Anti-Muslim hates, CA-NRC, Triple talaq bill, Waqf Board Bill, cow vigilantism

 

Ban on Triple talak in India.

On 30 July 2019, the Parliament of India declared the practice of Triple Talaq illegal and unconstitutional and made it a punishable act from 1 August 2019. Three of India's neighbouring countries — Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka — are among the 23 countries worldwide that have banned triple talaq.

Triple Talaq is the process of divorce under Sharia Law (Islamic law) where a husband can divorce his wife by pronouncing ‘Talaq’ three times. This is also called oral talaq.

There are three types of divorce under Islamic law, namely, Ahsan, Hasan and Talaq-e-Biddat (triple talaq). 

While the former two are revocable, the last one is irrevocable. It is mainly prevalent among India’s Muslim communities that follow the Hanafi School of Islamic Law. 

Under this law, wives cannot divorce husbands by means of triple talaq. Women have to move a court for divorcing her husband under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937. (This Act was passed to make provisions for the application of Sharia or Islamic personal law to Muslims in India).

After this historic decision, nationwide discussions, meetings and agitations were held. The then government under pressure passed The Muslim Women’s (Right to protection on divorce) Act (MWA) in 1986, which made Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code inapplicable to Muslim women. 

Daniel Latifi case – Muslim Women’s Act (MWA) was challenged on the grounds that it violated the right to equality under Articles 14& 15 as well as the right to life under Article 21. 

The Supreme Court while holding the law as constitutional harmonised it with section 125 of CrPC and held that the amount received by a wife during iddat period should be large enough to maintain her during iddat as well as provide for her future. Thus under the law of the land, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to the provision of maintenance for a lifetime or until she is remarried.

Sarla Mudgal Case – In this case, the question was whether a Hindu husband married under the Hindu law, by embracing Islam, can solemnise a second marriage. The court held that the Hindu marriage solemnized under Hindu law can only be dissolved on any of the grounds specified under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Conversion to Islam and marrying again, would not by itself dissolve the Hindu marriage under the act and thus, a second marriage solemnized after converting to Islam would be an offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Shayara Bano Case: Shayara Bano, a 35-year-old woman, challenged the practice after getting divorced under the triple talaq custom. In 2017, the Supreme Court, in a landmark 3-2 verdict, had struck down instant triple talaq. Three of the five judges on the Constitution Bench had called the practise un-Islamic and “arbitrary” and disagreed with the view that triple talaq was an integral part of religious practice. 

The ruling of SC is truly a watershed moment in women empowerment movement in India. The court has given progressive thoughts enshrined in the Constitution precedence over personal law in society.

The triple talaq bill also makes a declaration of talaq-e-bidat cognisable offence that gives a police officer powers to arrest the offender without requiring a warrant. 

To check misuse of cognisable nature of the offence, the triple talaq bill makes a declaration of talaq- biddat only if the complaint is filed by the aggrieved woman or any of her relation by blood or marriage. 

A Muslim man pronouncing instant triple talaq attracts a jail term of three years under the triple talaq bill. The accused under the triple talaq bill is entitled to bail, which can be granted by a magistrate. But the bail can be granted only after the magistrate has heard the aggrieved woman. 

The triple talaq bill also provides scope for reconciliation without undergoing the process of nikah halala if the two sides agree to stop legal proceedings and settle the dispute.

Nikah halala refers to practice under which a divorced Muslim woman has to marry another man and consummate the marriage and get a divorce. Only then can she be eligible to remarry her former husband. 

Arguments in favour of banning triple talaq:

According to a study, 92% of Muslim women in India wanted the triple talaq to be banned. 

It goes against the rights of equality and women’s empowerment. It propagates the dominance of men over women. 

It gave men the right to arbitrarily divorce their wives without any valid reason.

New-age technology has given birth to new modes of triple talaq such as through skype, text messages and email. 

The ‘triple talaq’ has been abolished in 21 Islamic theocratic countries including Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. There is no reason for a democratic and secular India to continue this lopsided practice. 

It goes against the constitutional principles of gender equality, secularism, right to life of dignity, etc.

It goes against Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15(1) which states that there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the basis of gender, race, etc. and this kind of talaq is biased against the interests of women. 

The constitution of the country says that it shall strive to bring a uniform civil code for the entire country. Doing away with triple talaq will definitely be a step closer to the constitution-makers’ dream of having a uniform civil code for all citizens.

However, the National Commission of Women says that this matter cannot be linked to uniform civil code. Nevertheless, it should be banned in order to protect the interests of Muslim women. 

The Supreme Court has also declared that this practice is unconstitutional and not protected by Article 25 which regards the freedom of religion. Also in December 2016, the Allahabad High Court had said that no personal law board was above the constitution. 

Experts also opine that only the essential or integral features and aspects of a religion are protected by the Constitution. Triple talaq was not an integral feature of Islam.

Challenges in banning triple talaq:

Religious groups infer the banning of a traditional practice sanctified by Sharia as interfering in the religious aspects of minorities. 

The low literacy rate among Muslim Women and knowledge about their rights.

It might be possible that Women will not get support from their parents/relatives during legal proceedings. It was political issue to motivate and start litigation but in vain

===

Roads, schools, bridges, education, hospitals, industries, jobs, agriculture, health, pensions, railroads, metros, ports, public transportation, tunnels, water supply, sewage, power energy, gasoline, diesel, gas, IT/inernet, water/irrigation, shipping, the environment, the sea or ocean, bio-retention, Growth and green infrastructure are no longer political considerations in the nation's elections. These days, government-sponsored issues include 80:20, cemeteries, crematoriums, loud speakers, bulldozers, teaching lessons, temples vs mosques, churches versus gurudwaras, renaming streets, dividing food and clothing, and more. Regretfully, the BJP is also using a sizable portion of the media to spread hatred and win votes. A year prior to each state's election, this "screenplay" of caste and religious separation is drafted, and the religious split widens as the election draws near. 

2. Chief Ministers and union ministers frequently say offensive things about other religions. However, they are promoted rather than punished.  At a rally in Delhi in January 2020, Union Minister Shri Anurag Thakur uttered the simple words, "Desh ke gaddaron ko, ---."  Shri Adityanath, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, takes pride in referring to himself as "Bulldozer Baba" and frequently uses the 80:20 ratio to discuss the Hindu-Muslim split.  Former Union Minister and BJP leader Shri Jayant Sinha slapped the eight people who were charged with "mob lynching" in 2017.

3. There were 3,400 religious riots from 2015 to 2025. The Union Minister of State for Home himself said on March 30, 2022, that 3,400 riots took place in the five years from 2015 to 2022. If we look at all the records of the eight years of the Modi government, then perhaps the number of religious riots will reach 10,000. When the protector becomes the perpetrator, communal harmony goes for a toss.

4. Delhi, the nation's capital, was the scene of "riots." 53 persons lost their lives in the "Delhi Riots" in 2020. The Minorities Commission's 134-page report made it very evident that BJP leaders were involved in the Delhi riots, but nothing was done about it. Riots broke out in Jahangirpuri, Delhi, in April 2022. How would the nation function, and how will religious unity advance if the nation's capital is not spared from the riots?  The political leaders of Delhi, along with others, were put behind bars, charged with the clause of national security.

 5. Ten regions saw rioting and religious conflict, but the prime minister said nothing. In April and May 2022, there were religious riots in ten provinces, but neither the Prime Minister nor the Home Minister spoke out.

6. By dividing people along religious lines, minority groups are sometimes singled out to win votes.  This religious appeasement now targets not just the Muslim minority but also the Christian and Sikh minorities.  Following farmer agitation, it has been commonplace to vandalize the statue of Jesus Christ in a church in Ambala, Haryana; Christians in Goa, Uttarakhand, and Karnataka; and minority Sikhs.

==

lynching against muslim

June 27, Jharkhand: After a dead cow was allegedly spotted outside of Usman Ansari's home, a group of over 100 people beat him up and set part of his house on fire.  According to police sources, 50 police officers were injured when the terrorists threw stones at them.

June 24, West Bengal: In North Dinajpur, West Bengal, three construction workers—Nasirul Haque, Mohammed Samiruddin, and Mohammed Nasir—were beaten to death by a mob on suspicion of stealing cows.  A murder case has been filed, and three persons have been taken into custody thus far.  The state police, however, insist that the attack had no religious motivation.

Haryana, June 22: After a dispute over seating arrangements descended into an attack motivated by religious identity, 15-year-old Junaid Khan was fatally stabbed inside a Haryana train.  Before being stabbed, Junaid was referred to as a "mulla," a "beef-eater," and had his skull cap thrown away.  His brother suffered serious injuries.  According to several media reports, survivors claim that the attack involved at least 20 persons.  One person has been taken into custody by the state police.

June 16, Rajasthan :In Pratapgarh, Rajasthan, 44-year-old Zaffer Hussain was beaten to death by municipal authorities after he protested their capturing pictures and recordings of women urinating in the open, supposedly as part of a cleaning program. Hussain's family and witnesses insist that he was beaten to death, despite an autopsy report stating that he passed away from heart failure. Three municipal employees and the local municipal commissioner are the targets of a murder case. No one has been arrested by the police as of yet. 

May 26, Maharashtra : In Malegaon, Maharashtra, a cow vigilante squad attacked two Muslim meat vendors who were allegedly in possession of beef.  The men appeared to be slapped, mistreated, and instructed to utter "Jai Sri Ram" (Hail Lord Ram) on the video footage of the incident.  There are nine men in custody.  But the two meat vendors are also charged with "outraging religious feelings" in a criminal case.

Uttar Pradesh, 2 :May After a Muslim man and a Hindu woman allegedly fled the village, 65-year-old Ghulam Mohammed was brutally murdered in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh.  According to reports, the attackers were part of the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a Hindu nationalist organization that has waged a campaign against "love jihad," which is the idea that Muslim men plot to woo Hindu women and convert them to Islam.  Three men have been taken into custody by the state police.

April 30, Assam: In Nagaon, Assam, a mob lynched Abu Hanifa and Riazuddin Ali on suspicion of stealing cows.  Although they have not yet made any arrests, the police have filed a murder case.

 On April 6, Mohammed Shalik, then 19 years old, was beaten to death and tied to a pole in Jharkhand, allegedly due to his sexual involvement with a Hindu girl.  The police claim that the homicide was not a community occurrence, but three persons have been taken into custody.

Rajasthan, 1 April:55-year-old farmer Pehlu Khan, a dairy farmer, and four other Muslim men were assaulted by a mob near a highway in Alwar, Rajasthan. Khan died two days later. The mob falsely accused the men of being cow smugglers. Following the killing, the Home Minister of Rajasthan, in a statement that appeared to justify the killing, said that Khan belonged to a family of cow smugglers. Three people have been arrested.

Vigilante organizations appear to have gained confidence as a result of the BJP's push to preserve cows, and in certain situations, they appear to be acting with the tacit consent of state officials. National leaders of ruling party, have occasionally disregarded the insults or, worse, actively defended them. Mob violence has occurred in other cases too, including attacks on Dalits suspected of illegally transporting cows, the killing of alleged child traffickers in Jharkhand, and the lynching of a police officer at a mosque in Kashmir. All these attacks are deplorable, and seem to indicate a weakening of the rule of law. Since April 2017, at least ten Muslim men have been lynched or killed in public in suspected hate crimes, amid a rising tide of Islamophobia in the country. The attacks have contributed to a growing sense of insecurity for many Muslims, and intensified religious tensions. 

===

 Extraction from mosques to search for temples:

In India, a contentious practice known as "extraction from mosques to search for temples" involves some organizations and individuals asserting that mosques were constructed on the locations of ancient Hindu temples and actively attempting to "discover" these underlying temple structures. This practice is frequently linked to right-wing Hindu organizations that claim mosques were constructed in particular locations following the Mughal era's destruction of Hindu temples.  Temple Site Claims Under Mosques: According to certain Hindu organizations, a number of Indian mosques, such as the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura and the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, were constructed on the locations of temples that were purportedly destroyed during the Mughal Empire.

Numerous legal and court cases have resulted from these assertions; certain courts have permitted inspections and excavations of mosques to ascertain whether temple structures are beneath them.  Scientific Surveys and Excavations: A court approved a scientific survey, which included the use of ground-penetrating radar (GPR), to look into the history of the Gyanvapi Mosque and whether it was a pre-existing temple.   Some Muslims and civil society organizations have criticized the "search for temples" activity, claiming that it violates religious peace and is unfair to the Muslim community.

 Supreme Court Directive: In order to prevent civil courts from filing new lawsuits or issuing orders in ongoing cases, the Supreme Court has issued a directive prohibiting them from surveying mosques to determine whether or not there are underlying temple constructions.    Persistent Conflicts: In India, mosque-temple conflicts and the "search for temples" persist notwithstanding the Supreme Court's order, especially in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

In December 2024, the Supreme Court barred courts nationwide from accepting or issuing rulings in any new lawsuit or appeal that sought to examine mosques to ascertain whether temples were beneath them. The court further mandated that courts refrain from issuing effective interim or final rulings, including survey orders, in cases that are still pending (such as those involving the Gyanvapi mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, Sambhal Jama Masjid, etc.). According to Live Law, the interim injunction was made while a number of applications against the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 were being heard. 

"No order for a survey or any other effective order shall be passed in existing suits," the supreme court said.  Courts cannot issue any final or effective interim orders in ongoing litigation until further notice.   The order was issued by a special bench that included Justice KV Viswanathan, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.  The Court was considering a number of petitions contesting the 1991 Act's constitutionality, which forbids changing the houses of worship's religious identity from what it was on August 15, 1947.

The Court sent a notice to the Union Government in March 2021 after receiving the primary plea, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, in 2020.  The same law was challenged in a number of subsequent identical petitions.   Furthermore, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind filed a writ petition to have the Act enforced.  To support the protection of the Act, a number of political parties filed intervention applications, including the CPI(M), Indian Union Muslim League, DMK, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, and NCP (Sharad Pawar) MP Jitendra Awhad.

India has a rich religious history, and the historical provenance of several sacred places has been the subject of discussions and court battles.  Finding the remnants of ancient Hindu temples by excavation or excavation at mosque locations is one of the most intricate and contentious topics.  This argument lies at the nexus of law, religion, archaeology, and history.   The Mughal Empire and later Islamic regimes saw the construction of numerous mosques throughout India.  Over time, there were concerns over whether these mosques were built after Hindu temples were demolished or repurposed, particularly during the reigns of Aurangzeb and other kings who are known to have commanded temple destruction at specific times.

The now-demolished Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, and the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi are notable instances that have garnered national attention.

 Both Muslims and Hindus regard these locations as sacred, which has prompted legal and archaeological investigations.

* Ayodhya Verdict (2019): The Supreme Court decided that the Ram Janmabhoomi site belonged to Hindus, permitting the construction of a Ram temple while simultaneously granting land for a mosque elsewhere. This is one of the most notable legal events.

* Gyanvapi Mosque Case: To ascertain whether there were temple-like remnants inside or beneath the mosque, a court-ordered survey and video inspection of the building were conducted.  The Mathura Krishna Janmabhoomi Case is still pending. According to a court filing, the Shahi Idgah mosque should be demolished because it was constructed on a Hindu temple.

In all such cases, archaeological surveys, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), and historical records play a major role. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has been involved in some of these investigations, but the findings often lead to differing interpretations.

These cases generate intense debate among historians, legal experts, and citizens:

* Supporters argue that recovering lost heritage is a matter of justice and historical correction.

* Critics warn that such actions may harm interfaith harmony, politicize history, and open the floodgates for countless claims across the country.

Many believe that religious beliefs should be respected without rewriting history or targeting communities

Maintaining Communal Harmony

At the heart of the matter is a call for balance between faith and facts. Courts must carefully weigh evidence without disturbing social peace. As India moves forward, it must ensure:

* Legal due process

* Respect for all faiths

* Peaceful coexistence

===

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, presented August 8, 2024

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which was presented to the Lok Sabha on August 8, 2024, intends to modernize the administration and control of Waqf properties in India by resolving current issues and guaranteeing openness.  To increase the effectiveness of Waqf boards and encourage diversity, the bill suggests amending the Waqf Act of 1995.

February 2019 – Pulwama - 11

 

11 February 2019 – Pulwama

Pulwama attack is one of the deadliest terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir in which 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel were martyred. The Pulwama attack happened on February 14, 2019, when a Jaish suicide bomber rammed a vehicle carrying over 100 kg of explosives into their bus in Pulwama district.

Soon after the attack, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a Pakistan-based terror group, claimed responsibility for the Pulwama attack. The militant group further released a video of Adil Ahmad Dar from Kakapora who joined the group in 2018.   The 22-year-old youth was identified as the offender. His family last saw him in March 2018 when he left the house on a bicycle and never returned.   According to his family, Dar became radicalized after he was beaten by the Indian police, and was reportedly arrested six times in two years by the authorities on stone-pelting and over suspicion of aiding activities for Lashkar-e-Taiba, another Pakistan-based militant group. He, however, was never formally charged with a crime or named in an FIR.  

The vehicle was carrying 300 kg of explosives. 

India's National Investigation Agency (NIA) constituted a 12-member team to investigate the Pulwama attack. The team worked in collaboration with the Jammu and Kashmir Police. 

Forty Central Reserve Police Force troopers died in a terror attack in Pulwama in Jammu and Kashmir on February 14, 2019. One of the martyrs belonged to MP.  Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav pays tribute to victims of the 2019 suicide bombing attack by militants in J&K's Pulwama, at Shaurya Smarak in Bhopal, Wednesday, Feb 14.

The Congress on April 18 demanded a White Paper on the Pulwama terror attack in the light of allegations made by former Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik that Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) jawans became easy targets as they were denied travel by aircraft and had to go by road from Jammu to Srinagar.

Addressing a joint press conference, All India Congress Committee’s Delhi in-charge Shaktisinh Gohil along with Col (retd.) Rohit Chaudhry and Wing Commander (retd.) Anuma Acharya — both are associated with the party — posed a series of questions to the Narendra Modi Government on the terror attack that killed 40 CRPF jawans in February 2019.

The attack dealt a severe blow to India–Pakistan relations, consequently resulting in the 2019 India–Pakistan military standoff. Subsequently, Indian investigations identified 19 accused. By August 2021, the main accused along with six others had been killed, and seven had been arrested.

New Delhi, Feb 21 (PTI) Prime Minister Narendra Modi continued shooting for a film in the Corbett National Park for his "propaganda and publicity" till the evening of February 14 despite the Pulwama attack taking place in the afternoon that day, the Congress on Thursday alleged, citing reports in a section of the media. There was no immediate reaction from the Prime Minister's Office and the BJP over the allegations. The opposition party also accused BJP president Amit Shah of "politicization of terrorism" in his speech in Assam following the attack in which 40 CRPF jawans died after a Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist rammed an explosive-laden vehicle into the paramilitary force's convoy in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama. Shah, while addressing a public rally at Lakhimpur in Assam, had said that the sacrifices of the 40 CRPF personnel will not go in vain as there is a BJP government at the Centre now and it, unlike the previous Congress dispensation, will not "compromise" on any security issue. Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala, addressing a press conference, launched an all-out attack on the government and the prime minister over the Pulwama terror strike. In his hunger for power, the prime minister has forgotten "raj dharma" (duty of governance), he alleged. Citing media reports in Hindi news papers, Surjewala gave a timeline of events saying the the terror attack happened at 3:10 PM on February 14 with the Congress reacting at 5:15 PM. "The prime minister also knew about it, yet the PM, a person who claims himself to be a pseudo nationalist, continues to shoot a film (for Discovery channel) for self propagation in Corbett National Park in Ramnagar," he claimed. He alleged that the prime minister continued to "enjoy boat rides" with the camera crew and later ensured that there is slogan shouting by BJP people in his favour there. "The prime minister continues to eat chai, samosas at seven o' clock at government expense in a PWD guest house when every single Indian household didn't eat their food," the Congress spokesperson said. On one hand the country was picking up the "pieces of our martyrs", on the other hand the prime minister was doing his "propaganda and publicity", he claimed. "Can such conduct be expected from the prime minister of a country. The prime minister should have been chairing the cabinet committee on security immediately and should have taken action, instead of shooting films," he said. Surjewala said that the Congress party had shown restrain as directed by party president Rahul Gandhi, but it was important to raise issues of such conduct that "insults martyrs". "The Congress party and the entire nation stands united with our armed forces as also our government in every step that they take in tackling Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. We are determined in that resolve even today," he said. The Congress leader said that questions must be asked about the gross intelligence failure of this government and on the "priorities of a prime minister who on a sensitive time like this has gone on a foreign tour to South Korea instead of tackling terrorism".

mishandling of Kashmir - 10

 

10. The mishandling of Kashmir

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi today attacked the Modi government over its Kashmir policy, accusing it of mishandling the issue and turning the state, which was the country's "strength", into its "weakness".

In late March 2003, terrorists thought to bemembers of Pakistan-supported Islamic groups killed 24 Hindu villagers in Kashmir. This incident evoked memories of the suicide attack by Muslim terrorists on the Indian Parliament in New Delhi in December 2001. Events like these raise the potential threat of war between India and Pakistan. South Asia is thought by many observers to be the most dangerous place in the world, with both antagonists armed with nuclear weapons. Kashmir has been in dispute between India and Pakistan since the time of the partition in 1947. Itis a site where both countries constantly face off. In January and June of 2002, India was poised to attack Pakistan because of terrorist military action against Indian targets in Kashmir. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said last December that if India had, indeed, invaded, its armies would have met with an “unconventional response.” India’s defense minister, George Fernandes, responded saying, “We can take a [nuclear] bomb, or two or more … but when we respond there will be no more Pakistan.” This is an alarming level of discourse between neighbours ,because it indicates that men in positions to make nuclear war happen are suggesting that one or the other can prevail in a nuclear confrontation. This is a level of self-delusion that can have only the most catastrophic consequences for the people of both countries. It suggests that the lessons of the U.S.-Soviet balance of terror and the absurdity of mutually assured destruction have been lost on the governments of India and Pakistan. Furthermore, the rise of the religious right in both countries creates a political environment that verges on the apocalyptic. Islamic factions in Pakistan’s border provinces with Afghanistan won in the last parliamentary elections. And elements of Pakistani military intelligence continue to support terrorist activity in Kashmir. Analysts believe that President Musharraf has limited ability to curb this action. At the same time, as the election season approaches in2004, the ruling party in India, the (BJP), resorts increasingly to the concept of Hindutva, a belief that India is not a secular, pluralist state, but the sacred place of Hindu ascendancy. Any student of religion and politics knows that when either party in an ethnic or sectarian conflict invokes God or gods on its side, the potential for major loss of life in war simply soars. After hosting a two-day workshop earlier last November on the respective roles of Track 1, official diplomacy, and Track 2, unofficial diplomacy, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Carter Center’s Conflict Resolution Program chose the Kashmir issue for its next subject. Reflecting its commitment toin-depth political, psychological, and historical analysis as a prerequisite to building any plausible strategy on Track 1/Track 2 approaches, the Centerconvened native-born Indian, Pakistani, andKashmiri experts on the conflict with senior retireddiplomats from the subcontinent and the UnitedStates and conflict resolution specialists to developan approach to peace making in Kashmir. This report is the fruit of this preliminary effort.Three states, India, Pakistan, and China, control parts of Kashmir, which despite a large Muslim majority is host to important Hindu and Buddhist minorities and seven major language families. One of the many ironies in the conflict is that while the Vale of Kashmir is the violent centre of the conflict that could precipitate nuclear war, it amounts to just.25 percent of the territory, population, 

Article 370 of the Constitution of India provides a special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The state owes its origin to the rapid accession of the province of Jammu and Kashmir to India amidst invasive fear from Pakistan.

The 1954 Constitution Order, by inserting Article 35A into the Indian Constitution, gave the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature “complete authority” to decide the 'permanent residents' of the State and grant them special rights and privileges in State public sector jobs, acquisition of property within the State,

New Delhi: The state of Jammu and Kashmir has transitioned into two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh today, on the birth anniversary of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the freedom movement leader who persuaded 562 princely states to accede to newly-independent India. The process of transition begins with the swearing-in of the two newly-appointed Lieutenant-Governors in Srinagar and Leh. Former Defence Secretary RK Mathur was sworn-in as the first Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Ladakh earlier this morning. IAS officers Girish Chandra Murmu will be appointed as Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir later today.

The bifurcation of the state into Union Territories comes into effect two months after the special status to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the constitution was removed by an order from President Ram Nath Kovind. Article 370 gave Kashmir its own constitution and restricted the centre's powers to deciding matters of defence, communications and external affairs. For any other area, the centre had to get the state legislature's approval.

Here's a look at how Jammu and Kashmir for special status through Article 370:

In 1947, Hari Singh, who was the last ruling Maharaja of princely state Jammu and Kashmir, acceded to India after signing the "Instrument of Accession" on October 26.

Hari Singh, who was the Hindu king of a Muslim-majority state, had initially wanted to stay independent, but decided to go with India after Pakistani army regulars and tribesmen invaded the state and India agreed to help if he acceded.

Per the "Instrument of Accession", only defence, external affairs and communications were handed over to the government of India. These conditions were peculiar to Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India, unlike the other 565 princely states that had chosen to integrate fully with India.

At that time, Sheikh Abdullah, the founder of state political party National Conference, had supported Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India. Sheikh Abdullah believed that Kashmiris had a better future in a secular, democratic India rather than an Islamic state like Pakistan.

In 1949, Hari Singh appointed Sheikh Abdullah as the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, who in turn joined the Indian Constituent Assembly to negotiate a special status for the state. This is how Article 370 was born and underlined Jammu and Kashmir's autonomy within India.

The cultivation of hate - 9

 

The cultivation of hate

According to a recent report by ANHAD, hate speech and hate crimes have predominantly targeted Muslims at 73.3% of all hate speech, now-a-days.  The main purpose of such hate speech is to provoke them so that they start breaking law and misprision them, and anger will be among the community and they should start to be busy in breaking law.

We remember, of the railway police constable who roamed through a train shooting Muslim passengers and delivering an impassioned diatribe against the community?

And did you see the news item in recent newspapers about four students in a government school in Delhi complaining that their teacher had made communal remarks to them. According to the complaints, the teacher said: “During Partition you did not go to Pakistan. You stayed in India. You have no contribution to India’s freedom struggle.” There was more in a similar vein.  Anger created cannot be pacified easily.  The reaction to all of these incidents was the same as mine- shock, outrage, anger, disbelief, sadness and fears about the kind of country we are becoming. And that you were as horrified as I was when the organised armies on social media posted lies to explain away the incidents. Apparently, the hate-filled teacher had not said anything communal. The video was distorted. Various glove-puppets and bots then hailed her as a martyr. Likewise, the Muslim-murdering railway police officer was not anti-Muslim, his social media supporters said, he was just ‘disturbed ’. The control rooms had to junk this lie after the shooter’s own superiors admitted that he had committed a hate crime, which he was then charged with. The biggest misconception about hate is that you can control it. Politicians (from all parties and all religions) make the mistake of believing that hate is like water. You can pour as much of it as you like. But when you are through, you can just turn off the tap.  In fact, hate is the opposite of water. It is like fire.

Once you light the flame, it becomes very difficult to control it and till the time it is controlled it will damage the whole thing beyond repair. The blaze takes on a life of its own and it is almost impossible to stop it or to manage how it spreads.  It is popular among people opposed to the current political dispensation to act as though the hate we see all around us emanates from the top and is the result of some careful political calculation.  Politicians are doing their own job of nothing achievement. Every Muslim-hater is not a sangh supporter who is acting on orders from Nagpur. Like fire, hate takes on a life of its own. Nobody can tell where the next conflagration will occur, where the fire will spread or who the flames will devour.  Even though the Prime Minister and his top ministers are very careful not to say anything that could be termed communal, the hate has now reached a level where it makes no difference what they say. Even the rest of the parivar — the RSS, the VHP, the Bajrang Dal and all other liberal bogeymen and villains — lost control of the fires of hatred long ago. Nobody ordered the school teachers to target Muslims. Nobody asked the railway cop to kill Muslims.

The kind of hatred we see in today’s India is uncontrollable. It requires no trigger and no spark. And it is harder to fight the hatred because once the deed is done or the crime committed, an army of social media hitmen arrives to cheer on the murderers and the abusers.  It is nobody’s case that there was no hatred in India before the current outbreak. Independent India was created in hatred and bloodshed. But ever since then, most leaders (across political parties) and the media worked hard to heal wounds and to create social harmony.  Most distressing of all: the television media is more communal and hate-filled today than at any time in its history. As for social media — including the parts controlled by political parties — that is the biggest cesspit in our country.  I don’t know where all of this will lead us but of one thing, I am certain: even if the heads of all the communal organisations in the country come together and ask for social harmony and peace, it will make very little difference.

The opposition has accused Modi of hate speech against Muslims, and India’s election commission – the independent authority tasked with holding the country’s polls – has sent a warning to the BJP party chief about the PM’s comments. Election laws do not allow the overt use of religion to garner votes. But Modi has denied that he engaged in hate speech.

During an election rally on April 21 in the western state of Rajasthan, Modi claimed that if the Congress party came to power, it would distribute the country’s wealth among Muslims. “When they were last in power, the Congress said that Muslims have the first right to the nation’s resources. What does that mean? If they come to power, that means they will collect all the wealth. And who will they give it to? Those who have more children. To infiltrators.”

 Modi has previously used the trope of Muslims having a particularly high reproductive rate. In 2002, after deadly anti-Muslim riots in the state of Gujarat, where he was chief minister at the time, he faced questions over his government’s failure to support relief camps for victims, which were mostly set up by non-profits and Muslim groups. In a campaign rally at the time, Modi had suggested that such relief camps could become “baby-producing centres”, and how for “some people”, that could mean a family of as many as 25 children.

After the prime minister’s Economic Advisory Committee released a report on May 7, suggesting that the share of Hindus in India’s population had declined by 7.8 percent between 1950 and 2015, and the Muslim share had grown by 43.2 percent, BJP leaders amplified suggestions that Hindus in the country would be in danger if the opposition came to power

Weakening of institutions & profiteering Organization - 8

 

8. Weakening of institutions & profiteering Organization: 

Govt run companies are headed by politicians as chairmen or controlled by Ministers. In either case political interference is there in purchases, recruitment ,administration etc.,  This leads to inefficiency and corruption and losses.  The money goes into the pockets of Politicians, their kith and kin, friends, middlemen, brokers, businessmen etc. These people are spread over nooks and corners of the country and they in turn fund the elections and become canvassing agents etc., at the time of elections.

Unfortunately, all this makes it painfully evident that India is struggling to perform even the most basic functions of a sovereign state. While much of the attention on the manifold shortcomings of the Indian state has focused on high levels of corruption and venality in public life, an equally compelling limitation is the lack of competence, both at the policy design and formulation level, and the even larger challenge in effectively implementing these policies.

This “state capacity”—the ability of the state to effectively design and implement public policies—varies greatly across India. The Indian state is not failing but is seen to be only too often “flailing”. It can successfully manage highly complex tasks, but fails in executing relatively simple ones. On the one hand, India can organize elections for 850 million eligible voters, conduct a census for 1.2 billion people, and run a highly effective space programme. Yet, on the other hand, its record in providing basic public services, from health to education and water to sanitation, ranges from modest to dismal. The persistence of a stubborn Maoist insurgency and the sporadic resurgence of communal violence in certain pockets speak to its patchy law and order prowess, while chronic power shortages are a stark testimony to the quality of its regulatory institution.

The story is not uniformly negative, however, and bright spots do exist. Compared to its developing country peers—not to mention several advanced democracies—India’s highly respected elections body consistently delivers high-quality polls, especially in more recent years. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which does face internal capacity issues, not to mention a spate of newfound external challenges, has emerged as a highly credible voice on issues of monetary policy, banking and finance. Even from within the ranks of the much-beleaguered bureaucracy, one can identify talent that is comparable to the best anywhere in the world.

The underlying institutional weaknesses of public institutions in India stand in contrast to relatively dynamic private and civil society organizations. According to a 2012 government report, India was home to 144,000 registered non-profit societies as of 1970; by 2008, that number had grown by a factor of nearly eight (1.14 million). In 1957, fewer than 30,000 companies with a paid-up capital of barely Rs1,000 crore were operational in India. Fast-forward to 2014, and India boasts of nearly 950,000 firms with a paid-up capital of Rs21 trillion. Undoubtedly, the expansion and growth of India’s private sector and vibrant civil society will substitute for some of the shortcomings of the public sector in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, there is a wide range of core functions, from regulation to security, from social inclusion to public goods provision, where the state is—and will be—indispensable. This is particularly true for India’s vulnerable population—such as its 265 million-odd poor or members of historically marginalized minority groups—who rely on public assistance to meet their most basic needs. These vulnerable populations, unlike India’s middle and upper classes, do not have a viable “exit” option from the public sector and its myriad deficiencies.

If the dizzying transformation of the Chinese economy has been the defining story of economic development in the last three-and-a-half decades, economic changes in India—while considerably less dramatic—have also been transformative. However, India’s recent success masks deep underlying challenges whose import will only multiply in the foreseeable future. While it has been argued that in many ways India’s improved economic performance has been despite, not because of, the state—epitomized by epigrams such as “India grows at night while the government sleeps”—continued welfare gains, better distributional outcomes, and the resilience and sustainability of rapid economic growth are in considerable doubt in the absence of better-performing public institutions.

 To get a sense of the looming challenges, consider this. In the two decades after the onset of economic liberalization, India added 364 million people to its population—more than the stock at the time of independence, which itself was accumulated over millennia. India’s democratic success and this “demographic dividend” mean that tens of millions of young people will be joining India’s workforce with aspirations that previous generations could not even dream of, but without the jobs commensurate with their skills and aspirations. The ranks of those who live in India’s urban cities and townships are rising at a rapid clip, so swiftly that even the government’s own agencies have difficulty in adequately measuring India’s changing demographics.

Even a casual observer of the Indian state would be struck by its limitations. The most obvious manifestation of this is its relatively small size. Contrary to popular belief, the Indian state is one of the smallest among major nations on a per capita basis. While India’s population increased from 846 million to 1.2 billion between 1991 and 2011, total public sector employment actually decreased from 19.1 million to 17.9 million. Over this period, the absolute size of the elite Indian Administrative Service (IAS) dropped by 10%; by 2010, the total strength of the IAS and the Indian Police Service (IPS) was less than 11,000 while the vacancy rate stood at 28%. In foreign affairs, the strength of the Indian diplomatic corps is less than that of Sweden’s. India’s judicial system presently has a backlog of more than 31 million cases. Government estimates suggest that as many as 10% of all cases have been pending for a decade or more.    

The accounts of 427 government companies and corporations by the national auditor show that the central government holds equity worth Rs 4,52,908 crore in share capital in FY20, which increased by a marginal Rs 48,485 crore compared to FY19. Outstanding loans disbursed by the central government as of March 31, 2020, amounted to Rs 3,04,899 crore, which increased by Rs 21,683 crore compared to the previous years.  In the larger picture, investments in government companies and corporations increased by Rs 5,45,125 crore or 23.15% to Rs 28,99,833 crore in FY20 compared to Rs 23,54,708 crore in FY19. The cumulative figure of Rs 28,99,833 crore includes equity investments and loans granted by corporations, state governments and financial institutions.  The number of government companies and corporations that earned profit was 224 in 2019-20 as compared to 233 in 2018-19. The profit earned decreased to Rs 1,40,976 crore in 2019-20 from Rs 1,77,758 crore in 2018-19. The Return on Equity (ROE) of 224 CPSEs was 15.31% in 2019-20 as compared to 18.69% of 233 CPSEs in 2018-19. ROE is a financial indicator calculated by dividing net income by shareholders’ funds.   Three sectors, namely, power, petroleum and coal and lignite contributed maximum profits to the central government’s kitty. The three sectors combined earned Rs 95,311 crore accounting for 67.61% of the total profits of government companies.   Defence, coal, atomic energy and space CPSEs earned a net profit of Rs 41,472 crore, which is 29.42% of the total profit of Rs 1,40,976 crore earned by all the 224 profitable companies.

“The suggestion that Adani Global Pte Ltd supplied to TANGEDCO inferior coal, as compared to the quality standards laid down in the tender and PO [purchase order], is incorrect,” the spokesperson said.  “While it is difficult for us to comment on individual cases due to the sheer volume of data and the elapsed time, not to add the contractual and legal obligations, it is important to note that the coal supplied, irrespective of the declaration by the supplier, is tested for quality at the receiving plant,” the company added.

 

Media capture -7

 

7. Media capture:

Across almost every form of media in India – social, broadcast and print – Narendra Modi and the BJP hold sway.  With India amid a national election campaign, its news media is in sharp focus. Until recently it was believed that the sheer diversity of outlets ensured a range of perspectives, but now, India’s mainstream media has largely been co-opted by the BJP. 

The following excerpt, taken from Raju Narisetti’s chapter in “Media Capture: How Money, Digital Platforms, and Governments Control the News,” is one of the first pieces that explains in detail how reliance on advertising is a form of media capture — that is, when business cronies buy and control news outlets in order to further a political and often financial agenda — using the example of India. Media capture is a global problem, but India has a unique problem, which Narisetti explains. Narisetti shows how media reliance on advertising is extremely damaging for independent and investigative journalism. Overall conditions for journalism in India have worsened since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister in 2014. This chapter is part of a collection I edited, where we discuss the many different forms that media capture has taken around the world and the threats that investigative journalists face today. The roots of today’s increasingly captured media in India lie deep and go back a couple of decades to the seemingly innocuous newspaper business practices of India’s largest media company, the Bennett Coleman & Company Ltd. (BCCL), founded in 1838, whose flagship newspapers include the Times of India, the largest-selling newspaper in India, and the Economic Times, the market-leading business newspaper.  Early to recognize the highly value-conscious, middle-class urban Indian household as key to its commercial success, BCCL embarked on a strategy of “invitation price,” offering new newspaper readers a sharply discounted cover price for its newspapers, starting in Delhi in 1994, as part of an ambitious national expansion strategy for its flagship paper, the Times of India.  Today, this permanent “predatory pricing” typically offers an all-color, thirty-six- to forty-eight-page, multi-section, broadsheet daily newspaper for an average cover price of around four and a half rupees (six US cents). When the paper is bundled with a regional language or business newspaper from the same media house (the Times of India is bundled with the Navbharat Times in Hindi or the Economic Times), the combined price rarely exceeds seven rupees or about 10 US cents. This relatively cheap cover price is then significantly discounted for home delivery through multiple “trade schemes,” such as six-month-free deals for renewal, which further reduce the actual cost to the consumer.  Meanwhile, there is a long-standing tradition in Indian households of stacking up daily household newspapers after they are read, which are then bought each month by neighbourhood, door-to-door roving paper recyclers. Newspaper is typically sold for 10 to 12 rupees per kilogram, with a month’s worth of newspaper equivalent to about eight to 10 kilograms in weight. In essence, the household revenue from recycled newspapers in a month more or less covers a hefty portion of the discounted monthly subscription cost of that newspaper, thus making it almost “free” to subscribe to in that household. This explains, to some extent, the many multi-newspaper households in India and the continuing growth in circulation.

  

These days, journalist Siddique Kappan avoids controversial stories.

Last time he chased a major story, a shocking rape-and-murder case, it landed the father of three in jail for more than two years, and severely damaged his career and livelihood. The 44-year-old blames his incarceration on a worsening climate for journalists in India, where arrests and harassment are growing more common.

And he is far from the only journalist feeling squeezed out of their industry during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decade-long rule.

The government of the popular but divisive leader - who has not taken a single solo press conference while in office - stands accused by opponents of suppressing media pluralism and ratcheting up the use of anti-terror legislation against reporters.

And as Modi looks to win another five years in power in an ongoing nationwide election, critics fear further erosion of the protections afforded to India’s free press.  In October 2020, Kappan was working as a freelancer for a Malayalam-language news website. He was on his way to Hathras district, in northern Uttar Pradesh state, to report on the alleged gang rape and killing of a Dalit teenager by upper-caste men. India’s caste system was officially abolished decades ago, but the social hierarchy imposed on people by birth still exists in many aspects of life. Dalits are on the lowest rung.

Before he arrived at the scene, he was taken into police custody, charged under anti-terror and money laundering laws. The police alleged he was part of a conspiracy to disturb the peace in the area, but he said his arrest was an attempt to tamp down on coverage of the story.

He would spend 28 months in jail. Kappan was granted bail by the Supreme Court in February 2023, but while he currently walks free, his case is still making its way through the courts.  pposing his bail, the Uttar Pradesh government, led by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court. In the document, seen by CNN, it argued against bail on the grounds Kappan had been “writing articles targeted at spreading communal tensions” and was a part of a larger conspiracy to “foment religious discord and spread terror in the country.”

CNN has contacted the BJP at both the local and national level for comment on the case.  Since his bail, Kappan has struggled to find a permanent job to provide for his family. “The main reason is the fear of newspaper bosses, the media, which depends on government advertisement, who do not want to upset the government,” he told CNN.  He says he is wary of more cases being brought against him, and finds himself working on “safe zone” stories unlikely to ruffle feathers.  The treatment of journalists like Kappan has struck fear into many other reporters.  “There was nothing Kappan could have done differently to avoid arrest, except not going to report,” said Kaushik Raj, who works with several publications and writes on hate crimes. “This was chilling for me.”  India is one of the largest media markets in the world, according to the Paris-based group Reporters Without Borders (RSF), with more than 20,000 daily newspapers across the country and about 450 privately owned channels dedicated to news, which broadcast in dozens of languages.  Yet despite its size and diversity, critics say the media industry is growing increasingly subservient to Modi’s government.

here has been an enslavement of certain sections of the media which simply choke on any criticism no matter how innocuous of the prime minister and the BJP president. If a channel is less than pliant, it is blacked out for 24 hours, its premises are raided, or the offending journalists are mysteriously made to go on sabbatical or removed outright.  

Media capture in India refers to the undue influence or control exerted over media institutions by powerful interests, which often leads to biased reporting, censorship, and erosion of journalistic independence. This phenomenon, though not unique to India, has become a matter of significant concern in recent years as media capture can undermine democratic principles by restricting the free flow of information and limiting diverse viewpoints. Here’s a breakdown of how media capture manifests in India and its implications: 

 1. Corporate Ownership and Influence

   - Consolidation of Ownership: In India, a handful of large corporations own a significant portion of the media landscape, including television channels, newspapers, and digital outlets. This concentration of ownership limits the diversity of viewpoints and increases susceptibility to biases, as owners often have vested interests aligned with political or economic agendas.

   - Cross-Ownership: Some media conglomerates also own businesses in other sectors, such as real estate, energy, and telecommunications, creating conflicts of interest. These companies may avoid reporting on issues that could negatively impact their non-media interests.

- Advertising Dependence: Media outlets rely heavily on advertising revenue, a large portion of which comes from corporate advertisers and the government. This reliance can lead to favorable coverage for advertisers or self-censorship to avoid losing revenue. 

 2. Political Influence and Censorship

   - Direct Ownership and Control: Politicians or political affiliates directly owning media outlets is a common practice in India. Such control allows political figures to shape narratives, influence public opinion, and suppress unfavorable news.

   - Government Pressure: The Indian government, through its advertising budget, exerts substantial influence over the media. The government is one of the largest advertisers in India, and media outlets that are critical of government policies may face a reduction in advertising revenue or other retaliatory measures.

   - Legal Tools for Suppression: Laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), sedition laws, and defamation charges have been used to target journalists and news organizations critical of the government, fostering a culture of fear and self-censorship. 

 3. Editorial Bias and Agenda-Driven Journalism

   - Lack of Editorial Independence: Journalists and editors often face pressure from media owners or external forces to align coverage with specific political or ideological leanings. This lack of independence results in selective reporting and a narrowed range of perspectives.

   - Sensationalism and TRP-Driven Content: The competition for Television Rating Points (TRPs) incentivizes sensationalism over serious journalism. Issues of national importance may be sidelined in favor of sensational stories that are more likely to attract viewers, often diverting attention from pressing social, economic, and political issues. 

 4. Challenges Faced by Independent Media

   - Limited Reach and Funding: Independent media outlets in India, particularly those operating in digital spaces, often have limited reach compared to mainstream media. They also struggle with funding, as advertisers may shy away from associating with platforms that produce critical or investigative content.

   - Harassment and Intimidation: Journalists and editors working with independent media frequently face harassment, including online abuse, threats, and even legal cases aimed at stifling critical reporting. This makes it increasingly difficult for independent outlets to operate freely and objectively. 

 5. Digital Media and Social Media Manipulation

   - Astroturfing and Disinformation: Social media platforms in India are often used to disseminate false information or amplify certain narratives favorable to specific political groups. Organized campaigns may involve "troll armies" or bots spreading disinformation, drowning out genuine voices and creating a skewed public perception.

   - Government Regulations on Digital Media: New rules under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, have expanded government oversight over digital news platforms and social media. These regulations have raised concerns over privacy, editorial independence, and the potential for excessive government control over digital news content. 

 Implications of Media Capture on Democracy in India

The rise of media capture in India poses risks to democratic processes and informed citizenry. With fewer avenues for unbiased information, citizens may receive a distorted view of reality, which can weaken democratic discourse, civic engagement, and accountability. This media environment can also exacerbate social divides by promoting certain narratives and silencing others, which can polarize public opinion and fuel mistrust. 

 Possible Solutions and Reforms

   - Promoting Independent and Public Interest Journalism: Supporting independent media through public donations, grants, and international collaborations can help counterbalance the influence of large conglomerates.

   - Strengthening Regulatory Frameworks: Independent and transparent regulatory bodies could play a role in preventing monopolistic practices in media ownership and ensuring editorial independence.

   - Media Literacy and Awareness: Educating the public about media bias, disinformation, and the importance of diverse viewpoints can empower citizens to critically analyze media content and seek out unbiased information. 

In sum, media capture in India threatens the objectivity of news reporting, the diversity of voices in the public sphere, and the democratic principles of transparency and accountability. Addressing it will require systemic changes and a commitment to preserving a free and independent press.

==

8. Weakening of institutions & profiteering Organization: 

The parliament is an inconvenience to this government which prefers to rule by fiat and ordinances. The prime minister rarely attends parliament, and when he does it is more to give electoral speeches than to lay out a legislative agenda or answer questions raised on the floor of the House. The promised Lokpal is so artfully forgotten that an irate Supreme Court has to direct action. An audacious chief minister promptly upon assuming office withdraws all criminal cases against himself and no one blinks. Electoral transparency is promised while bringing in unaccounted funding through regressive and opaque electoral bonds. The CBI is in the throes of a battle for credibility. The list goes on.

 

 

Rafale deal - 6

 

Rafale deal :

In April 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced that India will buy 36 French-manufactured Rafale fighter jets off-the-shelf  from Dassault, the French aircraft builder and integrator. The Rafale was chosen in 2012 over rival offers from the United States, Europe and Russia. The step was needed to upgrade India's ageing fleet. The original plan was that India would buy 18 off-the-shelf jets from France's Dassault Aviation, with 108 others being assembled in India by the state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Limited or HAL in Bengaluru.

The Modi-led BJP government, however, rowed back from the commitment of the last UPA government to buy 126 Rafales, saying the twin-engined planes would be too expensive and the deal fell through after nearly decade-long negotiations between India and France. There were a lot of hiccups over costs of the aircraft. However, faced with the dipping number of fighters and a pressing need to upgrade the Indian Air Force, Prime Minister Narendra Modi intervened and decided to buy 36 "ready-to-fly" fighters instead of trying to acquire technology from Dassault and make it in India.

Soon after the deal was declared, the Congress accused the ruling BJP of non-transparency in the multi-billion dollar deal and called it "one of the biggest failures" of the 'Make-in-India' programme.

In January 2016, India confirmed order of 36 Rafale jets in defence deal with France and under this deal, Dassault and its main partners - engine-maker Safran and electronic systems-maker Thales - will share some technology with DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation) and some private sector companies and HAL under the offsets clause.

The twin-engine Rafale combat jet is designed from the beginning as a multi-role fighter for air-to-air and air-to-ground attack is nuclear-capable and its on-board Electronic Warfare (EW) systems can also perform reconnaissance and radar jamming roles.

Nearly one- and-half years after Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the proposal during a visit to Paris, finally in September 2016, India signed an inter-governmental agreement with France, dubbed as "Rafale deal", in which India will pay about Rs. 58,000 crore or 7.8 billion Euros for 36 off-the-shelf Dassault Rafale twin-engine fighters. About 15 per cent of this cost is being paid in advance. As per the deal, India will also get spares and weaponry, including the Meteor missile, considered among the most advanced in the world.

Additionally, an accompanying offset clause was sealed through which France will invest 30 per cent of the 7.8 billion Euros in India's military aeronautics-related research programmes and 20 per cent into local production of Rafale components. In November 2016, however, a political warfare over the Rafale deal began and the Congress accused the government of causing "insurmountable loss" of taxpayers' money by signing the deal worth ₹ 58,000 crores. It also claimed that the Anil Ambani-led Reliance Defence Limited had been unfairly picked to be the French firm's Indian partner. The Congress alleged that the cost of each aircraft is three times more than what the previous UPA had negotiated with France in 2012.The claims were rebutted by Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Anil Ambani-led Reliance Defence Limited with the government saying that the renegotiated deal was transparent and better than the deal negotiated by the previous UPA government as it includes a superior weapons package and logistical support, which had been absent in the previous one. Reliance Defence had also said that its subsidiary Reliance Aerostructure and Dassault Aviation formed a joint venture - Dassault Reliance Aerospace, after a bilateral agreement between two private companies and "the Indian government has no role to play in this."The Congress, however, kept up its attacks on the government for refusing to table details of the  Rafale deal over alleged irregularities. The Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told the Parliament earlier this week that the details of the deal with France for the Rafale fighter jets cannot be disclosed as per the inter-governmental agreement as it is "classified information". Officials say that due to national security reasons, there is a confidentiality clause in the Rafale deal which bars the buyer and seller from talking about the pricing, making it impossible for any government to reveal any detail about the defence deals. In a counter-attack to the Congress, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley accused the party of "seriously compromising" country's security by seeking details of weaponry purchased along with the aircraft. He also advised Congress chief Rahul Gandhi to "learn" from former Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee "lessons on national security".

The Supreme Court refused to go back on its December 14, 2018 order, rejecting a probe into the controversial Rafale deal.  The Supreme Court decided against the plea for investigation in the the case and given a clean chit to the ruling Government, which many people criticized to be fraud. 

Former ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie through activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, had alleged that the government had pulled the plug on a 2001 deal to buy 126 jets at a lower price only to conclude a fresh deal in 2015 to buy 36 jets at a higher price.

The deal was initially estimated to be worth Rs 54,000 crore. NDA government has insisted that it got significantly better terms than those quoted in the original bid under UPA, with a total reported saving of more than 1600 million Euros (350 million Euros on the cost of aircraft with a further reported saving on weapons, allied maintenance and training package amounting to a around 1300 million Euros or Rs 12,600 crores). However, a cost breakdown of Rafale in the original bid under UPA and in the 36 aircraft in the government-to-government deal under NDA are not in the public domain.

The Supreme Court refused to go back on its December 14, 2018 order, rejecting a probe into the controversial Rafale deal.  Former ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie through activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, had alleged that the government had pulled the plug on a 2001 deal to buy 126 jets at a lower price only to conclude a fresh deal in 2015 to buy 36 jets at a higher price.

Many international aviation manufactures expressed interest when they got know about the Indian government's plan to revamp its IAF fleet by introducing Multi-Role Combat Aircrafts.

IAF conducted technical and flight evaluations and in 2011, declared that Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon had met its criteria. Rafale was declared L-1 bidder in 2012 and contract negotiations began with its manufacturer, Dassault Aviation, that year. Contract negotiations remained incomplete even after 2 years, in 2014 due to a lack of agreement on various terms of RFP compliance and cost related issues. There was no deal under the UPA Government.  Transfer of Technology remained the primary issue of concern between the two sides. Dassault Aviation was also not willing to take the responsibility of quality control of production of 108 aircraft in India. While Dassault provisioned for 3 crore man hours for production of the aircraft in India, HAL's estimate was nearly 3 times higher, escalating costs manifold.