Al-Jazeera

A short clip shared by Al Jazeera from its programme Doha Debates has triggered sharp reactions on social media after an Indian student, Hana Muneer, stated that she does not feel a sense of belonging to India as a Muslim and claimed that the Indian state had “stripped” her of agency.

In the clip, Muneer said, “Whether I feel belonging to India or not, I would say, a quite crisp no, because as a Muslim… I feel like the state has stripped me of my agency,” adding that she was interested in exploring a “universal moral order”.

“Whether I feel belonging to India or not, I would say, quite crisp no.”

Student Hana Muneer says that as an Indian Muslim, she does not feel represented by the state. #DohaDebates pic.twitter.com/hsrPh8l9NU

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) December 17, 2025

Her remarks were responded to by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, who expressed concern over her sense of alienation and said such exclusion ran contrary to the foundational idea of India.

Tharoor said that his understanding of India was one where no citizen should feel excluded on grounds of religion, language, ethnicity or region. He added that if she had been made to feel that way, it was regrettable. Pointing to recent events, Tharoor cited India’s military briefings during Operation Sindoor, which were led by two women officers, including a Muslim officer, as an example of India publicly asserting its pluralism and framing the conflict as one against terrorism rather than religion.

The clip has since drawn criticism from commentators who argue that such debates selectively amplify narratives of alienation while ignoring countervailing realities on the ground. Critics have pointed out that Muneer currently resides in Qatar, a country whose state-owned media is the same Al Jazeera that has been seen making biased regional political positioning, raising questions about the platform and framing of the debate.

Critics highlighted that during Operation Sindoor, Indian Muslim officers and personnel played visible and substantive roles across the armed forces. Muslim women officers addressed the nation from official podiums, and Muslim pilots flew combat missions alongside Hindu, Sikh and Christian colleagues, supported by the Army and Navy. They argue that these facts complicate claims that Indian Muslims are institutionally excluded or unrepresented by the state.

Observers have also criticised what they describe as a recurring pattern in certain international debate formats, where individual grievance narratives are presented without sufficient context or factual balance, potentially feeding into broader perception-shaping efforts rather than genuine dialogue.

While debates on identity and belonging remain legitimate and complex, critics argue that selective framing and omission of counter-examples risk turning nuanced discussions into oversimplified political messaging, particularly when broadcast on globally influential platforms.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Indian Muslim” Student In Qatar Says She Doesn’t Feel ‘Belonging To India’, Anti-India Propaganda Channel Al-Jazeera Laps It Up appeared first on The Commune.

The Allahabad High Court on December 17, 2025 rejected the bail plea of Rihan, an accused in a violence case linked to a prohibited religious gathering in Bareilly, holding that raising the slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda” amounts to a challenge to the sovereignty and integrity of India and the authority of its legal system.

A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal declined to grant bail in a case involving allegations of large-scale violence, injuries to police personnel, and damage to public and private property following an unlawful assembly convened despite prohibitory orders being in force.

The case arises from an FIR registered on May 26, 2025 at Kotwali police station, Bareilly, alleging that the president of the Ittefaq Minnat Council, Maulana Taukir Raza, along with other leaders including Nadeem Khan, had called upon members of the Muslim community to assemble after namaz at the grounds of Islamia Inter College. The FIR was registered under Sections 109(1), 109(2), 118(2), 121(1), 189(5), 191(2), 191(3), 195(1), 196(1), 196(2), 223, 310(2), 324(5), 324(6), 61(2), 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

According to the prosecution, police had prior information about the call for the gathering, and prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were in force, banning the assembly of more than five persons. Despite police warnings, a crowd of around 500 people allegedly gathered in the Biharipur area.

The FIR alleged that the crowd raised slogans against the State and repeatedly chanted “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda”. When police personnel attempted to stop the procession and enforce prohibitory orders, the situation allegedly escalated into violence, with the crowd resorting to stone pelting, firing, and throwing petrol bombs. Several police personnel were injured, and multiple police and private vehicles were damaged.

Seven persons, including Rihan, were arrested at the spot. Based on their statements, CCTV footage, and independent witnesses, police later named 25 accused and around 1,700 unknown persons in the FIR.

Seeking bail, Rihan contended that he had been falsely implicated and claimed that he was not arrested from the spot but from his home. He further argued that he had no prior criminal history and that there was no incriminating material linking him to the alleged violence.

The State strongly opposed the bail plea. The Additional Advocate General submitted that the acts attributed to Rihan were not merely law-and-order issues but offences against the State. It was argued that the slogan raised by the crowd advocated a form of punishment not recognised under Indian law and reflected a complete disregard for the constitutional and legal framework.

In its detailed order, the High Court examined the scheme of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to religion and public order. The court observed that Indian criminal law already provides punishment for deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings or promote enmity between communities, and that advocating beheading as punishment amounted to incitement and a direct challenge to the rule of law.

The court noted that while religious slogans are common across faiths, they cross into criminality when used to intimidate, incite violence, or undermine constitutional authority. It held that the slogan in question was not rooted in religious texts but was used to provoke and threaten, thereby attracting penal consequences.

“Chanting the slogan ‘gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda’, which provides punishment of beheading for disrespecting the Nabi (Prophet) amounts to challenging the sovereignty and integrity of India and also the Indian legal system… If a person, instead of respecting the law framed under the Indian Constitution, attempts to challenge the law or promotes or incites people to commit an offence in the garb of providing punishment, (he) should be dealt with strictly,” Justice Deshwal observed.

The judge further emphasised that the slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda” “does not have any trace in the Quran or any other religious text belonging to Muslims, still this slogan is being used widely by several Muslim persons without knowing its correct meaning and effect.”

Finding sufficient material in the case diary to show that Rihan was part of the unlawful assembly that raised objectionable slogans, assaulted police personnel, and caused damage to property, the High Court concluded that no case for bail was made out and rejected the application.

Source: LawBeat

The post “Sar Tan Se Juda Slogan Challenges India’s Sovereignty, Rule of Law”: Allahabad High Court Says appeared first on The Commune.

An article published by The Wire titled “Modi’s Own Invisible Man: Hiren Joshi’s Rise and Retreat”, authored by Srishti Jaswal on 18 December 2025, reads more like a fiction that relies on gossip, anonymous quotes, off the record statements, rather than a piece of journalism.

The absence of documentary corroboration for a series of serious allegations made against Hiren Joshi, an officer on special duty in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), makes it just a gossip column or Jaswal, the author ‘mistakenly’ sent her tabloid (yellow journal) article to The Wire!

The article constructs a detailed account of Joshi’s alleged rise as a powerful media and digital strategist within the PMO and a subsequent “retreat” or curtailment of influence. However, a closer look at the sources and ‘logic’ of the piece raises concerns about evidentiary standards, narrative framing, and the conflation of verified facts with conjecture.

Heavy Reliance on Anonymous Sources and Political Gossip

A substantial portion of the article’s central claims is attributed to unnamed individuals described variously as a “politician,” “former journalist,” “senior editor,” or “senior political consultant.” These anonymous sources are cited for assertions including that

• “things went south after Operation Sindoor”,
• that Prime Minister Narendra Modi “blamed” Joshi for media handling failures,
• that Joshi was to be sent back to Gujarat or accommodated in the Rajya Sabha,
• that Navneet Sehgal resigned to signal availability for a larger PMO role,
• that jealousy within the PMO drove internal factional conflict,
• and that Joshi orchestrated media narratives around the Tablighi Jamaat episode and the Rhea Chakraborty case.

None of these claims are supported by documentary evidence such as official orders, internal communications, emails, or on-the-record confirmations. Toward the end of the article, the author acknowledges that “someone leaked information…to create pressure” and that Joshi may still be in position, undercutting earlier suggestions that his exit or demotion was imminent. This acknowledgment suggests that large portions of the narrative do rest on speculation rather than verified developments.

Use of Unverified Mahadev App Allegations

The article prominently references unverified viral claims linking Joshi to the Mahadev betting app network, an illegal online gambling operation under investigation by enforcement agencies. While noting that these claims are unverified, the article devotes considerable space to political statements by Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera and to questions raised about alleged proximity between the PMO and unnamed individuals.

No FIR, Enforcement Directorate document, Central Bureau of Investigation reference, financial trail, or official inquiry is cited linking Joshi to the betting app. The article also points out that The Print briefly reported Khera’s allegations before removing the story, suggesting media pressure, but does not consider the alternative explanation that the allegations lacked legal or factual substantiation.

As a result, a serious reputational allegation is introduced and sustained through political rhetoric and social-media chatter without independent verification.

Operation Sindoor and Causal Speculation

The article asserts that Joshi’s alleged decline stemmed from the handling of information during Operation Sindoor and former US President Donald Trump’s claim that he brokered peace between India and Pakistan. This causal link is based entirely on an anonymous political source and is not supported by:

• any internal PMO communication,
• any public assignment of responsibility,
• or any evidence that Joshi formally handled wartime information strategy.

Jaswal, as expected of an India hater, assumes that India and the Modi government were ’embarassed’ by the narrative about the army having captured Karachi and Lahore. Any mildly educated person would know how such narratives help build pressure on the enemy – did it not have any impact on Pakistan during Op Sindoor? Well, Jaswal is clearly sleeping when things escalated and changed the way the enemy responded.

One-Sided Depiction of Alleged Media Control

Jaswal presents a wide-ranging portrait of Joshi as exercising control over television debate agendas, editorial decision-making, BJP IT Cell operations, troll networks, Big Tech personnel decisions, and coverage of sensitive communal and criminal cases.

These claims are primarily attributed to anonymous editors or commentators and to journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta – well, we know how credible his information is! To jog your memory, Thakurta’s website had received a gag order for publishing defamatory pieces on Adani. If he can write so on his website, surely he can write in his book too. And for Jaswal to rely on that as gospel truth, speaks more about her intelligence and researching abilities.

The article also does not include countervailing perspectives from editors or journalists who rejected such influence, nor does it present documentary proof such as messages, directives, or instructions. It also does not acknowledge the commercial incentives that drive sensational coverage independently of political influence.

Mixing Verified Facts With Conjecture

The article interweaves established facts, such as Joshi’s role in managing Modi’s social media presence, was OSD; has long‑standing relationships with tech strategists; is mentioned in books by Rajdeep Sardesai and others; that Tavleen Singh couldn’t get him to respond regarding Aatish Taseer with conjectural claims presented in a similar narrative tone. Assertions about dossier-keeping, troll-army control, and responsibility for geopolitical perception failures are not clearly distinguished from documented information, potentially leading readers to conflate speculation with fact.

Thin Sourcing on Military and International Claims

Descriptions of Operation Sindoor, casualty figures, claims of territorial capture, and the impact of Trump’s mediation statements are treated as settled background facts, despite being contested or requiring high evidentiary standards. The article does not cite independent defence sources or official military briefings to substantiate these elements, even as they form a foundation for evaluating Joshi’s alleged failures.

Srishti Jaswal & Her Past

The fact that Jaswal wrote such a piece is not surprising, given her past and her dislike for the non-left and anything Hindu.

In 2020, Srishti Jaswal made an explicitly derisive tweet about Lord Krishna as a “womanizer, fuckboi, commitment phobic maniac”, which led to a complaint and her suspension from Hindustan Times; her later apology insisted it referred to a Netflix character, despite the tweet explicitly invoking Krishna and “I’m a Hindu and I’ve read mythology.”

While past controversies do not automatically discredit subsequent reporting, media analysts note that when an article relies heavily on anonymous allegations and strong moral framing, an author’s record of inflammatory commentary becomes relevant to how readers assess tone, balance, and interpretive judgment.

Put together, The Wire article by Srishti Jaswal aggregates publicly available material about Hiren Joshi’s career and influence but blends it with extensive anonymous claims, speculative causation, and ideologically charged framing. The absence of clear demarcation between verified facts, political allegations, and narrative inference raises questions about evidentiary rigor. Combined with the author’s prior record of controversial public statements, the piece has prompted calls for heightened scepticism and demand for documentary proof before accepting its most serious claims.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Gossip Posing As Journalism: The Wire’s ‘Invisible Man’ Story On Hiren Joshi By Hinduphobic Srishti Jaswal Collapses Even Before It Begins appeared first on The Commune.

A viral video circulating on social media has falsely claimed to show former Indian Army chief General Ved Prakash Malik (Retd.) praising Pakistan and allegedly admitting that the neighbouring country possesses superior weapons and military equipment, including claims about the destruction of India’s Rafale fighter jets and S-400 air defence system. Multiple fact-checks and verification efforts have established that the video is digitally manipulated and the claims are false.

Fact-checking organisation Newschecker reported that it found no credible news coverage of General Malik making such remarks. Fact-checkers noted that if a former Army chief had indeed praised Pakistan’s military capabilities or admitted losses of Rafale jets or the S-400 system, it would have triggered widespread national and international attention.

To verify the claim, Newschecker analysed keyframes from the viral video using Google Lens, which led to an original video posted by news agency ANI on 14 December 2025. The ANI  video shows General Malik responding to a question about Operation Sindoor and the Kargil War.

In the original footage, General Malik is heard saying:
“As I said, human resources were used a lot during Operation Vijay. There was a physical fight. While during Operation Sindoor, we didn’t even cross each other’s border. Technological improvement is so immense. We now have standoff weapons; both nations have them now. So we can hit each other while being away from the border. So, there has been a great technological advancement which has been adopted by both countries…Pakistan also. But definitely, in India we have better weapons and equipment.”

#WATCH | Indore, MP: Former Indian Army chief General Ved Prakash Malik (Retd) says, “As I said, human resource was used a lot during Operation Vijay. There was a physical fight. During Operation Sindoor, we didn’t even cross each other’s border. Technological advancement is so… pic.twitter.com/cnw4SqY5Ru

— ANI (@ANI) December 13, 2025

Fact-checkers pointed out that the viral clip selectively edited out the portion where General Malik explicitly states that India has better weapons and equipment and instead overlaid manipulated audio to falsely portray him as praising Pakistan. There is no mention in the original video of the destruction of Rafale jets or the S-400 system.

General Malik called out the propaganda – “It is a deepfake. Pakistani ISI at work!”

It is a deepfake. Pakistani ISI at work! https://t.co/wuEGKGqWcn

— Ved Malik (@Vedmalik1) December 19, 2025

This is not the first instance of such disinformation. In November 2025, Pakistani propaganda-linked social media accounts circulated a deepfake video based on an NDTV interview conducted by Shiv Aroor, making General Malik appear to make communal remarks that he never said.

Fact-check website D-Intent Data had debunked that video as well, stating in a post on X: “FACT: Pakistani propaganda accounts are circulating a digitally altered video of former Indian Army Chief Gen. V.P. Malik, falsely claiming that he endorsed an alleged RSS plan to remove 50 per cent ‘non-caste Hindus’ from the Army within the next three years.”

“These claims are entirely fake and fabricated. The video has been digitally manipulated. Gen. V.P. Malik has made no such statement in the original footage. Furthermore, narratives about the saffronisation of the Indian Army or reducing non-caste Hindu soldiers are baseless, and stem from ongoing Pakistani misinformation propaganda against India,” the fact-check organisation said.

4055
ANALYSIS: Fake

FACT: Pakistani propaganda accounts are circulating a digitally altered video of former Indian Army Chief Gen. V.P. Malik, falsely claiming that he endorsed an alleged RSS plan to remove 50% “non-caste Hindus” from the Army within the next three years. (1/3) pic.twitter.com/aBIhIo0Xz7

— D-Intent Data (@dintentdata) November 20, 2025

D-Intent Data added that the intent behind such content was to circulate “digitally altered videos of former Indian Army Chief V.P. Malik with self-invented claims to push a false narrative against India.”

Security analysts note that such misinformation campaigns have intensified since Operation Sindoor, in which India carried out precision strikes on Pakistani airbases and terror infrastructure following the Pahalgam terror attack.

Source: Newschecker

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post ISI At Work? Deepfake AI Video Falsely Shows Former Indian Army Chief Ved Malik “Praising Pakistan” On Operation Sindoor appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on Monday, 15 December 2025, questioned the DMK government in Tamil Nadu on its continued opposition to the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district, observing that such resistance to a Central education scheme was “not in the spirit of federal cooperation” [The State of Tamil Nadu vs. Kumari Maha Sabha].

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan was hearing the DMK government’s appeal challenging a Madras High Court judgment that had directed the State to set up Navodaya Vidyalayas in every district.

During the hearing, the Court took exception to the State’s position when it was informed that one of the grounds for opposing the scheme was the alleged imposition of Hindi. The Bench asked the State to refrain from turning the issue into a political or linguistic dispute and instead focus on student welfare.

“We are federal society. Don’t convert this into a language matter. Don’t suppress an opportunity for rural students,” the Court told the State.

When the State’s counsel complained of Central “imposition” of schemes, Justice BV Nagarathna reminded Tamil Nadu of its constitutional position within the Union.

“Are you not part of our Republic?” she asked.

The Bench observed that education falls under the Concurrent List and that the Central government’s scheme was aimed at improving educational access and standards.

“There is nothing wrong in the Central government wanting to invest in education. Only meritorious students are admitted there. Why do you resist schools? Education is in the concurrent list. This is enhancing standards,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that the State had serious objections to the Navodaya Vidyalaya scheme. He submitted that the Navodaya model required the State to provide 30 acres of land in every district and to maintain the schools for three years.

The Bench questioned the basis of the resistance and asked why Tamil Nadu was opposing a scheme meant to expand educational opportunities.

Wilson responded that Tamil Nadu already possessed a strong public education infrastructure and followed a two-language policy under a State law. He said the Navodaya Vidyalaya scheme envisaged a three-language formula, which conflicted with the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006.

The Court cautioned against politicising the issue.

“Don’t bring in politics into this. You are coming in the way of providing education to meritorious students. What is wrong in having more schools?” Justice Nagarathna demanded.

Wilson maintained that the scheme gave States the option to accept or reject participation and asserted that Tamil Nadu’s educational standards were higher than those of Navodaya Vidyalayas.

The Bench, however, appeared unconvinced.

When Wilson reiterated that Tamil Nadu’s refusal was rooted in its language policy, Justice Nagarathna said the matter could not be reduced to language politics.

“Why this mental block? If economically backward students are given the opportunity, why are you preventing that?” she asked.

Wilson argued that the State could not be compelled to provide land or financial support for a scheme that conflicted with its policies.

“They want to impose Hindi on us,” he said.

Justice Nagarathna responded that while the State’s language law would be respected, it could not be used to deny children educational opportunities.

“If you have a language policy, you say so, we will modify the scheme accordingly. But don’t suppress an opportunity for rural students,” she said.

The Court noted that the Union government had already sanctioned 650 Navodaya Vidyalayas across the country, with Tamil Nadu being the only State that had not cooperated.

Accordingly, the Bench directed Tamil Nadu to identify land required for establishing Navodaya Vidyalayas in each district within six weeks.

“We modify the interim order of stay granted by this Court on 11 December 2017 by directing the petitioner-State to identify the requisite extent of land necessary for establishing a Navodaya Vidyalaya in each district. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks and a status report shall be placed before this Court,” the order said.

The Court clarified that its directions were limited to initiating the process and did not amount to enforcing the entire scheme.

“We are just asking for an exercise. We are not laying any foundation stone today,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Wilson insisted that the State could not be compelled to provide resources for a Central scheme, adding that the Union government still owed Tamil Nadu ₹3,548 crore under another education programme, the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan.

Justice Nagarathna said such disputes should be resolved through dialogue rather than confrontation.

“We are a federal society. You discuss all this with them. Don’t convert this into a language matter. If you come one step forward, they will also come one step forward,” she said.

Wilson reiterated that the Navodaya system amounted to thrusting the Hindi language on Tamil Nadu.

Justice Nagarathna clarified that the Court was not adjudicating on the language issue.

“We have said nothing on the language. There can’t be such an adversarial attitude. This is in the interest of the students,” she said.

The Court then directed representatives of the Tamil Nadu government and the Union Ministry of Education to hold consultations on implementing the scheme and posted the matter for further hearing after six weeks.

In its earlier judgment, the Madras High Court had held that Navodaya Vidyalayas did not violate the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act and that the State’s blanket refusal curtailed students’ right to choose educational institutions. It had directed the State to provide temporary accommodation for 240 students in each district within two months.

Tamil Nadu subsequently approached the Supreme Court, asserting that education policy fell within its exclusive domain and that its two-language policy was incompatible with the Navodaya model.

Justice Nagarathna concluded the hearing with a call for cooperation rather than confrontation.

“You can’t say ‘my State, my State’. This is a federal country. Don’t lose this opportunity. It’s an opportunity for your students,” she said.

Source: Bar and Bench

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Are You Not Part Of Our Republic? You Can’t Say ‘My State, My State’, Don’t Suppress Opportunity For Rural Students”: Supreme Court Rips Apart DMK Govt Over Not Establishing Navodaya Schools In TN appeared first on The Commune.

Vice-President CP Radhakrishnan on Sunday, 14 December 2025, released a commemorative postage stamp in honour of Emperor Perumbidugu Mutharaiyar II, also known as Suvaran Maran, at the Vice-President’s Enclave in New Delhi.

According to an official press release, Radhakrishnan said Emperor Perumbidugu Mutharaiyar was among the most renowned rulers of ancient Tamil Nadu and belonged to the illustrious Mutharaiyar dynasty, which ruled the central regions of Tamil Nadu between the 7th and 9th centuries CE. He noted that the stamp release was part of efforts to bring greater public recognition to significant historical figures whose contributions had not received adequate attention in mainstream narratives.

Union Minister for Finance and Corporate Affairs Nirmala Sitharaman, addressing the gathering, said Emperor Mutharaiyar II was a ruler “for whom the word ‘defeat’ did not exist even in grammar,” noting that he had governed regions around present-day Tiruchirappalli with authority and distinction.

Referring to India’s 75 years of Independence and the ongoing Amrit Kaal, the Finance Minister said it was essential not only to remember well-known freedom fighters and leaders, but also to identify and honour those whose sacrifices and achievements had not received due public recognition.

“When the Prime Minister took up this effort, the focus expanded beyond familiar names. Across the country, data was collected and compiled to bring lesser-known historical figures to light,” she said, adding that Emperor Mutharaiyar’s legacy was among those efforts.

Sitharaman explained that the decision to document the emperor’s history through an e-book was deliberate. “A physical book may have limited circulation, but a digital record cannot be erased. Even after 50 or 100 years, if someone searches electronically, the data will still be available,” she said, describing digital documentation as a permanent historical record.

While a digital stamp and e-book were prepared earlier, Sitharaman said a physical postal stamp and First Day Cover were also considered essential. She revealed that the stamp had been ready for some time but was released at what she described as a moment of “destiny,” coinciding with the tenure of a Tamil Vice President.

“I deeply believe in divinity. Though everything was ready earlier, it feels as though this moment was meant to happen now, with the emotional depth it deserves,” she said, noting that the event was held at the Vice President’s residence and that the Prime Minister was closely following the occasion.

The Finance Minister credited scholars and organisers, particularly Dr Professor Srinivasan, for their sustained efforts in researching and documenting the emperor’s legacy. She also spoke personally of her connection to the Tiruchirappalli region, saying her participation in the event was especially meaningful as someone who studied and lived in the area. She said, “They say, “what’s meant to be will be,” and having studied in Trichy and lived around Trichy, from Musiri, I am grateful to all of you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this event.”

Emphasising Tamil society’s spiritual and inclusive ethos, Sitharaman said, “Tamil people are not those who reject spirituality. We are people who respect all faiths.” She urged that the story of Emperor Mutharaiyar II be taken across Tamil Nadu and shared widely.

Concluding her address, Sitharaman said initiatives such as the commemorative stamp reflected the Modi government’s broader effort to reclaim and celebrate India’s civilisational and historical heritage.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally. 

The post “An Emperor For Whom The Word ‘Defeat’ Did Not Exist In His Grammar”, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman Hails Postal Stamp Release Honouring Emperor Mutharaiyar II, Calls It Restoration Of Forgotten History appeared first on The Commune.

A recent statement by The Wire ‘journalist’ Arfa Khanum Sherwani has seemingly exposed her hypocrisy after she asserted during a panel discussion that journalists are “never supposed to be neutral” and must function as the “permanent opposition.”

“We are supposed to be anti-establishment. No matter what political party comes to power, we are sitting in opposition always… I never ever pretend to be a neutral journalist,” Sherwani said, adding that journalists must consistently side with “the people, the Constitution, and citizens’ freedoms.”

Irony Commited Suicide!

Arfa says Journalists are never supposed to be Neutral, they are anti-establishment.

Has @khanumarfa forgot her History?

When Hamid Ansari was Vice-President, Arfa was enjoying big salary in Rajya Sabha TV running agenda of Congress Govt.

She stayed in… pic.twitter.com/DzL3rH7RBd

— Ankur Singh (@iAnkurSingh) December 11, 2025

Following her remarks, critics questioned whether this self-description aligns with her professional history. Sherwani’s LinkedIn profile identify her as a founding member of Rajya Sabha TV (RSTV), the television channel run by the upper house of Parliament.

The channel was launched in 2011, and Sherwani remained there until around 2017–18. This period coincides almost entirely with the tenure of Vice President Hamid Ansari, who served as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha from August 2007 to August 2017.

Opponents argue that if Sherwani defines journalism as permanent opposition to the establishment, her long stint at a government-controlled channel during the UPA era raises questions.

The Central Questions: Who is the “Establishment”?

The debate crystallizes around two interlinked questions:

Does her “anti‑establishment” stance imply support for the current opposition Congress party? If a journalist’s duty is permanent opposition to the party in power, then logically, during the UPA era (when Sherwani was at RSTV), the “establishment” was the Congress‑led government. By her own current definition, an anti‑establishment journalist at that time would have been expected to be in opposition to the UPA.

Did her professional role at a state‑run broadcaster align with being “anti‑establishment”? Critics allege her high‑profile, salaried position at RSTV, a channel whose editorial line was seen by many as sympathetic to the ruling coalition, contradicts her current self‑portrayal as a permanent outsider.

Political commentators claim the contradiction undercuts the moral certainty she asserts in her remarks. Supporters counter that institutional roles do not invalidate principled positions.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Leftist Rag The Wire’s Arfa Khanum Sherwani Says Journalists Must Be Anti-Establishment — Her UPA-Era RSTV Career Tells A Different Story appeared first on The Commune.

DMK Rajya Sabha MP Tiruchi Siva while speaking in the Parliament questioned what he described as the neglect of Tamil freedom fighters in North India, framing it as a historical injustice.

Raising the issue, he asked whether there were roads or streets in North India named after Tamil icons such as VO Chidambaram Pillai or Mahakavi Subramania Bharati. He further questioned whether people outside Tamil Nadu even knew who Veerapandiya Kattabomman was. Tiruchi Siva also claimed that Tamils were ignored despite their contributions to the freedom struggle and asserted that it was a Tamil, Chempakaraman, who first coined the slogan “Jai Hind.”

He said, “Is there anywhere in North India a VO Chidambaranar Road? Is there a Bharatiyar Street? Does anyone there even know who Veerapandiya Kattabomman is? Please tell me, why were we ignored? The question to ask is this: we were the ones who first coined the slogan “Jai Hind” – it was Chempakaraman who did that.”

கேள்விக்கென்ன பதில் ?! pic.twitter.com/N4CCAvoxVR

— Ashvathaman Allimuthu (@asuvathaman) December 12, 2025

The remarks were projected as a defence of Tamil pride and a call for national recognition of Tamil freedom fighters.

The Record The DMK Does Not Mention

While Tiruchi Siva’s questions drew attention in Parliament, they have also prompted scrutiny of the DMK’s own actions in Tamil Nadu, particularly when it had full control over naming public institutions, erecting statues, and institutionalising remembrance.

VO Chidambaram Pillai And The Tirunelveli Bus Stand

There is no dispute anywhere in India about VO Chidambaram Pillai’s stature. He is widely recognised as a pioneering leader of the Swadeshi movement and a central figure in Tamil Nadu’s freedom struggle. Tirunelveli, in particular, is inseparably associated with him, he practised law there, organised labour there, and it was there that public protests erupted after his arrest.

Yet, when a new modern bus stand was constructed in Tirunelveli under the Centre-funded Smart City scheme, the DMK government chose to name it the Periyar Bus Stand, after E.V. Ramasamy.

This decision was taken despite public demands that the bus stand be named after VO Chidambaram Pillai.

The choice raised an obvious question: what historical or personal connection did EV Ramasamy have with Tirunelveli district that outweighed that of VOC? The DMK has never provided a convincing answer.

Tirunelveli’s Freedom Struggle Legacy

Tirunelveli occupies a distinct place in the freedom movement. During protests following VOC’s arrest, Sub-Collector Ashe ordered firing on demonstrators, killing four people. In retaliation, revolutionary Vanchinathan assassinated Ashe. This episode is central to Tamil revolutionary history in the Indian national movement.

Despite this legacy, the most prominent modern public infrastructure in Tirunelveli was named not after VOC, but after EV Ramasamy Naicker (hailed as ‘Periyar’ by his followers) highlighting a pattern where Dravidian ideological icons are prioritised over freedom fighters.

Jai Hind Chempakaraman: Invoked, But Not Honoured

Tiruchi Siva’s reference to “Jai Hind” being coined by Chempakaraman has also drawn attention to another contradiction. If Jaihind Chempakaraman is indeed as significant as claimed, having influenced Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and participated in revolutionary activities, then the obvious question arises: where is his public memorialisation in Tamil Nadu?

Across the State, statues of EV Ramasamy are ubiquitous – at junctions, traffic circles, and public spaces, you name it! By contrast, Jai Hind Chempakaraman has just one statue, located near the Gandhi Mandapam complex in Chennai, an area where statues are placed away from every day public visibility.

But such a great warrior – who, during the Second World War, brought the ship Emden from Germany, carried out a surgical strike here, attacked only the British and made them tremble, is forgotten.

Even at the Chennai High Court complex, near the spot where Chempakaraman threw a bomb during the freedom struggle, there exists only a small memorial stone. There is no prominent statue that would prompt public curiosity or historical awareness.

Demands have been raised for a statue to be installed at that very site so that people can learn why that location matters. That demand, too, has not been acted upon.

A Pattern, Not An Accident

The pattern extends beyond individuals. Tamil freedom fighters such as VO Chidambaram Pillai, Jaihind Chempakaraman, Kuyili, and Mahakavi Bharatiyar travelled across India, worked with leaders from other regions, and grounded their struggle in Indian nationalism.

Yet the ideological framework the DMK promotes, Dravidianism, has historically distanced itself from Indian nationalism. EV Ramasamy himself opposed the freedom movement and rejected the idea of Indian independence as unnecessary.

This contradiction becomes sharper when DMK leaders speak of honouring freedom fighters while continuing to centre public memory around a figure who openly rejected the freedom struggle.

Recognition Outside Tamil Nadu Vs Silence Within

Contrary to the impression suggested in Parliament, Mahakavi Bharathiyar has been honoured outside Tamil Nadu, including street names in Delhi and academic chairs in universities abroad, sponsored with central support. Tamil names appear on signage in several parts of North India, and Bharathiyar’s legacy is acknowledged nationally.

The more uncomfortable question, however, is why Tamil Nadu itself, under decades of DMK rule, has failed to consistently honour its own freedom fighters in prominent public spaces.

A Question That Turns Inward

Tiruchi Siva asked Parliament why Tamil freedom fighters were ignored elsewhere. The record suggests a more immediate question: why have they been marginalised at home?

If the DMK had named major institutions after VO Chidambaram Pillai, erected visible statues of Jaihind Chempakaraman, and foregrounded nationalist freedom fighters rather than ideological icons, its moral authority on this issue would have been stronger.

Instead, the contrast remains stark. Tamil freedom fighters are invoked rhetorically, but Dravidian ideologues dominate Tamil Nadu’s public landscape.

And that contradiction, more than anything said in Parliament, continues to define the debate.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post DMK Cries ‘Tamil Freedom Fighters Ignored’ In Parliament, But Ignores Them At Home appeared first on The Commune.

In an unprecedented show of solidarity, 56 former judges, including two former Supreme Court judges, several former Chief Justices, and retired High Court judges from across the country, issued a strongly worded public statement condemning attempts by certain Members of Parliament and senior advocates to seek the impeachment of Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court.

The signatories described the impeachment push as a “brazen attempt to browbeat judges” who do not align with partisan political expectations, warning that such actions strike at the foundation of judicial independence and constitutional democracy.

They cautioned that permitting political actors to weaponise impeachment would “cut at the very roots of our democracy”, turning a constitutional safeguard into a tool for intimidation. The statement invoked historical precedents from the Emergency including the supersession of Supreme Court judges after Kesavananda Bharati and the sidelining of Justice H.R. Khanna after ADM Jabalpur, as reminders of how political overreach threatens judicial autonomy.

The former judges argued that the current move against Justice Swaminathan fits into a disturbing recent pattern in which political groups attempt to discredit or pressure the higher judiciary whenever judgments do not serve their interests. They cited past campaigns against former Chief Justices Dipak Misra, Ranjan Gogoi, SA Bobde, and D.Y. Chandrachud, as well as attacks on current CJI Justice Surya Kant, as evidence of this trend.

Calling the impeachment attempt “anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, and an anathema to the rule of law”, the statement emphasised that today’s target may be one judge, but tomorrow the entire institution could be at risk.

The judges urged Members of Parliament, the Bar, civil society, and citizens to “unequivocally denounce this move” and prevent the impeachment initiative from proceeding. They stressed that judges are answerable only to their oath and the Constitution, not to ideological intimidation.

“In a Republic governed by the rule of law,” the signatories asserted, “judgments are tested by appeals and legal critique, not by threats of impeachment for political non-conformity.”

The statement was issued with the lead signatory Justice Narsimha Reddy, former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, followed by a comprehensive list of former judges from the Supreme Court and 15 state High Courts.

56 former judges write against the Impeachment motion against Justice Swaminathan, whose order allowed for lamp to be lit in Madurai pic.twitter.com/QL6mAVlmtK

— Padmaja Joshi (@PadmajaJoshi) December 12, 2025

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post 56 Former Judges Issue Strong Statement Defending Justice GR Swaminathan After Congress-DMK Move Impeachment, Warn Against “Assault On Judicial Independence” appeared first on The Commune.

A local court on Thursday sentenced Sarfaraz alias Rinku to death for the murder of 22-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra, who was killed during communal violence at a Durga Puja visarjan/immersion procession in October 2024. Nine others, including Sarfaraz’s father Abdul Hameed and his brothers Faheem and Talib alias Sabloo, received life imprisonment. The court acquitted three others for lack of evidence.

The judicial ruling, delivered Thursday by Additional Sessions Judge Pawan Kumar, brought legal closure to a violent incident that occurred on 13 October 2024, in Rehua Mansoor village. The clash erupted during a Durga Puja visarjan/immersion procession when local Muslims objected to the music being played. During the ensuing violence, Ram Gopal Mishra was shot dead.

Police investigations led to 13 First Information Reports (FIRs) and the application of the National Security Act against several accused.

How Mohammed Zubair Justified The Murder

Soon after the murder last year, Alt News co-founder and fake news peddler Mohammed Zubair posted a video on X showing Mishra removing a green flag from a rooftop and replacing it with a saffron one. Zubair captioned the clip saying Mishra was seen “forcefully removing a Green flag… Gopal was shot dead later.”

Critics allege that by sharing the video and highlighting Mishra’s act of flag removal, Zubair was providing context that could be seen as rationalizing or justifying the subsequent murder. They argue the post shifted focus from the fatal shooting to an alleged provocation by the victim.

The critics further contend that such framing is part of a pattern of downplaying violence against Hindus in certain media narratives, especially during religious festivals. They state that the act of sharing this specific video so soon after the murder amounted to an endorsement of a dangerous justification for the crime.

Zubair Targeted OpIndia For Reporting

Zubair not only justified the killing but also targeted news portal OpIndia for their reports on how the mosques were making announcements.

The report contained eyewitness accounts but Zubair seemed to claim the eyewitness was lying.

Source: OpIndia

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Death For Killer Sarfaraz, Life For 9: Bahraich Court Delivers Verdict In Durga Puja Visarjan Murder Case; Alt News Mohammed Zubair Had Justified Killing appeared first on The Commune.