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.

Ranveer Singh–starrer Dhurandhar continues to dominate headlines following its 5 December 2025 release, with a brief scene from the film now becoming the latest subject of social-media chatter. Viewers have spotted a moment set in Pakistan that features a biryani and chai shop named “Washma Butt” – a reference that quickly triggered a wave of memes and amused reactions online.

The name mirrors that of an Islamabad resident who became the focus of widespread internet trolling and meme culture. Though the shop appears only for a few seconds in the film, users across platforms have expressed surprise, humour and curiosity about the filmmakers’ decision to include the reference.

Netizens React

Let us take a look at some of the netizen reactions.

Washma Butt?? Seriously #Dhurandar #AdityaDhar #AkshayeKhanna pic.twitter.com/jUxLcOk6fZ

— LogicLane (@logiclane20) December 8, 2025

how has anyone not yet brought up the “washma butt” bit in #Dhurandhar?

it was obviously done on purpose and most likely taken from this old meme.#DhurandharMovie #DhurandharReview #RanveerSingh #AdityaDhar pic.twitter.com/QqFZluIYCq

— prateek ➤ (@gooooseberry) December 7, 2025

we know what you did here aditya dhar #Dhurandhar pic.twitter.com/AsYzHtLToN

— Arun Lol (@dhaikilokatweet) December 9, 2025

It’s Not WASHMA BUTT, It’s WASH MY BUTT

For Leftist – तू समझा नहीं-तू नहीं समझा#WashMaButt #WashMyButt #Dhurandhar #DhurandharMovie #RanvirSingh #RanveerSingh #Bollywood #BollywoodMeMe #ViralMeMe pic.twitter.com/oLS4StKf4h

— 𝐆𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐡𝐢 (@SirohiGulshan) December 10, 2025

“ That ‘Washma Butt’ tea shop name was definitely intentional — Aditya Dhar slipped in a hilarious little Easter egg in Dhurandhar!”

— Rabiya Pathan (@rabiyask2021) December 8, 2025

Did anyone notice the “Washma Butt” shop board in #Dhurandhar ?
Had me in splits!

— Jaivardhan Vermaa (@jaivardhanvox) December 6, 2025

This tea spot in #Dhurandhar movie was called WASHMA BUTT !!

Memer guy in the creative team for sure !! pic.twitter.com/2fYlJl66kp

— The spindoctor (@thespindoclive) December 5, 2025

In Dhurandhar there is a scene where Ranveer singh goes to a tea shop with his juice shop employer.
The name of the year shop is
“Washma Butt”

Aditya Dhar i see what u did here #Dhurandhar #DhurandharReview #DhurandharMovie

— tirth (@tirth2216) December 8, 2025

Dhurandhar

Dhurandhar has been performing strongly at the box office, crossing ₹150 crore by 9 December 2025, and is projected to become Singh’s highest-grossing film in six years, surpassing Rocky Aur Rani Ki Prem Kahani.

Directed by Aditya Dhar, the espionage drama is inspired by real events connected to Karachi’s Lyari gang network. Set in Pakistan in the early 2000s, the film follows an Indian operative who infiltrates criminal syndicates as part of a covert mission.

The ensemble cast includes Akshaye Khanna, Arjun Rampal, Sanjay Dutt, Rakesh Bedi, Gaurav Gera, R. Madhavan, Sara Arjun and Saumya Tandon, alongside Singh in the lead role. With themes of betrayal, patriotism, covert intelligence work and organised crime, Dhurandhar continues to generate conversation—both for its storyline and its unexpectedly meme-worthy details.

Source: News18

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

The post Aditya Dhar Trolls Pakistan In Dhurandhar With Scene Featuring ‘Washma Butt’ Eatery appeared first on The Commune.

Actor Hrithik Roshan has stirred online debate after posting two separate, seemingly contradictory reviews of the recently released film Dhurandhar within a span of hours. The actor’s initial critique, which lauded the filmmaking but questioned the movie’s “politics,” was followed by a second, unrestrainedly enthusiastic post with no mention of any disagreement.

On Wednesday (10 December 2025) evening, the actor posted a detailed note on his Instagram story praising the film’s craft while stating that he did not agree with its “politics.” He described Dhar’s direction as immersive and applauded the storytelling, adding that filmmakers carry certain responsibilities when dealing with political themes. The post, in which he admired the film as a student of cinema despite ideological differences, quickly circulated across platforms.

By Thursday (11 December 2025) morning, however, Roshan shared a second review, this time on X, without any reference to political disagreements. Instead, he focused entirely on the performances and technical aspects, calling Dhar “an incredible maker” and applauding actors Ranveer Singh, Akshaye Khanna, R. Madhavan, and Rakesh Bedi. He also highlighted the makeup and prosthetics department and said he was eagerly awaiting part two, slated for release on 19 March 2026.

The drastic shift prompted users online to question which opinion represented his actual view. Comments ranged from humorous speculation about separate admins handling his accounts to suggestions that he was walking back his earlier remarks. Several users also asked why the political concerns raised in his first review were missing in the second.

Source: Hindustan Times

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

The post Hrithik Vs Hrithik: Actor Disagrees With Himself Over Dhurandhar, Virtue Signals On Insta While Praising Film On X (Twitter) appeared first on The Commune.

A video recorded at the Institute of Public Enterprise (IPE), Hyderabad, has triggered controversy after a faculty member identified as Bhattacharya was seen making inflammatory remarks about Hindu deities, temple traditions, and Brahmin priests during an address to students.

In the video, which has since circulated widely on social media, the faculty member is heard criticising idol worship and questioning core aspects of Hindu religious practice. He is also seen using derogatory language in reference to Hindu Gods, temple rituals, and hereditary priesthood.

Content of the Remarks

In the footage, Bhattacharya repeatedly challenges why Hindus worship idols, asking students: “Why are you not teaching the Vedas? Why are you not teaching the Gita, which is mainstream Hinduism? Where are idols mentioned in the Gita and Vedas? Which deity or animal form is mentioned?”

He goes on to make disparaging comments about specific deities, including Ganesha, Hanuman, and Narasimha, and mocks traditional narratives from Hindu texts, questioning the depiction of divine intervention in episodes such as the killing of Hiranyakashipu.

The speaker further claims that Hindu temple priests, whom he repeatedly labels as “idiots” and “looters,” have misled devotees and weakened the religious foundations of the community. He asserts that people should avoid temples and pilgrimages, that Hindu scripture emphasises meditation rather than ritual worship, and that devotees are “ignorant” for standing in long queues at temples.

He also criticises the socio-religious influence of Brahmin temple priests, stating that they have “destroyed the country’s religiosity,” while saying other castes are “far better.” Although identifying himself as a Brahmin, he states he “hates temple Brahmins”.

He said, “Such people and give them a lash. Why are you not teaching Veda? Why are you not teaching Gita, which is the mainstream Hinduism? Why do you fool them to worship idols?
Where are the idols mentioned in the Gita and Veda? Which idol is mentioned in the Gita and Veda? Which Mata is mentioned? Which Pashu is mentioned? Why are you making them to worship Ganesha? Why are you making them to worship only monkey God? Why are you making them to worship Narasimha Swami? That fellow should come down to cut with his nails Prahlad’s father’s stomach. When we approach death, does God come here to give us death? God could not give death to Prahlad’s father sitting in the heaven. He had to come down to slaughter.
To kill the demon, God has to come down on earth and walk and take a Trishul and kill. God doesn’t have power sitting in the heaven to kill anybody. God should have power to give Mata a big Trishul to kill Asura here. He can’t kill the Asura from there. Look at this stupidity which has been spread by these idiots, Pandit, Purohits, Brahmin idiots of the temples. And looting money, looting mind of the people and looting money. People are ignorant.
They just go for five days, sit like this, worship before the Pandit, go away. You have to do meditation. You should tell people to do half an hour of meditation from home, not come to the temple. Gita says meditation all the time. Vedas says meditation all the time. I do meditation for half an hour every day. Don’t go to any temple, don’t go to any pilgrimage. I’m happy, healthy. Why can’t all of you be? Why people have to go to temple? Why they have to go to pilgrimage and get the sweat smell of the devotees? Standing in the line. You get sweat smell of the devotees.
Those ignorant fellows who are in the line for one hour, three hours, four hours. They sweat and exude that bad smell which we have to smell. Why? Do you see how certain constituencies are harassing and frustrating us, making an ass of us? And we say Hindutva; Hindu is a great religion. Muslims are bad. Christians are bad. We are the best. With these idiot Pandits, we are the best. With this idol worship, we are the best. With not knowing Bhagavad Gita, we are the best. With not doing Vedas, we are the best. Being idiots, we are the best, best of the nation. It’s not only this far. My parents did not know Bhagavad Gita and Vedas. None of your parents would know a shloka of Bhagavad Gita and Vedas. All your parents are also like my parents, brainless fellows who never read Gita, who never read Vedas because of the bad influence of the Brahmin Pandits. I’m myself a Brahmin, but I hate these temple Brahmins who have destroyed this country’s religiosity. Reddys are far better. Choudharis are far better. Kshatriyas are far better. BCs are far better. SCs are far better than these wretched Brahmins who are destroying our religiosity in the temple.”

As of now, the Institute of Public Enterprise has not issued an official statement regarding the video or the lecturer’s remarks.

This video is from Institute of Public Enterprise (IPE), Hyderabad.

Where a faulty named Bhattacharya is abusing Hindu Gods and Goddess.

Immediate action must be taken against him, and the institute @ipe_info.@TelanganaDGP pic.twitter.com/HzYnihYYmO

— Keshav Soni (@ImKeshavSoni) December 10, 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 “Why Worship A Monkey God? Brahmins Destroyed Religiosity, Stop Going To Temples”, Says IPE Hyderabad Faculty Member In Lecture appeared first on The Commune.

The Siddaramaiah-led Congress government tabled the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2025, in the state assembly on 8 December 2025, sparking immediate and intense controversy. While the government presented the legislation as a necessary framework to uphold “dignity,” “equality,” and “protection for all communities,” a detailed examination of the text has led to forceful accusations from critics and legal experts that the Bill is a precision-crafted instrument designed to suppress Hindu speech, festivals, and dissent under the guise of maintaining harmony.

The proposed law introduces broad and subjective definitions, unprecedented criminal liabilities for online activity, and sweeping powers for authorities, creating what opponents are calling a “digital weapon of mass destruction” aimed at the majority community.

A Sweeping Definition Of “Harm” That Criminalises Hindu Speech By Default

The Bill defines harm to include emotional, psychological, social or economic injury. This definition is deliberately vague and allows almost any Hindu assertion – religious, cultural or political to be reframed as an offence.

Hindu views on proselytisation, communal violence, doctrinal exclusivity or religious supremacism are already routinely labelled “hate-filled” or “majoritarian” in public discourse. With the Bill in place, these labels acquire criminal force. A Hindu questioning conversions could be accused of causing “emotional harm”. A Hindu highlighting violent patterns could be said to have inflicted “psychological harm”. A Hindu critiquing exclusivist creeds could be blamed for “social harm”.

The Karnataka government seems to have revived the same vague standards that led the Supreme Court to strike down Section 66A, but in an even more expansive form.

This could also lead to cross-state FIRs becoming a routine. As one scenario illustrates, a person in Delhi commenting on Islam or Christianity even within documented textual descriptions could face an FIR in Karnataka if any individual in the state claims emotional or psychological injury.

Let us take the example of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, whose life was upended after allegations of hurt sentiments – that case is a preview of how such provisions may operate in practice.

Criminalising Forwarding, Sharing And Even Unintentional Involvement

A key point of alarm is the Bill’s criminalisation of “unknowing assistance”. The term converts everyday digital behaviour into a legal minefield.

Under this clause, forwarding a WhatsApp message, sharing a news article, retweeting satire or circulating commentary could become an offence if someone alleges emotional or psychological harm. Intention becomes irrelevant; facts become irrelevant; context becomes irrelevant.

If one analyses FIR patterns, one can notice that online speech cases in recent years have largely targeted Hindus questioning conversion activities, radicalisation, demographic aggression or violent street mobilisation. Now this new Bill makes this process significantly easier and faster.

The provision seems to be creating a “digital weapon of mass prosecution aimed at the majority”.

A Mechanism That Allows Volatile Groups To Veto Hindu Festivals And Gatherings

The Bill grants District Magistrates sweeping authority to restrict gatherings, processions, loudspeakers and public events if any community raises “apprehension”. This clause seemingly hands disproportionate power to groups that threaten unrest.

One can observe the recurring tensions around Ramanavmi, Hanuman Jayanti and Ganesh processions. Under the new framework, instead of controlling those who threaten violence, authorities may simply cancel the Hindu procession.

Hence, the more volatile a group becomes, the more administrative power it gains; the more peaceful a Hindu festival is, the more vulnerable it becomes to cancellation. This is a statutory codification of Congress’ long-standing model of “peace” – a model that relies on silencing Hindus to avoid upsetting specific vote banks.

Exemption For Proselytisation – The Bill’s ‘Most Revealing’ Clause

Observers highlight a specific exemption protecting “bona fide interpretation and espousing of religious tenets”, explicitly including proselytisation. This is the single most telling provision in the Bill.

At a time when aggressive conversion campaigns in rural Karnataka have been linked to inducement, deceit and foreign-funded networks, the government has chosen not only to ignore these issues but to provide missionary activities a legal shield.

The exemption itself is proof that proselytisation generates emotional and social distress and that instead of addressing that distress, the Bill criminalises Hindu resistance to it.

This provision can be seen as giving a free hand to run conversion rackets without fear of consequence.

Immunity For Officials, Liability For Citizens

The Bill gives sweeping immunity to government officials for actions taken “in good faith”. Combined with vague definitions of harm, this creates total asymmetry: the state acts without accountability while the citizen faces limitless criminal exposure.

A police officer can book a Hindu social media user for satire or commentary without fear of consequences; an officer can restrict a Hindu procession citing “apprehension” from another community and remain protected.

This structure can be seen as producing fear-based governance, not law and order.

The Bill Will Likely Fail Any Serious Legal Test

Legal scholars opposing the Bill argue that it violates established constitutional principles. They point out that restrictions on speech must be narrowly defined, emotional or psychological harm is not grounds for restriction under Article 19(2), there must be a direct link to incitement of violence.

Critics warn of a severe chilling effect, arguing that fear of criminal complaints will push Hindus into silence long before any court evaluates the legality of the provisions.

The Bill seems to be designed less to secure convictions and more to cultivate hesitation, to make Hindus second-guess criticism of conversions, extremism or policy decisions.

Part Of A Long Ideological Pattern?

The Bill can be framed as a continuation of Congress’ historical approach to regulating speech. One can look at Nehru’s First Amendment restricting free expression, Indira Gandhi’s Emergency suppressing civil liberties, the UPA’s Section 66A disproportionately used against Hindu social media users.

Communities which riot over perceived slights are already empowered, while communities that do not resort to violence, primarily Hindus, become easier to silence.

A Potential Model For Other Congress-Influenced States?

Critics warn that if Karnataka implements this framework successfully, similar legislation may appear in other states where Hindu festivals face routine restrictions, including Tamil Nadu.

They argue that Congress has realised it can influence national discourse without controlling national law; a state-level sentiment-based policing model can deter Hindu speech across India.

The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2025 has been presented by the state government as a mechanism to promote “harmony”. However, it only comes across as a legal architecture that empowers those who threaten unrest, protects proselytisation, and converts subjective emotional discomfort into criminal liability. The Bill seems to institutionalise a hierarchy in which the state and certain communities gain sweeping protection, while Hindu speech, Hindu festivals and Hindu digital expression remain permanently exposed.

Overall, the Bill does not target hate, it targets the Hindu citizen, precisely because the Hindu community does not riot over cartoons or threaten violence over disagreement and therefore becomes the easiest constituency for the state to police.

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 Welcome To Congress-Ruled Khatakhat Karnataka Where Forwarding A Satire Could Land You In Jail But Conversions Won’t, Courtesy The ‘Hate Speech Bill’ appeared first on The Commune.