Breaking India Indian Muslims Dalits Hate Watch Minorities Law Science & Technology Education

India

‘We Have Given Our Blood for India’: Farooq Abdullah Hits Out at BJP, RSS Over Questions on Muslim Patriotism

BJP Demands Farooq Abdullah’s Arrest for Saying Pakistan Is ‘Protecting Kashmiris’

By The Observer Post
|
On October 27, 2026
IISER Pune Removes Umar Khalid’s Book, Cites Concerns Over ‘Unrest’

IISER Pune Removes Umar Khalid’s Book, Cites Concerns Over ‘Unrest’

By The Observer Post
|
On October 27, 2026
The Calcutta High Court has barred the publication and circulation of a documentary alleging close ties between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and industrialist Gautam Adani until January 31, 2027, or until further orders. The interim injunction was issued on Monday by Justice Aryak Dutt after Adani Enterprises Limited filed a defamation suit against tech entrepreneur Sabeer Bhatia and others, seeking damages and a ban on the video’s circulation. Titled The Friendship Files: How Modi and Adani Stole India, the 36 minute video essay was uploaded to Bhatia’s YouTube channel, Bcubed, on October 9. It was also shared on X and other social media platforms. The court restrained the respondents, including YouTube, X and Instagram, from publishing, reuploading, sharing or otherwise distributing the video. The restriction also covers clips, excerpts, shortened versions and substantially identical reproductions of the content. Court Calls Video a Dramatised Narrative In its order, the court said the documentary was not a news report or an account of proceedings but a dramatised narrative that presented its allegations through narration and visuals as factual. The bench observed that the title itself insinuated theft and contained allegations against the Adani Group that had not been substantiated by any authority. While acknowledging that pretrial injunctions in defamation cases involving matters of public interest must be granted cautiously, the court said it was of the prima facie view that the case fell within an exceptional category warranting such relief. The court directed the respondents to remove the video and any clips or reproductions containing the allegedly defamatory statements from accounts, channels and pages under their control. It also ordered social media platforms to block access to the video at the URLs identified in Adani Enterprises’ petition and disable reposts, quote posts, shares and other engagements through which the content remained accessible. However, the court clarified that its order did not prohibit constructive criticism or fair reporting on the Adani Group or government policies, provided such content did not involve the video, its reproductions or the allegedly defamatory statements identified in the case. Social Media Platforms Asked to Preserve Records YouTube, X and Instagram have been directed to preserve subscriber and registration details, internet protocol logs recorded at the time of upload, and access logs linked to the accounts and URLs mentioned in the petition. The platforms must also submit basic subscriber information for accounts whose owners cannot be identified, through affidavits in a sealed cover within two weeks of receiving the order. The court further directed the platforms to stop serving advertisements on the specified URLs or sharing revenue generated from the video. They were also asked to preserve records of any advertising revenue earned from the content. The petitioner told the court that access to the original YouTube upload had been disabled in India, apparently following a government complaint under the Information Technology Rules, 2021. However, it alleged that the video continued to circulate through other YouTube channels, X accounts and Instagram Reels. Adani Enterprises’ counsel argued that the video contained false allegations against the company and that the right to reputation was an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court directed the respondents to file their replies within four weeks of receiving the petition. Adani Enterprises has been given another two weeks to respond. The matter is scheduled to be heard by the regular bench in January. Sabeer Bhatia Values His Reputation at Zero Reacting to the lawsuit, Bhatia said on social media that Adani Enterprises had valued the alleged damage to its reputation at Rs 50 crore, but he considered the value to be zero. “I contend that wealth acquired through alleged wrongdoing does not confer credibility or reputation,” Bhatia wrote. “My valuation of that reputation? Rs 0. And if the reputational damage is zero, the compensation should be zero,” he added. “Rs 50 crore demanded. Rs 0 deserved,” Bhatia said. Raj Thackeray Says He Deleted Video After Police Request Meanwhile, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray said he had removed the documentary from his social media accounts following a request from the Mumbai police commissioner. His statement came days after Mumbai Police issued legal notices to X users who had shared the video. MNS leaders questioned whether the police had faced pressure to make the request. Thackeray claimed that the video had received more than 48 lakh views on X and said he had shared it to inform the public. He also said he had been raising concerns about the relationship between Modi and Adani since January 2026, before the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation elections. “The Mumbai and Maharashtra Police are the most efficient police force in the country, and I have always had respect for them in my heart. I am just honouring the request made by the head of such a Mumbai Police,” he wrote on X.

Calcutta High Court Bars Circulation of Modi and Adani Documentary Until January 31, 2027

By The Observer Post
|
On October 27, 2026
Owaisi’s UP Poll Bid May Help BJP by Splitting Votes, Says Ramdev

Owaisi’s UP Poll Bid May Help BJP by Splitting Votes, Says Ramdev

By The Observer Post
|
On October 27, 2026
Kashmiri Pandit Body Seeks Impartial Probe Into Rakesh Handoo’s Arrest Over Alleged Militant Threat Posters

Kashmiri Pandit Activist Rakesh Handoo Arrested Over Threat Posters Targeting Minority Employees

By The Observer Post
|
On October 27, 2026
Bengal Bishop Asks Churches to Maintain Records Amid Conversion Allegations, Reports of Attacks

Bengal Bishop Asks Churches to Maintain Records Amid Conversion Allegations, Reports of Attacks

By The Observer Post
|
On October 27, 2026
MP: Minor Dalit Girl’s Clothes Allegedly Torn During Assault Over Land Dispute

MP: Minor Dalit Girl’s Clothes Allegedly Torn During Assault Over Land Dispute

By The Observer Post
|
On October 26, 2026
Muzaffar Ahmad A nation can say “we” in one breath and demand proof of belonging in the next, and I keep returning to that contradiction because it becomes visible when a Muslim student protests and is asked to establish the belonging the pronoun seemed to promise. At Jamia Millia Islamia, that conflict came into view on December 15, 2019, when Delhi Police entered the university during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. Contemporary accounts of the Jamia raid described tear gas inside the library and baton attacks on students, while police said the operation followed violence outside the campus. What unsettles me is the speed with which students became the thing to be explained, while the language of order surrounded the force used against them. The CAA drew this boundary into law by making specified non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan eligible for a special route to citizenship, while Muslims from those same countries remained outside it. The law’s eligibility provisions The law did not itself revoke Indian Muslims’ citizenship, but the proposed nationwide National Register of Citizens made its possible effects harder to separate, because Muslims asked to document their status might not have the same fallback route to protection. Reporting on CAA-NRC concerns and anti-Muslim rhetoric records the fears and the “shoot the traitors” chant. To me, the contradiction is that a measure described as protective can coexist with a public language that makes Muslim dissent sound like betrayal. Jamia’s current protest is distinct from the anti-CAA movement. Students began a hunger strike on October 12, 2026, demanding the restoration of elected student representation in a university whose union was dissolved in 2006, and on October 24 the administration moved classes online amid the continuing agitation, citing student safety and continuity of teaching. Current Jamia coverage confirms those events. I do not want to collapse this demand into the protest of 2019, but it raises a related question about who may shape campus life and claim political space. A university is more than a passage to employment, because it is one of the places where young people learn to meet, disagree, organise, and imagine futures not yet granted to them. During the First Intifada, Israeli authorities closed all Palestinian universities for more than four years, from January 1988 to April 1992, interrupting classes and the ties through which students and communities could teach one another, sustain public life, and keep a shared future in view. The documented Palestinian university closures show how the disruption reached beyond the classroom. I am not arguing that India and Israel are the same, because a police entry into an Indian university and years of military closures in occupied Palestine differ in law, duration, scale, and political setting. The comparison matters to me for a narrower reason: governments with different histories can still treat student organisation as a security problem and the campus as a place where the future must be managed. National identity is easier to guard when land is made sacred and indivisible. An analysis of land-centred Zionism describes early traditions that placed the Land of Israel at the centre of Jewish collective identity, sometimes privileging its spiritual bond over the political community. Hindutva uses a different history, but Savarkar’s formulation made India both pitribhumi, fatherland, and punyabhumi, holy land. I do not treat these histories as interchangeable. I see a narrower parallel in how identity is fastened to territory until disagreement with policy sounds like an insult to the nation, whose “we” has a guarded threshold. Muslim experience cannot sit at the edge of this story. The CAA drew a religious boundary around a route to citizenship, and Muslim students who opposed the law were often made to answer whether they belonged before their argument was heard. The citizen speaks about legislation while their loyalty is put on trial, and once the homeland is imagined as sacred property, dissent can be recast as trespass. I cannot accept a version of unity that asks Muslim students to leave the history of that suspicion outside the room. The CJP complicates the easy division between a protest permitted and a protest crushed, since its demonstrations arose around the alleged NEET paper leak and demands for accountability, yet police used batons and tear gas against marchers toward Parliament in July 2026. Jamia students recalled a difference in public response, saying anti-CAA protesters were branded “anti-national” while the CJP drew support from a wider range of public figures. The Jamia-CJP comparison captures that difference. To me, the CJP asks whether solidarity can make room for Muslim students’ memory of repression without asking them to leave it at the gate. France belongs here as a brief contrast, not another parallel case. Students there have protested teacher shortages, deteriorating schools, university funding, living costs, and admissions, while demonstrators in Paris and Dijon described being tear-gassed by police. Reporting on French student protests points to a different set of grievances, rooted in education and material security, rather than citizenship or occupation. I include France to mark that difference, not to claim that the cases share one political history. I do not claim that these protests are alike. I am asking whether students can make claims without being turned into threats. Jamia’s current demand is for representation, anti-CAA protesters challenged a religious boundary in citizenship, Palestinian students endured years without open universities, and French students seek institutions they can afford. These struggles have different histories, yet each begins when students refuse to let others decide their future over their heads. A democracy is measured by whether people can challenge its deepest stories without first being made to feel like strangers in their own country.

When Muslim Students Protest, Why Must They Prove They Belong to the Nation They Call Home?

By The Observer Post
|
On October 26, 2026
Tamil Nadu Temple Chariot Passes Through Dalit Settlement After 42 Years Following Madras High Court Order

Tamil Nadu Temple Chariot Passes Through Dalit Settlement After 42 Years Following Madras High Court Order

By The Observer Post
|
On October 26, 2026
Dalit Woman Allegedly Assaulted, Casteist Slurs Hurled at Her in Uttar Pradesh

Dalit Woman Allegedly Assaulted, Casteist Slurs Hurled at Her in Uttar Pradesh

By The Observer Post
|
On October 26, 2026
Previous Next
the observer post

The Observer Post is an independent media outlet dedicated to highlighting stories of the marginalized, including Dalits, Tribals, Women, and Minorities.

Categories

Breaking Human Rights Minorities Dalits

Quick Links

About Us Contact Us Disclaimer Privacy Policy

Follow Us

Follow Us On Social Media
Get Latest Update On Social Media
Join Now

© theobserverpost.com • All rights reserved