London Dreams, Kolkata Nightmares: Why the City Deserves Better, Not Bigger Promises

0

Largest Democracy, Smallest Justice: How India’s Courts Fail Muslim Prisoners

0

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he judicial system is not actually ‘denying’ bail to undertrials languishing in jail for the last five years—it is reinforcing the belief that the state can put anyone behind bars without giving any reason. There is no accountability for anyone. Another person will be released citing ‘human rights’ and ‘personal liberty’ as the reasoning. The right to free expression is essentially reserved for those with considerable influence and expansive legal representation in the courts.

How do you expect justice when appointments are made by retiring others? Party spokespersons are being appointed to the judicial system. People like Ram Rahim enjoy state patronage, and courts have allowed that to happen. What are common citizens supposed to do?

The fact is that judicial verdicts have never been truly objective—they are subjective. Legal instruments are used only to justify conclusions. This is why Justice Muralidhar or Justice A.P. Shah never reached the Supreme Court. The abrupt transfer of Justice Muralidhar from Delhi to Odisha is a case in point. Both the government and lawyers know who can grant bail and who cannot. Is that objective? Justice Bela Trivedi never granted bail to anyone during her tenure, and nothing happened. A few questions were raised, but there was no accountability.

Subjective Judgments, Selective Justice

Judicial impartiality is nothing but naivety. The judiciary is also part of the system and cannot really oppose the state or its leaders. Perhaps the only time the judiciary showed real spine was during the Emergency, when they called Indira Gandhi to court and declared her election from Rae Bareilly invalid. But can the judiciary do it today?

Most judgments today read like long speeches filled with hollow words—‘biggest democracy,’ ‘liberty,’ and ‘human rights.’ Now, some more such words are being added. These lofty terms are used selectively. Courts, too, understand who is powerful. Big names get relief because they can hire big lawyers who can demand bail at any time.

Bail rejection of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed became a national outrage, but the dark reality of our time is that people are rotting in jail for five or more years without any charge sheet or trial. This means the process itself is designed so that the families and loved ones of those arrested suffer not only physical harassment but also daily mental torture. The state apparatus is completely unaccountable. We once said that police officers or legal officers must pay the price if a case is wrongly imposed on an individual who suffers for it, but that seems impossible now. Bureaucracy, judiciary, police, media, and government all wield power without accountability. Law has simply become a tool of intimidation, used at the whims of these institutions.

Law as a Weapon, Not a Shield

It may be time for political parties, lawyers’ associations, and the media—at least those who have the courage—to stand up and speak against this blatant violation of the law. The law is meant to liberate us and provide justice. It cannot be reduced to a punishment or a threat against political opponents.

The hypocrisy is evident when former CJIs repeatedly emphasised that ‘bail is the rule and jail the exception,’ but perhaps that only applies to people like Ram Rahim.

One need not be deluded. Liberty, freedom, and human rights are provided not by principle but by the state and its ruling apparatus. This is loud and clear. Those who can afford powerful lawyers and strong backing can enjoy these rights; the rest will continue to suffer. Someday, the Supreme Court may wake up, and we will again sing songs of victory and joy—‘justice is done.’ Journalists and opinion-makers will once more declare that the judiciary is the last hope in dark times. Meanwhile, political prisoners will continue to suffer and die, with no one held accountable. The grand show of the ‘largest democracy’ with its so-called ‘independent judiciary’ will go on, while the aam janta is expected only to clap and bow to the power of ‘justice.’

Who Owns Urdu? Javed Akhtar, Religion, and the Fight for a Shared Language

1

[dropcap]“B[/dropcap]ahut Samjhe the Hum Is Daur Ki Firqa Parasti Ko
Zubaan Bhi Aaj Shaikh -o-Brahaman Hai Ham Nhi Samjhe” (Rashid Banarsi)

Around 225 years ago, in the city of Calcutta (now Kolkata), the seeds of division between the Urdu and Hindi languages were sown with the establishment of Fort William College. The British colonial administration introduced separate language primers and translated Persian and Sanskrit texts into Urdu and Hindi, which were distinguished primarily by their scripts. This bifurcation laid the foundation for a divide that later deepened through the politicization of language and the eventual religious association of Urdu with Islam.

Ironically, in the present context, one of the most prominent institutions associated with the development and promotion of Urdu, the West Bengal Urdu Academy, succumbed to similar tendencies. The Academy was scheduled to organize an event titled “Urdu in Hindi Cinema” from August 31 to September 3. The event aimed to explore and celebrate one of the most vibrant and influential cultural spaces where Urdu has thrived. Hindi cinema has long served as a transnational vehicle for embracing Urdu, helping to preserve its beauty, idioms, and lyrical richness across linguistic and religious boundaries. However, the event was postponed following pressure from two Muslim religious organizations. Their objection stemmed from the inclusion of celebrated lyricist Javed Akhtar, whose offensive and dismissive remarks about Islam have often sparked controversy.

The decision to postpone the event in response to these objections raises serious questions on different points. First, the dismissive use of Urdu cultural spaces by a few literary figures affects the inclusive and tolerant nature, as well as the tradition of refined literary expression within the Urdu language. Secondly, the encroachment of linguistic and cultural institutions by religious bodies. Third, the independence and credibility of the organization involved in the preservation of Urdu, and lastly, the future of Urdu itself.

When Faith Overrides Language

It is important to mention that religious organizations are partially precise in terms of their right to express discontent with views they find offensive related to faith. Although it should be based on constructive dialogue with mutual respect for those who differ and should not be selective. In a democracy, dialogue, dissent, and critique form the bedrock of civil society. Likewise, cultural figures such as Javed Akhtar also bear a responsibility to engage with belief systems respectfully, especially in public or institutional spaces. Insensitive or derisive remarks, regardless of intent, risk alienating audiences and undermine the spirit of constructive engagement. In today’s communally polarized climate, such remarks are often weaponized—not just to critique individuals but to vilify entire communities.

Therefore, as a public intellectual, these things must be taken into consideration, and unnecessary derision of beliefs should be avoided in serious literary or cultural discourses. And in terms of spaces related to Urdu, it adds woes to the already diminishing circles and risks undermining the effectiveness of intellectual engagement.

Javed Akhtar and the Burden of History

However, the choice of the Urdu Academy as the platform by a religious organization to register such objections is also deeply problematic. It puts the language and institutions dedicated to its survival and growth in a precarious position. Urdu, unlike Arabic, holds no intrinsic religious sanctity. In fact, during the 15th and 16th centuries, when the language existed in its early forms like Hindavi or regional variants such as Dakkani, it was considered unsuitable for religious writings. It was only in the 18th and 19th centuries, during the reformist movements, that Urdu began to be employed for religious discourse.

The association of Urdu with Islam was further cemented during the colonial period, when the language emerged as a symbol of Muslim identity. This perception, however, ignored the diversity within the Muslim community—spanning sectarian, class, ethnic, and linguistic lines. The post-colonial fate of Urdu has been shaped by these historical legacies. In Pakistan, despite being the mother tongue of less than 10% of the population, Urdu was declared the national language and used by the Punjabi elite to suppress other ethnic languages like Pashto, Sindhi, Balochi, Saraiki, and Bengali. In India, Urdu too faced structural neglect, primarily due to its association with a religious minority and its stereotyping as the language of Islam. However, there have been continuous efforts to challenge the sectarian appropriation of Urdu within academic and cultural circles.

Religious institutions have undoubtedly contributed to sustaining this language, but their intervention in secular institutions, as represented by this incident, would restrict the relevance of Urdu to a theological domain. This would, in turn, lead to the overshadowing of the secular literary and cultural dimensions of Urdu by religious connotations. It would reinforce the stereotyping of Urdu as inherently Islamic, thereby resulting in alienation of the non-Muslim Urdu speakers or their well-wishers.

Moreover, it would hinder the potential of Urdu to serve as a bridge across communities, particularly in the already dwindling state of multicultural spaces. And most importantly, this trend demonstrates a dangerous precedent of subordination of cultural and literary discourse to theological gatekeeping.

The decision by the West Bengal Urdu Academy to postpone its program under religious pressure is yet another blow that deserves lamentation. It undermines the Academy’s credibility and its stated purpose: to promote and preserve the Urdu language. This surrender to the religious bodies represents a failure of institutional responsibility, which is the norm of the day in West Bengal these days.

The Academy, which enjoys patronage and access to significant resources, is one of the few state-supported institutions dedicated to Urdu in India. Its responsibilities are therefore magnified, as it is expected to safeguard Urdu from political neglect as well as sectarian appropriation. At a time when Urdu faces unprecedented politicization and has become, unjustly, a target of hate, the surrender of one of its key institutions to sectarian interests is indeed troubling. It is a symbolic blow to every voice that envisions the safeguard of Urdu as an essential endeavor in line with the preservation of India’s pluralist and democratic identity.

Safeguarding Urdu’s Plural Legacy

Therefore, it is crucial to delineate religious and secular-cultural spaces when it comes to language. Historically, before being appropriated as a symbol of religious identity, it drew heavily from secular, syncretic, and humanistic traditions. The interplay between its secular and religious dimensions should be acknowledged and preserved, not manipulated to serve ideological ends.

The space for Urdu must be reclaimed as an inclusive, pluralistic domain along with the upkeep traditions of Tehzeeb to foster sensitivity and empathy within its dwindling spaces. More than just a language, Urdu is a cultural and historical legacy that belongs to all Indians regardless of religion. Urdu institutions and the wider Urdu-loving public must remain vigilant and assertive. Cultural programs, literary events, and educational initiatives must continue without fear of ideological backlash.

Most importantly, Urdu must be re-situated within India’s broader democratic and pluralist ethos and should be celebrated not as a communal relic but as a living, evolving, and inclusive language.

The Power of Forgiveness: How Prophet Muhammad’s Example Challenges Modern Narratives

Kolkata: “Some people say Islam is a violent religion, not a peaceful one. It confuses me,” said Dr. Jamir, a Christian professor of Islamic Studies from the Northeast, at the beginning of his speech during the celebration of the Human and Social Legacy of Prophet Muhammad. While Dr. Jamir delivered a 10-minute speech, Dr. Sarfaraz Adil, one of the organizers, addressed questions on the subject.

“Let me narrate a historic incident from the life of Prophet Muhammad to debunk this narrative. After eight years of exile from Mecca, the Prophet had gained thousands of followers in Madina and an army of ten thousand. When he decided to return to Mecca with this army, it was a moment when he could easily conquer or overpower any group. Among those in Mecca were people who had deeply wronged him—the woman who had eaten the liver of his uncle, the man who had divorced his daughter just to hurt him, and those who had thrown camel intestines on him while he prayed. Despite his followers’ calls for revenge, no retaliation was taken. His close companion Umar Farooq wanted to make it a day of revenge, but the Prophet declared it a day of mercy,” narrated Dr. Adil.

“And when the day ended, and Mecca was conquered with almost no bloodshed, the Prophet did not spend the night in a rich man’s palace celebrating victory. Instead, he stayed with a poor cousin. That night he reflected on his family—his father, who had died before his birth, his mother, who passed away when he was just six, and other relatives,” added Dr. Adil.

A Day of Mercy, Not Revenge

He emphasized, “On the day when he had every right to seek revenge, and no one would have questioned it, the Prophet chose forgiveness. Neither he nor his followers resorted to violence, even when no one could stand against them.”

In his address, Dr. Jamir stressed that the legacy of Prophet Muhammad should be embraced by all of humanity, as it benefits everyone.

Several other misconceptions about Islam were discussed during the event, with organizers presenting documented historical facts to counter them.

prophet muhammad birth celebration islam muslim legacy Kolkata
The speakers at the event | Picture by: Laib

Global Recognition of the Prophet’s Legacy

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has declared Hijri year 1447 (2025–26) as the Year of Commemoration of the 1500th Anniversary of the Birth of Prophet Muhammad, highlighting him as the “Prophet of Mercy.”

In Kolkata, the event—Celebrating the Human and Social Legacy of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)—was jointly organized by SR and Tahreek Foundations at Hotel Ivory Inn. Rabiul Awwal, the third month of the Islamic calendar, marks the Prophet’s birth, and Muslims traditionally celebrate it in different ways. Since 2024, the two foundations have chosen to mark the month by highlighting the Prophet’s human and social contributions in interfaith gatherings with non-Muslims.

Echoes of the Prophet Across Faiths

“When I studied the life of Prophet Muhammad, I found striking similarities with Mahavir. What Mahavir taught in the 6th century BC, Prophet Muhammad said in the 7th century. For example, the Jain faith is based on five core principles, and the Prophet emphasized the same five values,” said Dr. Namrata Kothari, a Jain scholar.

Pallav, a member of the Baháʼí faith, highlighted the Prophet’s lifelong commitment to truth and tolerance.

Father Francis Aogo noted, “If he wished, Prophet Muhammad could have lived a comfortable life. But Allah entrusted him with responsibility, and he chose hardship instead.”

Aliah University professor Abdur Rashid also spoke about the Prophet’s life and work.

Tarsem Singh of the Indian Pluralism Foundation reflected, “Prophet Muhammad used to remind people to remove their ego, as everything is done by Allah, not by humans themselves. This teaching is similar to what Guru Nanak later emphasized.”

Other speakers included Imtiyaz Mollah, Bhim Army state president; Mufti Abdul Mueed; Owaiz Aslam of the Indian Pluralism Foundation; and Athar Firdausi of SR Foundation.

Frontline of Justice: 200 Paralegal Volunteers Trained in West Bengal to Bridge Law and People

0

Kolkata: The final phase of a five-week programme to train more than 200 paralegal volunteers (PLVs) across West Bengal began on August 30, 2025. The project, “Strengthening Legal Awareness and Assistance through Capacity Building of Paralegal Volunteers,” is a joint initiative of the Legal Aid Society, West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS), the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Structured as an intensive bilingual series, the training was delivered over five weekends, with each batch comprising around 40 participants. In the concluding batch, 47 PLVs joined from Purulia, Bankura, Hooghly, Howrah, North and South 24 Parganas, and Kolkata. The curriculum covered eight key thematic areas: constitutional rights, criminal justice reforms, cybercrime, gender justice, juvenile justice, victim compensation, mental health laws, and welfare entitlements. Sessions were interactive, featuring case studies, role plays, and scenario-based learning to enhance practical skills and deepen grassroots legal understanding.

The inaugural ceremony of the first phase was presided over by Justice Soumen Sen, Judge of the Calcutta High Court, as Chief Guest, and Prof (Dr) NK Chakrabarti, Vice-Chancellor of WBNUJS, as Chief Patron. Commending the initiative, Justice Sen said, “PLVs are the frontline of constitutional justice. They must be fully familiar with relevant statutes to ensure that no citizen is left without legal protection.”

PLVs as the Frontline of Justice

Prof Chakrabarti reaffirmed WBNUJS’s commitment to legal empowerment through community engagement. “Justice is not just about laws and courts. It becomes real only when people have the capability to access them,” he observed. S Arnab Ghoshal, Member Secretary of SLSA West Bengal, described PLVs as vital intermediaries between institutions and communities: “They are instrumental in extending legal aid to marginalized groups who cannot navigate the system on their own.”

The programme has been conceptualized and led by Prof (Dr) Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan, Project Director, with support from project assistants Sneha Maji and Sonam Basu. Nusrat Khan, UNDP specialist, played a key role in bringing all three partners together. WBNUJS faculty members Prof (Dr) Sanjit Kumar Chakraborty, Dr Surja Kanta Baladhikari, Arjita Mukherjee, and Debdeep Das, along with senior SLSA officials Poona Singhi, Sri Dibyendu Nath, and Probation-cum-After Care Officer Manoj Kumar Roy, served as resource persons.

paralegal volunteers training west bengal justice judiciary nujs dr sarfaraz khan
The group photograph consist of judges, DLSA secretaries of different districts of West Bengal | Arranged

The training modules, aligned with NALSA’s 2013 revised scheme for PLVs, incorporated recent reforms under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), modernizing India’s criminal justice framework. Designed with equity and gender sensitivity, the curriculum included local illustrations and problem-solving exercises tailored for assisting Dalits, Adivasis, transgender persons, women, children, migrants, and other vulnerable groups.

Monitoring and evaluation, supported by UNDP, involved mid-course feedback, group assignments, and final impact analysis to track knowledge acquisition and readiness for fieldwork. Beyond classroom training, PLVs are expected to support legal awareness drives, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and community-level interventions. They will also guide citizens in navigating schemes such as NALSA’s SAMVAD 2025, Legal Services for Disaster Victims, and victim compensation programmes.

Beyond Training: Building Grassroots Legal Support

Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, PLVs play a crucial role in village legal care centers, police stations, and front offices, helping illiterate or disadvantaged persons draft applications, secure free legal aid, and resolve disputes outside court. Professor Khan emphasized the broader vision of the initiative: “This is a historic step toward making justice not just a principle, but a lived reality for people at the grassroots.”

In addition to the five-phase PLV training, a one-day programme titled “Strengthening Legal Awareness & Aid through Capacity Building of Legal Services Authorities Functionaries in West Bengal” was held on August 22, 2025. Nearly 20 District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) Secretaries attended, sharing insights and strengthening institutional capacities. This session was also inaugurated by Justice https://srisabaripackersandmovers.com/contact-us/ Soumen Sen and received an enthusiastic response. Certificates were distributed by Nusrat Khan of UNDP.

The joint effort of WBNUJS, SLSA, and UNDP has already been lauded for its collaborative approach. All three institutions have expressed interest in developing long-term partnerships and replicating this structured capacity-building model across districts in West Bengal to expand and strengthen the state’s legal aid network.

Bengal Congress Submerges Rahul Gandhi’s Jitna Abaadi, Utna Haq Vision into Bay of Bengal

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hile watching Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi’s dazzling roadshow in Bihar, I couldn’t help but wonder—if the Gandhis are working so hard for Bihar, why don’t they show the same concern for West Bengal? The answer became clear soon enough, when I saw the list of newly announced committees of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress.

Bihar is less than 600 kilometres away from Bengal, but Rahul Gandhi’s much-touted slogan—“Jitna Aabadi, Utna Haq” (the share of representation should match the share in population)—seems to lose all meaning when it comes to Bengal. After all, Muslims make up nearly 27 percent of Bengal’s population. By that logic, they should have at least 27 percent representation in any Congress committee in the state. One could even round it up to 30 percent, given that Congress’s only surviving strength in Bengal lies not in Kolkata but in the Muslim-majority districts of Murshidabad, Malda, and North Dinajpur. Put simply, Muslims should naturally expect at least one-third representation in the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee.

From Slogan to Empty Numbers

But a closer look at the Pradesh Congress’s newly announced lists shows how Rahul’s formula has been reduced to an empty slogan here. Perhaps, after spending ten long years in alliance with the CPI(M), the Congress leaders at Bidhan Bhavan (the party’s Bengal headquarters) have also started believing that the party should be dominated by Chatterjees, Bhattacharyas, and other upper-caste Hindus. Why do I say this? Because in the Political Affairs Committee—arguably the most important one—out of 48 members, only 4 are Muslims from Bengal. Even if you count the two Muslim representatives sent from Delhi, the total rises only to 6 out of 48. That’s still below 10 percent.

The Pradesh Election Committee, which will oversee the 2026 polls, has 67 members—only 7 of them Muslims. Subtract the two from Delhi, and Bengal Muslims are left with just 5. In the 86-member Executive Committee, Muslims are only 7. Among 35 vice-presidents, Muslims number 5. In the list of 29 general secretaries, there are 5 Muslims. Out of 48 organisational secretaries, 14 are Muslims. And out of 33 district presidents, only 4 are Muslims. Does this reflect the state’s 27 percent Muslim population? Or is Bidhan Bhavan simply following Alimuddin Street (the CPI(M) headquarters) in prioritising upper-caste Hindus?

Discontent Within the Ranks

Unsurprisingly, many Muslim Congress supporters are fuming. Some are unwilling to speak publicly, but leaders like trade unionist Anwar Ali Khan and Samir Alam have already held press conferences, presenting the numbers to show just how little representation Muslims are being given. Their point is hard to deny. If in the two most important committees—Political Affairs and Pradesh Election—Muslims are less than 10 percent, how credible are these bodies? Why should the Muslim voters of Murshidabad, Malda, or North Dinajpur believe that Congress is serious about them?

Rahul Gandhi may well want to empower minorities, and in states like Karnataka and Assam, the Congress has made an effort to include Muslim leaders in proportion to population. But in Bengal, the Pradesh Congress seems far from that vision. And that distance may explain why Muslims here remain equally distant from the party. If Malda and Murshidabad Muslims ask why they should see Congress as a safe political home—and not Trinamool—the Pradesh Congress has no convincing answer. In fact, if Mamata Banerjee studies these numbers, wouldn’t she be more determined to sweep away minority votes in those districts?

After Anwar Ali Khan and Samir Alam’s press conference, Congress leaders tried to defend themselves. Ironically, they sent a Brahmin leader to address the media, who claimed that “every community” had been given proper representation. But numbers don’t lie. And in this case, the numbers cut deep.

Why Mamata Still Holds the Minority Ground

Since the Sachar Committee Report, Bengal’s Muslims have consistently drifted towards Mamata Banerjee. Neither the Congress nor the CPI(M) has found a way to win back their trust. Putting up faces like Naushad Siddiqui here and there may help with optics, but the overall numbers show who actually holds power in the party. Sadly, Bidhan Bhavan seems just as blind to Rahul Gandhi’s “Jitna Aabadi, Utna Haq” slogan as Alimuddin Street.

Even the BJP, despite not caring for Muslim votes, ensures caste and community balance when it distributes leadership roles. Leaders like Suvendu Adhikari keep reminding that they welcome “patriotic Muslims.” But what does the Bengal Congress offer? When the party’s committees fail to reflect the state’s population, why should Muslims in Murshidabad, Malda, or Nadia trust them?

Rahul Gandhi’s growing popularity—especially after his fight against electoral fraud—has generated real excitement across India. Yet in Bengal, Muslims are asking: why should we trust Congress when its own leadership doesn’t trust us with proportional representation? If the Congress in Bengal is reduced to just a “signboard party,” much of the blame may lie in these very lists of office-bearers and committees.

And perhaps that is why, once again, Muslims across Bengal—from North 24 Parganas to Nadia, from Malda to Murshidabad—are looking back to Mamata Banerjee to safeguard their political future.

 

It is a translation of a piece published in Bangla.

“Blood-Curdling Cruelty”: Public Tribunal Exposes Assam’s Inhuman Drive Against Bengali Muslims

Delhi: An urgent public tribunal convened by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) has sounded the alarm on what it described as systematic state-backed human rights violations against the Bengali Muslim community in Assam, warning that the region is sliding into a constitutional crisis.

The tribunal, comprising former judges, senior bureaucrats, prominent activists, and scholars, drew attention to the illegal eviction drives, mass disenfranchisement, and indefinite detentions that have become routine in the state. Speakers said these actions were not isolated excesses but part of a pattern that excludes, disempowers, and demonises minorities in Assam—particularly Bengali-speaking Muslims, but also other vulnerable groups.

Justice Iqbal Ansari, former Chief Justice of Patna High Court, issued a stark warning: “A Chief Minister is tearing the Constitution to bits. If we cannot call this out, it will happen to all of us.” Echoing him, former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said, “The Constitution guarantees equality to all citizens. If equal rights are under threat in Assam, it demands urgent action from both the government and the people.”

A Pattern of Exclusion

Opening the proceedings, Delhi University professor Apoorvanand set the tone: “As Indians, what do we owe the people of Assam? The government is demolishing homes, stripping people of their right to vote, and branding them outsiders. It is our duty to see, to listen, and to stand with them.”

Participants pointed out that the scale of disenfranchisement and dispossession was unprecedented in independent India. Abdus Samad reminded the audience that Bengali Muslims have been part of Assam’s social fabric for over a century and a half. “Our ancestors settled here 150 years ago, made the land habitable, embraced the Assamese language. Yet today, we are called ‘Miya’ and threatened with eradication like ‘corona’. No Muslims in Assam are Bangladeshis, but we live under this false label every day.”

Former Union Home Secretary Gopal K Pillai contextualised Assam’s demographic shifts: “Migration into Assam was once encouraged because it was thinly populated. The extent of foreigners is far smaller than claimed, yet millions who lack documents are punished. If this continues unchecked, tomorrow any one of us may struggle to prove we are Indian.”

Not Just Muslims: A Wider Net

Jawahar Sircar, former Culture Secretary and current Rajya Sabha MP, cautioned against seeing the crisis as exclusively Muslim. “When we talk about minorities in Assam, it is not only Muslims who suffer. Bengali Hindus and tribals too are caught in the dragnet of suspicion. They are being told they don’t belong in their own homeland. In Assam, suspicion itself has become the rule, and once branded, there is no way out. This is a tragedy not just for Assam but for India’s democracy.”

Sircar stressed that what is unfolding in Assam reflects a dangerous precedent. “We have created an environment where the state can strip people of belonging at will. This is not about Bangladeshis—it is about redefining citizenship in a way that permanently excludes the vulnerable. The poison will not remain confined to Assam.”

Forced Evictions and Statelessness

Ground reports presented at the tribunal painted a chilling picture of mass evictions carried out with scant regard for legal safeguards.

Activist Taison Hussain described scenes of forced displacement: “People are being picked up, branded foreigners, and dumped in no-man’s land—even women with infants. Ninety percent of those targeted are Indians. This is a gross violation of human rights.”

Imtiaz Hussain drew attention to the disenfranchisement campaign: “Even if we assume for a moment that someone’s stay was illegal, how can their votes be illegal? Destroying homes, documents, and children’s education is nothing but an attempt to erase minorities from public life.”

Researcher Fawaz Shaheen, who visited eviction sites, detailed how due process was disregarded: “Evictions were announced through public notice but not individual notices. Demolitions went ahead even when cases were pending in court. Families produced records dating back to 1944, yet they were displaced. Many are poor climate refugees living in ecologically fragile areas where maintaining land records is difficult. They are being made stateless in their own country.”

Detention Centres: “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”

The assault does not stop at eviction. Speakers said that Assam’s notorious detention centres—set up within jails—represent the most extreme form of this exclusionary regime.

Harsh Mander, who has worked with detainees, called Assam “fascism manifested in a very extreme and brazen way.” He added: “The burden of proof has been overturned—guilty until proven innocent. People are declared foreigners for spelling mistakes in their documents and sent to detention centres where women have not stepped out for years.”

Lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan linked the campaign to larger economic and political interests: “Bengali Muslims are being evicted without a constitutional process, while their land is handed over to corporations like Adani and Patanjali. Journalists are threatened, tribal lands are seized, and all this is justified under the rhetoric of national security.”

A Climate of Hatred

Former Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed reflected on the poisonous climate that underpins these policies: “Even if some undocumented migrants exist, there are lawful and humane ways to deal with them. Instead, what we see is blood-curdling cruelty. The word ‘Miya’ has been turned into a curse. We must never lose hope, and we must stand with all the people of Assam.”

The Closing Note

The short field report- Evictions in Assam was also released at the tribunal. It concluded that the voices of Assam’s marginalised are being silenced by intimidation, censorship, and legal subversion, while constitutional safeguards are openly ignored.

The tribunal ended with a collective resolve: to amplify the voices of Assam’s displaced and dispossessed, to remind India that citizenship is a constitutional right, not a state concession, and to ensure that the ongoing crisis is not normalised as an administrative issue but recognised as a grave human rights emergency threatening the very foundations of Indian democracy.

From Hate Rallies to Bulldozers: Assam’s War on Bengali-Speaking Muslims Is “Illegal, Inhumane,” Warns Sanjay Hegde

Washington, DC: Senior Supreme Court advocate Sanjay Hegde has condemned the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Assam government’s deportations of Bengali-speaking Muslims as “absolutely illegal” and “inhumane,” warning that such actions dangerously redefine Indian citizenship along religious and linguistic lines. Speaking at a Congressional Briefing in Washington, DC, yesterday, Hegde said, “You cannot decide citizenship arbitrarily only on the basis of a person’s religion or on the basis of the language that you speak… this infection has carried on [from Assam] to various states in India.”

In recent months, thousands of Bengali Muslim families in Assam have been targeted through mass eviction drives. Reuters reported that in July alone, around 3,400 homes were bulldozed across five eviction operations. These demolition campaigns were accompanied by at least 18 hate speech rallies—many attended by elected BJP leaders—in which Muslims were branded “infiltrators,” according to the Center for the Study of Organized Hate.

Hegde stressed that such propaganda has created a hostile public perception: “Due to this climate of anti-Muslim and anti-Bangladeshi hatred, the average mind believes that anybody who speaks Bengali and who is a Muslim, is more likely to be Bangladeshi and less likely to be Indian.”

“All over [the country], we are in a situation where people are identified in the common mind as not being Indian; then there are people who have been, through a legal process, declared not to be Indian, but you have no other country which is willing to receive them as its own citizen,” he explained. “What the current government in Assam is doing, especially as elections come close, is to take some people who have either been declared by a judicial process not to be Indian, or any other people whom they suspect, and then try to physically push them back across the border with Bangladesh.”

Indian officials have described these actions as “pushback,” a term in international law for preventing border crossings. But Hegde rejected that characterization. “Pushback only applies at the stage of initial entry,” he said. “What we have here are large numbers of people who are born here, of people who have known no other country, of people who simply can’t document themselves to be unquestionably Indian. What is happening is not pushback, but forcible throwback. It’s almost as if human garbage is being dumped over the neighbor’s wall. That is absolutely illegal. There is no warrant in law.”

The briefing was co-sponsored by the Indian American Muslim Council, Hindus for Human Rights, World Against Genocide, New York State Council of Churches, Genocide Watch, The Religious Nationalism Project, The Humanism Project (Australia), Diaspora in Action for Human Rights and Democracy, Center for Pluralism, and Association of Indian Muslims of America, Washington DC.

27 महीने बाद भी जलता मणिपुर: पीयूसीएल ट्रिब्यूनल ने कहा—हिंसा नियोजित थी, राज्य और केंद्र जिम्मेदार

दिल्ली: सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पूर्व न्यायाधीश कुरियन जोसेफ की अध्यक्षता वाले स्वतंत्र ट्रिब्यूनल ने साफ कहा है कि मणिपुर में जारी जातीय हिंसा स्वतःस्फूर्त नहीं थी, बल्कि नियोजित, जातीय रूप से लक्षित और राज्य संस्थाओं की विफलता की देन थी. लोगों के बीच गहरी धारणा बनी रही कि राज्य ने या तो हिंसा को होने दिया या उसमें सक्रिय भागीदारी की. केंद्र सरकार भी मणिपुर में कानून के शासन और संविधान की व्यवस्था बनाए रखने की अपनी संवैधानिक जिम्मेदारी निभाने में विफल रही.

यह रिपोर्ट पीपुल्स यूनियन फॉर सिविल लिबर्टीज़ (पीयूसीएल) द्वारा गठित स्वतंत्र ट्रिब्यूनल ने बुधवार, 20 अगस्त को पेश की. हिंसा से बचे लोगों और प्रत्यक्षदर्शियों की गवाहियों पर आधारित इस रिपोर्ट में कहा गया कि राज्य की संस्थाओं और प्राधिकृत अधिकारियों ने संरक्षण देने के बजाय स्थानीय लोगों को उनके हाल पर छोड़ दिया.

ऐतिहासिक विभाजन, अविश्वास और राजनीतिक बयानबाज़ी ने भड़काई आग

जूरी ने साक्ष्यों के आधार पर संघर्ष के कई मूल कारणों को चिन्हित किया—ऐतिहासिक जातीय विभाजन, सामाजिक-राजनीतिक हाशिये पर डालना और ज़मीन विवाद जैसे पहले से मौजूद कारक. डिजिटल मीडिया पर चलाए गए घृणा अभियानों और राजनीतिक नेतृत्व के भड़काऊ बयानों ने अविश्वास और शत्रुता को और गहरा किया.

रिपोर्ट ने खासतौर पर 27 मार्च 2023 को मणिपुर हाईकोर्ट के उस आदेश को निर्णायक मोड़ बताया, जिसमें मैतेई समुदाय को अनुसूचित जनजाति (एसटी) का दर्जा देने की सिफारिश की गई थी. कुकी-ज़ो और नागा समूहों ने इसे अपने संवैधानिक संरक्षणों के लिए खतरे के रूप में देखा, जिससे पहाड़ी जिलों में विरोध शुरू हुआ. 3 मई 2023 को बड़े पैमाने पर विरोध दर्ज हुआ—शुरुआत में शांतिपूर्ण, लेकिन जल्द ही हिंसा में बदल गया, जिसने पूरे राज्य को अपनी चपेट में ले लिया.

पलायन और अफीम की खेती की कथा

मैतेई गवाहियों में लगातार दावा किया गया कि म्यांमार से कुकी-ज़ो समुदाय का पलायन हो रहा है, लेकिन जूरी ने आंकड़ों के अध्ययन के बाद कहा कि इस दावे के ठोस प्रमाण मौजूद नहीं हैं.

इसी तरह, कुकी समुदाय को अफीम (पॉपी) की खेती और ड्रग्स कारोबार से जोड़ने का प्रयास तत्कालीन मुख्यमंत्री एन बीरेन सिंह की “ड्रग्स विरोधी युद्ध” नीति से किया गया. कुकी गवाहों ने इसे षड्यंत्र करार देते हुए कहा कि असली खिलाड़ी विभिन्न समुदायों से थे और उनमें सरकारी तंत्र के लोग भी शामिल थे.

मीडिया और राज्य की भूमिका

जूरी ने मीडिया की भूमिका को भी कठघरे में खड़ा किया. प्रिंट मीडिया पक्षपाती रहा, जबकि डिजिटल और सोशल मीडिया ने अप्रमाणित व भड़काऊ सामग्री फैलाकर स्थिति को और बिगाड़ा.

रिपोर्ट में कहा गया कि बीरेन सिंह सरकार के कुछ निर्णय और प्रशासनिक कार्रवाइयाँ हिंसा की चिंगारी बने. उग्रवादी संगठनों अरामबाई तेंगगोल और मैतेई लीपुन के खिलाफ कोई ठोस कार्रवाई नहीं की गई. सार्वजनिक विरोध लंबे समय तक जारी रहा, लेकिन बीरेन सिंह ने फरवरी 2025 तक पद नहीं छोड़ा.

यौन हिंसा और मानवीय संकट

ट्रिब्यूनल ने गहरी व्यथा जताते हुए कहा कि हिंसा के दौरान लोगों की हत्या, अंग-भंग, निर्वस्त्र करना और सामूहिक यौन हिंसा तक हुई. इन अत्याचारों को सोशल मीडिया पर प्रसारित किया गया. कई मामलों में पीड़ित महिलाएं भय और संस्थागत सहयोग की कमी के कारण शिकायत दर्ज ही नहीं करा सकीं. गवाहियों के अनुसार पुलिस और सुरक्षा बलों ने न केवल मदद से इनकार किया, बल्कि कई बार महिलाओं को भीड़ के हवाले तक कर दिया.

राहत और पुनर्वास में विफलता

रिपोर्ट में कहा गया कि राहत और पुनर्वास के प्रयास बेहद अपर्याप्त, विलंबित और असमान रहे. राहत शिविरों में स्वच्छता, स्वास्थ्य सेवाएं, मानसिक स्वास्थ्य सहयोग और आजीविका-शिक्षा की पुनर्स्थापना लगभग न के बराबर रही. संयुक्त त्वरित आवश्यकता मूल्यांकन (जेआरएनए) और गीता मित्तल समिति की सिफारिशें भी ज्यादातर लागू नहीं हुईं.

स्वास्थ्य और न्यायिक तंत्र का पतन

हिंसा के दौरान स्वास्थ्य व्यवस्था पूरी तरह ध्वस्त हो गई. अस्पतालों और एम्बुलेंसों पर हमले हुए, उपकरण लूट लिए गए और डॉक्टर-स्टाफ सुरक्षा संकट के कारण भाग खड़े हुए. राहत शिविरों में महिलाओं, बच्चों, बुजुर्गों और दिव्यांगों की हालत सबसे खराब रही. मानसिक स्वास्थ्य समस्याएं भी बड़ी संख्या में दर्ज की गईं.

न्यायपालिका और विधि-व्यवस्था भी पूरी तरह विफल रही. अदालतों से त्वरित निर्देशों का अभाव, चयनित एफआईआर, गंभीर अपराधों की जांच का न होना और पुलिस की संलिप्तता रिपोर्ट में साफ दर्ज है.

जूरी की सिफारिशें

• मणिपुर के पहाड़ी क्षेत्रों में हाईकोर्ट की स्थायी बेंच की स्थापना
• एक स्वतंत्र विशेष जांच दल (एसआईटी) का गठन, जो हजारों मामलों की जांच करे और सुरक्षा बलों की भूमिका पर भी पूछताछ करे
• घृणा प्रचार और भड़काऊ भाषण देने वालों व उन्हें रोकने में विफल अधिकारियों पर कार्रवाई
• स्थायी शांति के लिए ढांचागत बदलाव, समुदायों के बीच संवाद, कानूनी जवाबदेही और नैतिक नेतृत्व

27 महीने बाद भी मणिपुर अशांत है. पीयूसीएल ट्रिब्यूनल की रिपोर्ट ने साफ कर दिया है कि यह केवल जातीय संघर्ष नहीं, बल्कि सामूहिक विफलता है—केंद्र से लेकर राज्य तक, मीडिया से लेकर न्यायपालिका तक. और इस विफलता को अब और नज़रअंदाज़ नहीं किया जा सकता.

Final Deletion: Election Commission’s Press Conference and Unraveling of Its Credibility

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Election Commission tried to shake off its image as a puppet of Narendra Modi’s BJP by holding a press conference yesterday, but by the end of it, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar only reaffirmed that prevailing impression: that he is the errand boy of Modi & Company.

It was good optics that the Election Commission held a press conference at last; since June 24 this year, the day the Election Commission issued a notification about a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, the opposition parties had been making persistent demands for the Commission to clear the air on several issues.
How could the EC embark on such a major exercise, being held after 22 years, without taking into confidence all the stakeholders in the electoral process, everyone concerned about India’s democracy had been asking. The chorus of the demand to come clean had come from many former chief election commissioners and election commissioners as well.

But Gyanesh Kumar & Co. had refused to face either the media or the opposition parties as they were unsure of being able to defend their illegal exercise in a face-to-face interaction. It was only after the Supreme Court’s decisive intervention — the SC did not declare the SIR exercise illegal but acceded to the demands of the political parties and activists and directed the EC to publish the names of voters deleted from the electoral rolls after the revision and state the reasons thereof in a machine-readable and searchable format; it also mandated that Aadhaar would be considered an eligible document for voter registration — that the EC found no reason to hide behind closed doors.

Lies, Double Standards, and Silence

Yes, the EC held the press conference yesterday but resorted to lies to fob off the charges: Gyanesh Kumar continued to insist, as he had been doing in his tweets, that Rahul Gandhi needed to make the charges, if any, under oath as per law; that is a blatant lie. Former CEC OP Rawat and several retired officials of the Commission have categorically stated that the stipulation of the ‘complaint under oath’ applied only when the electoral rolls were being prepared, while Rahul Gandhi was making the charge of irregularities after the elections were over.

See the double standard of Gyanesh Kumar: Rahul Gandhi, leader of the opposition, is dared to make the charges of malpractices in an assembly election in Bangalore under oath or apologise to the nation, but the same is not demanded from Anurag Thakur, a ruling BJP MP, even as he claimed that electoral fraud was committed in Raebareli and Wayanad during the last Lok Sabha election!

The EC has been speaking with a forked tongue because we have spineless men occupying the highest office to conduct the elections. They have refused to answer how the number of voters in Maharashtra increased by 8% within five months, between the Lok Sabha elections in May 2024 and the assembly election in October last year. Why can’t both the lists be given to political parties, as demanded by them? Because these election commissioners have a lot to hide.

When accusing fingers are being raised about their integrity day after day, if they had truth on their side, Gyanesh Kumar & Co. would have dragged Rahul Gandhi to court for spreading falsehood, but they are afraid to do so because in a court case, their shenanigans as errand boys of Narendra Modi would unravel.