है?”

उस पल में, जब चुप रहना जान बचा सकता था, महेंद्र सिंह ने न छिपने का फैसला किया। उन्होंने खड़े होकर कहा—
“मैं हूँ महेंद्र सिंह।”

इसके कुछ ही पलों बाद, उन्हें गोली मार दी गई। मौके पर ही उनकी मौत हो गई।

यह एक हत्या नहीं थी। यह सत्ता और डर के खिलाफ़ खड़े एक जननेता की शहादत थी।

दो दशक बाद भी बगोदर क्यों याद करता है महेंद्र सिंह

आज की राजनीति में, जहां यादें छोटी होती जा रही हैं और सिद्धांत बदलते रहते हैं, महेंद्र सिंह की याद असहज करती है। शायद इसी वजह से उनकी पहचान को छोटा करने की कोशिशें होती हैं।

लेकिन बीस साल से ज़्यादा समय बीत जाने के बाद भी, हर 16 जनवरी को बगोदर और आसपास के इलाकों में बड़ी संख्या में लोग इकट्ठा होते हैं। यह कोई औपचारिक कार्यक्रम नहीं होता—यह स्मृति का सैलाब होता है।

लोग एक ऐसे नेता को याद करते हैं जो गांव-गांव गया, जो ज़मीन पर बैठकर लोगों की बात सुनता था, जो सत्ता से नहीं, जनता से ताक़त लेता था।

महेंद्र सिंह मूर्तियों में नहीं, सरकारी विज्ञप्तियों में नहीं, बल्कि लोगों की सामूहिक याददाश्त में ज़िंदा हैं।

तो सवाल फिर उठता है—
महेंद्र सिंह कौन हैं?

वह जवाब हैं जो मिटाया नहीं जा सकता।
वह नाम हैं जो गोलियों से ख़त्म नहीं होता।

Dr Manzoor Alam and the Leadership Indian Muslims Can Ill Afford to Lose

0

After years of seclusion and a courageous battle with illness, Dr Manzoor Alam has returned to his Creator—Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji‘un (To God we belong and to Him we return). His passing is not merely the loss of an individual; it marks the end of an era and the departure of one of the most prolific institution-builders the Indian Muslim community has produced. It is the culmination of a long and meaningful journey, defined by service to the nation, visionary leadership, and relentless dedication.

While death is an inevitable reality, the departure of a figure like Dr Manzoor Alam comes at a particularly critical moment. Indian Muslims today face layered political, social, and intellectual challenges, alongside a palpable vacuum of thoughtful leadership. Losing a personality of such depth and foresight—someone whose heart beat for the Ummah and who possessed a nuanced understanding of its crises—is an irreparable loss.

Dr Manzoor Alam: The Institution Builder Who Redefined Muslim Leadership

Born into an ordinary family in Ranipur village of Bihar’s Madhubani district, few could have imagined that this young man would rise, through sheer perseverance and intellectual rigour, to guide and shape the destiny of a community. His life story is nothing short of remarkable. One of the enduring reasons for the marginalisation of Indian Muslims has been the inheritance of leadership rather than its cultivation. Dr Alam decisively broke this cycle. He carved out his own space among national thinkers and demonstrated the power of systematic, research-based work by building institutions such as the Institute of Objective Studies (IOS).

For him, leadership was never about political sloganeering or public theatrics. It was about providing intellectual and moral direction—about shaping economic, social, and communal thought with clarity and purpose. Through institutions like the Institute of Objective Studies, the All India Milli Council, the Islamic Fiqh Academy, and dozens of other platforms, he laid the groundwork for community-building and leadership development. He never chased popularity or indulged in emotionalism; the collective welfare of the community always mattered more to him than personal recognition.

From Ranipur to National Thinker: The Intellectual Journey of Dr Alam

As a journalist, I had the privilege of interviewing Dr Manzoor Alam nearly half a dozen times and covering several of his programmes. In 2014, when India’s political landscape was undergoing a decisive shift, I interviewed him in Kolkata on “Indian Muslims in the Modi Era.” I posed a blunt question: Are Muslim organisations and political parties themselves responsible for the rise of Hindutva forces and the growing alienation of Hindu youth from Muslims?

Dr Alam responded with characteristic seriousness. He argued that this was not merely an Indian phenomenon but part of a global trend, where right-wing forces were exploiting the sense of deprivation and anxiety among young people. He described Hindutva as a contemporary manifestation of Brahmanism and drew striking parallels between the ideological trajectories of Zionism and Hindutva—an analysis that was both provocative and deeply rooted in historical understanding.

What also set Dr Manzoor Alam apart was his humility. Many community leaders hesitate to engage with lesser-known Muslim journalists, preferring mainstream media platforms they otherwise criticise relentlessly. But when I was a novice journalist in 2006 and called him seeking an interview for the newly launched Hindustan Express, he agreed without hesitation. He gave me ample time, patiently answered my questions, and never once made me feel small or inadequate because of my inexperience.

Dr Manzoor Alam was a man acutely attuned to the pulse of his times. His thinking was marked by foresight rather than reaction, by depth rather than noise. Until his last years, he remained deeply concerned with the future of the community, the pursuit of social justice, and the cultivation of a research-driven, intellectually confident Muslim society.

In his passing, Indian Muslims have lost not just a leader, but a compass.

For 24 Years, He Guarded India’s Borders—Now He’s Standing In Line To Prove He’s A Citizen

0

Murshidabad: For 24 years, Sariyat Hossain guarded India’s borders. From Lucknow and Delhi to Kashmir, Kedarnath and Uttarkashi, the Indian Army constable served in some of the country’s most sensitive and difficult postings. He retired in 2013 after completing his service to the nation.

This week, in Domkal subdivision of Murshidabad, the former Army jawan found himself standing in a queue again—this time not to serve the country, but to prove his citizenship.

Retired Army Jawan Asked to Prove Citizenship in Murshidabad SIR Hearing

Sariyat Hossain, a resident of Kalupur under Domkal police station, received a notice related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls, asking him to appear for a hearing and submit documents to establish his citizenship. The notice has sparked anger, disbelief and fear in the locality.

On Tuesday, the retired soldier arrived at the hearing centre carrying all the documents he had, his anxiety visible as he waited his turn. “Because of my job, I was posted outside for many years. So my name was not in the 2002 list,” he said. “I retired in 2013 and have been receiving my pension since then. When I joined the Army, a voter card was not necessary, so I never made one.”

He added that the absence of his name in the 2002 electoral roll prevented him from filling the entire enumeration form. “My parents died before 2002. We never even saw our grandfather—he too passed away long ago,” Hossain said.

Residents questioned the logic of issuing such a notice to a man who served the nation for over two decades. “If a former Army jawan is being asked to prove his citizenship again, what is left for ordinary people?” one local resident asked, describing the situation as humiliating and painful.

There has been no formal administrative response so far, though inquiries are reportedly underway regarding the validity of the notice and related documentation.

SIR Hearings Trigger Panic and Uncertainty Across Domkal Subdivision

Sariyat Hossain’s case is not an isolated one. A climate of fear and anxiety has gripped the Domkal subdivision of Murshidabad as hearings related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls continue.

Elderly, illiterate and marginalised residents are being summoned to the Sub-Divisional Officer’s office after their names were either missing from the draft voters’ list or flagged for alleged discrepancies. Many are struggling with the lack of documents, complex administrative requirements and the looming fear of being labelled “non-citizens,” pushing them into deep mental distress.

‘Will They Drive Me Out of the Country?’: Illiterate 75-Year-Old Breaks Down at SIR Hearing

The crisis is reflected starkly in the case of 75-year-old Marjia Bibi from Juginda Malopara under Domkal police station. Illiterate and never having attended school, Marjia lost both her parents long before 2002—the year from which the SIR verification is being scrutinised. As a result, their names never appeared in the 2002 electoral roll.

Officials say this is why Marjia’s name, too, was excluded from the SIR draft list. She received a hearing notice and appeared before the authorities at the SDO office on Tuesday.

The moment she noticed media cameras, Marjia broke down in tears. “My parents died long ago. That’s why their names aren’t in the 2002 list. Will they drive me out of the country now?” she asked in a trembling voice.

She explained that she did not possess a voter card while living at her father’s house. Her name was first included in the voters’ list only after her marriage, when she moved to her in-laws’ area.

On the day of the hearing, Marjia brought all the documents she had—Aadhaar, voter and ration cards. “I never went to school. Where will I get certificates from? I have brought whatever documents I have. The authorities must decide the rest,” she said.

Fear of Becoming ‘Non-Citizens’: Domkal Couple Summoned Despite Generations of Residence

In Domkal’s Bhatsala area, anxiety has become a constant companion for residents like Shankar Mal and his wife Suparna Mal. Although their names appear in the draft voters’ list, the couple has been summoned to the Sub-Divisional Office due to alleged discrepancies in documentation.

On Tuesday, they sat quietly at the SDO office, waiting for their hearing, fear and uncertainty etched on their faces. They admit they do not fully understand what being declared a “non-citizen” would mean, but one question continues to haunt them: can a person become an outsider in their own birthplace?

According to the couple, their family has lived in the locality for the past 70 to 80 years. “Our fathers and grandfathers lived and died here,” they said. Years ago, natural calamities destroyed their home, along with many old documents.

For the hearing, they brought their voter cards, Aadhaar cards and ration cards. However, they do not possess land records and other papers from the specific periods demanded by the authorities. “They are asking for papers from a time when our house itself didn’t exist. Everything was destroyed. Where will we find those documents?” Shankar Mal asked.
The SIR notice reportedly lists 13 types of documents to be submitted—most of which the couple does not have. The uncertainty surrounding the outcome has left them deeply worried.

‘After 66 Years, I Am Asked to Prove Citizenship’: Elderly Voter Queues for SIR Hearing

At an age when most people expect dignity and security, 66-year-old Ranjit Sarkar of Mahishya Para in Domkal now finds himself standing in a queue to prove his legitimacy as a voter.

Ranjit received a notice citing the absence of his name from the 2002 electoral roll and appeared for his scheduled hearing on Tuesday at the Domkal Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s office. “Today is my hearing day, so I’ve come. What else can I do? I am just an ordinary citizen. The Commission officials will do whatever they think is right,” he said.

Born in Kathlamari Mohanganj under Raninagar police station, Ranjit moved to Domkal in 1975 and has been registered in the area’s electoral rolls since then. He claims that not only his name, but those of his father and grandfather, appeared in voter lists prior to 2002.

“After living in this country for 66 years, I am now being asked to prove my citizenship again,” he said. “It terrifies me to think about it.”

SIR Hearings Trigger Widespread Anxiety Among Elderly and Marginalised in Domkal

Across Domkal, dozens of residents—many elderly and marginalised—are facing similar uncertainty. Despite possessing identity documents and having lived in the area for generations, they are now being forced to prove their citizenship due to documentation gaps dating back decades.

For many across Bengal, the ongoing SIR hearings have become a source of deep emotional distress, raising troubling questions about the humane dimensions of administrative procedures—and about what citizenship means for those who have lived, worked and voted in the country all their lives.