Pahalgam Tragedy
Voices of Dissent: Paying the Price of Demanding Accountability in Times of Grief
In the wake of the tragic terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, a disturbing pattern is emerging—not just in the streets or along the borders, but in India’s courtrooms, police stations, and digital spaces. Rather than confronting the root causes of extremism or addressing lapses in security, the state has turned its gaze inward, cracking down on those who dare to speak truth to power, and demand accountability for their “lapses”. Artist Neha Singh Rathore, known for her bold Bhojpuri satire, and feminist academic Dr Madri Kakoti, better known online as Dr Medusa on X (formerly Twitter), now face FIRs for merely expressing their views—criticising the state’s response in light of the Pahalgam terror attack, and questioning the broader culture of impunity. More than anything, both have sharply questioned, in their respective and inimitable styles, government role in (not) responding to intelligence warnings of a possible terror attack.
But they are not alone. In Lucknow, the newsroom of 4 PM, a digital Hindi-language outlet known for its critical reporting on the government, was forcibly taken off YouTube. Its editor, Sanjay Sharma, told Newslaudry that he had been asking government questions regarding national security, especially after the Pahalgam terror attack. Together, these incidents point to a growing climate of fear, where artistic expression, academic freedom, and independent journalism are seen as threats to national order rather than pillars of a healthy democracy.
The cases of Rathore, Kakoti, and 4 PM are not isolated. They are symptoms of a systemic assault on free speech, emboldened by a new legal regime—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—that revives colonial-era sedition in a new, more ambiguous form. This is not just about individual persecution. It is about the shrinking space for dissent in today’s India—and the urgent need to defend it.
‘Sedition’ for singing truths: Folk singer Neha Singh Rathore targeted
In a striking example of the state’s growing hostility towards dissenters and cultural voices that challenge official narratives, Bhojpuri folk singer Neha Singh Rathore has been booked under charges of sedition and digital offences in Uttar Pradesh for her social media posts on the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam. The charges come under Section 152 of the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises acts “endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”, and under various sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The FIR, registered at Hazratganj police station in Lucknow, stems from a complaint by one Abhay Pratap Singh. The complaint claims that Rathore’s posts could provoke communal tensions and alleges that her content is being picked up and circulated by social media handles associated with Pakistani political organisations. That a popular singer known for biting social satire has been accused of jeopardising national unity, based on speculation that Pakistani accounts shared her video, lays bare the sheer fragility of the state’s definition of “security” and “sovereignty”.
What did Rathore say? Legitimate questions, politically inconvenient: As per a report in The Quint, the complaint focuses on three tweets by Rathore and one by an allegedly Pakistan-linked handle that reposted her video. In one tweet, Rathore raised a straightforward question:
“Modi ji was scheduled to visit Jammu on 19 April, but his trip was postponed. Three days later, on 22 April, a terrorist attack took place in Pahalgam, resulting in the death of 27 tourists. On what grounds was Modiji’s Jammu visit postponed? Was there a suspicion of a possible terrorist attack?” (Translated to English)
Another post urged people to question the narrative and look beyond the surface:
“Who could have orchestrated such an attack? Who stands to benefit from it? Think about it, think carefully! Use common sense and tell!”
These are not inflammatory remarks but standard political commentary—critical in tone, but fully within the bounds of democratic discourse. Yet, they have been construed as seditious, dangerous, and anti-national.
The FIR also references a tweet by a Pakistani handle—believed to be affiliated with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party—which reposted a video of Rathore where she called the Pahalgam incident “a failure of intelligence and security under the current administration” and alluded to similar historical instances where terror attacks were politically leveraged during elections.
The criminalisation of political dissent: The legal and political implications of this FIR are significant. Section 152 of the BNS, which replaces the colonial-era sedition law under the Indian Penal Code, was touted by the Union government as a modernised, rights-respecting alternative. In practice, however, the section is proving to be just as repressive, if not worse. The language of “sovereignty” and “integrity” has once again become a catch-all net to silence dissent, especially in politically sensitive moments like elections.
The FIR represents an increasingly familiar pattern in BJP-ruled states, especially Uttar Pradesh: anyone who challenges the government’s record—whether on security, governance, or civil rights—is branded a threat to national security, slapped with draconian laws, and subjected to relentless digital vilification. That this treatment is being meted out to a folk singer whose platform is built on satire, regional culture, and grassroots issues, shows just how wide the net of repression has been cast.
Neha Singh Rathore hits back: Rathore, undeterred, released a strong video statement on X (formerly Twitter), accusing the state of using legal intimidation to deflect from its failures:
“The government wants to divert attention by filing an FIR against me. This is not so difficult to understand. If you have the guts, go get the heads of those terrorists. Don’t put the blame of your failure on me.”
She further condemned the state’s practice of penalising those who ask questions:
“Their answer to every question is sending a notice, taking away our jobs, filing FIRs, getting us abused, scaring us, and humiliating us. If you call this politics, then what is dictatorship?”
In response to the coordinated outrage from the BJP IT cell, Rathore clarified that she has deep personal ties to the armed forces:
“They’re calling me anti-national because a Pakistani handle copied my video. Fourteen members of my family have served in the Indian Army and paramilitary forces. My brother is fighting Naxalites in Chhattisgarh and my uncle fought in the Kargil war.”
Her response not only highlights the absurdity of the charges against her but also exposes the selective patriotism of those who weaponise nationalism to silence dissent.
A pattern of targeting: This is not Rathore’s first brush with the law. In July 2023, she faced legal action for posting a cartoon on the horrifying Madhya Pradesh urination incident, where a dominant-caste man was seen urinating on a tribal labourer. Earlier in February 2023, she was served a notice by Kanpur Police for allegedly promoting enmity through the second version of her viral song ‘UP Mein Ka Ba’.
Her songs—rooted in Bhojpuri folk tradition—focus on social issues like unemployment, corruption, gender violence, the dowry system, and declining cultural values. Unlike the sanitised and often apolitical mainstream media and music industry, Rathore’s work is a rare voice of resistance, using wit and melody to speak truth to power.
Her 2020 hit ‘Bihar Mein Ka Ba’ and its 2022 counterpart ‘UP Mein Ka Ba’ gained massive traction precisely because they reflected the frustrations of ordinary people under a regime increasingly allergic to criticism.
Free speech or treason? A dangerous precedent: The booking of Neha Singh Rathore should worry anyone who values free speech, artistic expression, and the right to question authority. It illustrates how the new legal architecture under the BNS is no less authoritarian than the old colonial codes it claims to replace. Vague provisions like Section 152 are now being used not to protect India’s sovereignty, but to shield a powerful ruling party from public scrutiny—especially in moments when its security apparatus appears compromised.
Rather than launching a credible investigation into the Pahalgam attack, the state has found it more convenient to redirect public attention by persecuting artists and intellectuals. By doing so, it reframes criticism as subversion, dissent as sedition, and legitimate questions as threats to national integrity.
Neha Singh Rathore’s case is not an isolated incident—it is a warning. A democracy that cannot tolerate a folk song, a tweet, or a video is no longer secure in its foundations. And when the law is wielded not to protect citizens but to silence them, the real danger to the nation lies not in dissenting voices, but in those who seek to extinguish them.
Targeting the Professor: Dr Medusa booked for ‘sedition’ over social media posts
In a chilling development that underscores the shrinking space for academic and political dissent in India, an FIR has been filed against Dr Madri Kakoti—popularly known as “Dr Medusa” on social media—for posts questioning state actions following the terror attack in Pahalgam. The charges, filed at Hasanganj police station in Lucknow, include sedition-like provisions under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as well as offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Dr Kakoti, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics at Lucknow University and a widely followed political commentator online, is accused of posts that allegedly threaten India’s “unity, integrity and sovereignty.” The complaint, filed by Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) leader Jatin Shukla, claims she routinely uses terms such as “saffron terrorists” and that her remarks are being picked up by Pakistani social media handles like @PTI_Promotion—ironically the same handle cited in the FIR against singer Neha Singh Rathore earlier.
The posts that sparked the storm: Dr Kakoti’s recent posts have focused on the alleged atrocities committed against Kashmiris in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, and she has openly demanded the resignation of Home Minister Amit Shah for what she describes as an “unforgivable failure” of national security. Her posts include commentary on state excesses in Kashmir, communal impunity, and the co-option of terrorism for electoral benefit.
While her critique is deeply political and sharply worded, it falls squarely within the realm of democratic free speech and academic independence—particularly in a country where public discourse is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a). Yet, the FIR alleges that her intent is to provoke unrest and “incite riots.” Such extrapolations from political critique to criminal conspiracy reflect an increasingly draconian trend.
Campus protests and disciplinary action: As her posts gained traction, ABVP-led student protests erupted at Lucknow University, demanding her dismissal. Protesters raised slogans, submitted a memorandum to the Vice-Chancellor, and insisted that her remarks were “anti-national.” Under pressure, the University issued Dr Kakoti a show-cause notice, as per the report of Moneycontrol.com, demanding an explanation within five days and threatening disciplinary action.
This targeting of a university professor, using student mobilisation and administrative pressure, is a playbook that has become disturbingly common. Whether in the case of Delhi University’s Dr GN Saibaba, JNU’s Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, or now Dr Kakoti, universities are being turned into battlegrounds for ideological policing.
As per Times of India, Dr Kakoti, originally from Assam and known for her pointed satire and critique of majoritarian politics, responded to the outrage by stating that “What I said is a fact and 100% correct. There is nothing wrong in this statement. It is a general one, listing crimes which fall within the definition of causing ‘terror’. I can’t really take any responsibility for someone thinking it is about them.”
Weaponising patriotism, silencing dissent: The FIR and the university’s swift disciplinary response are indicative of a deeper rot: the weaponisation of nationalism to criminalise critique, especially from voices seen as Left-leaning, secular, or resistant to the Sangh Parivar’s ideological worldview. ABVP leader Shukla told Newslaundry: “People from Leftist ideology are working to divide society and the students. They are making this issue political, when there is a situation of war between India and Pakistan and your ideology wants to create a civil war in the country itself.”
This framing—conflating dissent with disloyalty, criticism with conspiracy—is emblematic of an authoritarian approach to governance. By invoking an external enemy (Pakistan) and branding all domestic critics as internal threats, the state and its allied organisations seek to delegitimise political opposition altogether.
While the colonial-era sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has been suspended pending Supreme Court review, its spirit has found a new home in Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—a catch-all provision criminalising any act seen as “endangering India’s sovereignty, unity or integrity.”
Both Dr Medusa and Neha Singh Rathore have been booked under this vague and sweeping section. That their posts were allegedly shared by a Pakistani social media handle has been used to bolster charges of sedition—a dubious logic that essentially gives foreign propaganda the power to criminalise Indian citizens.
Silencing dissent: Blocking 4PM news channel on YouTube over ‘national security’ concerns
In a fresh blow to press freedom and digital journalism in India, the YouTube news channel 4PM has been blocked in the country following a government order citing concerns related to “national security or public order.” The move, which lacks transparency and a clear public justification, marks yet another instance of the state using opaque mechanisms to silence critical voices in the media space—particularly those asking uncomfortable questions.
The ban, communicated to the channel’s editor-in-chief Sanjay Sharma via email from YouTube on Tuesday morning as per Newslaundry, comes shortly after 4PM published a series of videos critically analysing the government’s handling of the Pahalgam terror attack. Sharma, a veteran journalist, has stated that the channel’s intention was not to undermine national interest but to hold the government accountable in a democratic manner.
Coverage that asked tough questions: Although the exact video or post that led to the blocking remains unspecified, the report of Newslaundry provided that 4PM had recently uploaded content with headlines such as:
- “Pahalgam hamle ka khul gaya raaz. Raaton raat kya hua ki hat gayi sena?”
- “Laal kaaleen par Amit Shah ka swaagat. Mritakon ko shraddhanjali dene gaye the ya tamasha banaane?”
These pointed headlines reflect the channel’s critical editorial line: questioning the sudden security lapses in Pahalgam, the removal of troops before the attack, and the political spectacle surrounding Home Minister Amit Shah’s visit to pay tributes to the victims.
Rather than engage with these questions, the government has seemingly opted for the digital equivalent of a blackout. At the time of writing, visitors to 4PM’s YouTube page are met with a notice that reads:
“This content is currently unavailable in this country because of an order from the government related to national security or public order.”
Opaque process, no due process: The removal of 4PM comes under the ambit of Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which allows the central government to issue blocking orders in “emergency” situations without providing the affected parties an opportunity to be heard beforehand. While the rules allow for post-facto hearings, critics argue this is largely a formality—especially when platforms comply without questioning or publicising the takedown.
No formal notice from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has been made public. The lack of transparency, both from the government and from YouTube, raises serious concerns about the misuse of national security as a blanket justification to suppress journalism that challenges the ruling dispensation.
A pattern of digital censorship: This is not an isolated incident. Over the past few years, India has seen a sharp rise in the blocking of YouTube channels, Twitter accounts, and news content critical of the central government, especially during sensitive moments such as the farmers’ protests, the Delhi riots, and the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir. Often, the reasoning given involves “public order” or “national interest”—but without explanation or recourse.
According to the Google Transparency Report of 2023, India has been among the top five countries in the world for government content takedown requests, with hundreds of URLs blocked citing national security. , these incidents signal a coordinated suppression of dissent in the digital sphere, particularly when it arises from independent or alternative media sources.
Democracy and the “Right to Know” at stake: 4PM is not a major corporate media house but a regional digital-first outlet with multiple sub-channels such as 4PM UP and 4PM Rajasthan. Its success lies in its direct communication with ordinary citizens, often bypassing mainstream narratives to highlight local grievances, administrative lapses, and political controversies. In doing so, it fulfils the media’s constitutional role of holding power to account.
By labelling such journalism as a threat to national security, the government not only criminalises scrutiny but also undermines the public’s right to information—a right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Conclusion: Policing speech, protecting power
The FIRs against Neha Singh Rathore and Dr Madri Kakoti, alongside the silencing of 4 PM, are not aberrations—they are part of a broader architecture of repression where dissent is equated with disloyalty, and grief is permitted only if it conforms to the state’s narrative. These actions came in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack, a horrifying incident that claimed the lives of Indian soldiers and civilians. In moments like these, public mourning must be accompanied by public inquiry. People must be allowed to ask: How did such a breach happen in a heavily militarised zone? Were there lapses in intelligence? What accountability mechanisms are in place?
Instead of facilitating such democratic introspection, the state has chosen to clamp down on voices that seek it. Rathore’s Bhojpuri poem and Kakoti’s social media post did what responsible citizens should do in a constitutional democracy—they questioned state preparedness and response. Their criminalisation reveals a dangerous tendency: the shifting of focus from state failures to citizen ‘offences’.
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, with its vague and expansive clauses like Section 152, the state is increasingly equipped to prosecute dissent under the guise of protecting sovereignty. But as history shows, suppressing uncomfortable questions in the name of national security rarely leads to genuine safety—it leads to silence, impunity, and a brittle nationalism that cannot withstand scrutiny.
To defend freedom of expression today is to defend the right to grieve publicly, to question fearlessly, and to demand accountability relentlessly. The real threat to the republic is not a poem or a post—it is a government that treats questions as threats and critics as criminals. The price of dissent is rising—but so too is the cost of silence. And in the face of terror, it is not silence but scrutiny that keeps a democracy alive.
Courtesy: Sabrang India
Pahalgam: Tripura Police Face Allegations of Bias Amid Arrests for Social Media Posts
Agartala: Some recent arrests made by the police in Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled Tripura have raised a cloud over the alleged bias displayed by the law-enforcement agency in the North-eastern state.
The proceedings for these arrests, six in total, including three retired teachers and a government employee, for various social media posts—ranging from questioning government failures to allegedly defaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi-- in the context of the Pahalgam terror attack in Kashmir were made in quick moves, while no strict and concrete actions have been taken against those openly calling for violence against minorities, secular persons, and Opposition party members, is the allegation against the police and their policies.
The recent arrests reportedly came after some 'Hindu activists', identifying themselves as 'sanatanis', marched the streets or lodged police complaints, even branding the accused as “communists and anti-nationals”. They reportedly also unleashed a campaign for these arrests through online posts.
Among those arrested are:
Jahar Debnath, a retired teacher from Ambassa in the Dhalai district in Tripura, who is alleged to have questioned the “perceived silence of Hindu deities during the killing of Hindus in Pahalgam” in a social media post. In another post, he demanded punishment for supporters of the Pahalgam attackers: “Those who support the brutality of Pahalgam should be hanged publicly.” Before his arrest, Debnath could issue a statement saying: “If any of my posts hurt anyone, I apologize (in the context of questioning ‘silence’).”
Kuldip Mondol, a Students Federation of India (SFI) leader, from the same locality, was arrested for “supporting Debnath” and “expressing similar views”. Both were labelled as “communist” and “anti-national” by so-called 'sanatanis'.
Debnath and Mandal have been charged under stringent Sections 152 and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and others. Section 152 criminalises inciting secession or rebellion against India, punishable by life imprisonment. Section 299 punishes deliberate insults to religious feelings, carrying up to three years' imprisonment or a fine. Both are under five days of judicial custody.
Sajal Chakraborty, a retired teacher from a northern Tripura sub-division, Dharmanagar, is said to have questioned intelligence failure in a social media post, suggesting similarities of Pahalgam with the Pulwama attack and its possible electoral implications. He demanded the resignation of Home Minister Amit Shah for the “lapses”. In a comment on someone else’s post, he also suggested that with elections due in Uttar Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal and Kerala, such an incident appeared “an attempt to gather support”.
Chakraborty has been charged under BNS Sections of 196, 352 and 353, for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony. Section 196 criminalises actions or speech that incite hatred or disharmony between communities. Section 353 addresses statements or information that could lead to public mischief, fear, or harm, particularly when they incite hatred or enmity between different groups. Section 352 addresses the offense of intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of peace. It penalizes individuals who deliberately insult others, knowing or intending that their actions will incite a person to disturb public order or commit a crime.
Prabir Chaudhuri, another retired teacher from Dharmanagar, was arrested in follow-up action after a group of BJP kariyakartas complained against him a day after Chakraborty's arrest, for commenting “right” etc., on a post by Chakraborty.
Mansoor Ali, a government employee in the state fire department, was arrested by the Dharmanagar police for posting images “defaming PM Modi, HM Amit Shah, and Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma.”
In all the cases, certain saffron brigade or BJP leaders are said to have filed cases or complaints.
Jahirul Islam from Sonamura, a religious minority-predominated sub-division in the Western Tripura, was arrested for a social media post for allegedly issuing a warning of violence against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. He has been granted bail.
The R K Pur police of the Gomati district arrested one Sadek Miah at his home from another district in an 'wee hours operation' for allegedly posting defaming content against the Prime Minister, said an police officer adding that there is another accused of the same kind, and the youths might have been misguided.
The arrests come in the backdrop of members of some saffron-aligned groups openly spreading hate against a religious minority community. For instance, Tripura Yuba Morcha (a ruling BJP affiliate) state spokesperson Amlan Mukherjee, in his posts, has labelled members of the religious minority community as “terrorists”. He has allegedly called upon 'Bengali Hindus' to stop donating blood (for patients), and vowed not to donate blood to ‘*****’. In another post, the BJP youth leader has even reportedly made derogatory remarks “connecting the birth of ‘secular Left and Congress’ activists”. Mimicking the colonial British paraphrase of “Dogs and Indians…”, he has displayed a poster on his Facebook page, “Dogs and ****** are not allowed.”
It may be mentioned that BJP is in alliance with two Scheduled Tribe- based parties, IPFT and Tipra Motha, and has been running the state government.
In contrast to the arrests, questions are being raised as to why the police are yet to take firm action against those spreading hate against the minority community and attempting to promote enmity among different communities via social media posts and videos. For instance, a purported video circulating on social media openly threatens gory physical violence against Muslims and secular voices, posted by one Chandan Debnath of Belonia in South Tripura.
In the wee hours, the police reportedly took Debnath to the police station and released him on a personal bond. This reporter spoke to the OC, who said they prosecuted him under BNSS 126 and BNSS 129. Several lawyers, who have been watching these proceedings, opining to the action that came after days from postings of the alleged video, commented, " Too little" and "Too late".
The retired teachers or a youth, who raised questions, and demanded the Home Minister's resignation for “lapses” or saw the possibility of national tragedies turning into electoral gains, are being prosecuted in almost a lightning speed.
Those lawyers pointed, " Jahar Debnath, Kuldip Mondol were arrested within 24-hours after they wrote those posts, and under stringent sections, while Chandan Debnath got a walk-in and go home chance."
No action has also been taken against several persons affiliated with Sangh outfits, such as one Pranab Das, a teacher from Sabroom, a southern sub-division, who called for violence against minorities as well as “Secular Hindus, Congress, Trinamool and CPI(M)” in a social median post.
“No ****** can live in our Tripura and India. If you see any ****** kill them and also kill Secular Hindus, Congress, Trinamool and CPI (M),” he reportedly wrote.
The crackdown drive by Tripura Police seems to have mainly focused on those questioning the State’s failures, crticising BJP leaders, or religious narratives disliked by the saffron brigade. BJP youth leader Mukherjee’s communal posts continue without facing any legal action.
A right wing group at the Gomati district headquarters had been staging demonstrations from the morning blocking a highway bridge demanding the arrest of a youth who, according to them, made inappropriate remarks against a deity. They chanted slogans like, "We will peel off skin," and, "Wherever he is on this planet, he should be arrested." However, there have also been alleged derogatory remarks against other religious figure.The police gave them an undertaking to arrest the accused in a time bound manner by completing tasks of deporting him from abroad!
A section of people perceived to be from the intellectual class, such as physicians and journalists, are also highly active in hate-mongering.
The complaint leading to the arrest of Jahar Debnath and Kuldip Mandal was filed by Parashar Biswas, a local press reporter. Ironically, Biswas himself had recently posted inflammatory content suggesting that “tip-clipped” (circumcised?) people from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and 'here' should be killed. No police action has been taken against him either.
An influential leader of government doctors in Tripura, Dr. Ajoy Biswas, mocked 'Bapu' in a post, writing: "If Bapu were alive today, he would have gone on a hunger strike unto death, for stopping the water supply to Pakistan."
In a separate post on April 20, Dr. Biswas wrote: "Hindus do not block roads because they respect the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not respect Hindus because they do not block roads."
Both the journalist and the doctor are evidently aligned with the saffron ideology.
These are only a few instances amid the flood of posts and comments in social media after the Pahalgam terror incident. But, targeting secular and liberal persons seems to have become ‘normal’ in the state.
Two days ago, two CPI(M) party offices, in Dharmanagar and Dukli, were attacked, including the personal car of a state-level Left leader. A district-level Left leader Haridhan Debnath is recuperating in hospital after being allegedly attacked.
According to political observers, the crackdown on social media posts appears to have been triggered by the demands made by certain saffron groups, and silence on or absence of actions to hate-speech targeting seculars, minorities stand in sharp contrast to Prime Minister Modi’s statements: “We are secular not because the word was added in our Constitution. Secularism is in our blood. We believe in Sarva Pantha Sambhava.” He tweeted these in 2014.
Meanwhile, CPI(M)’s Jitendra Chowdhury, who is Leader of Opposition in the Tripura Assembly, has reacted sharply to the recent events in the state.
"This is not the time for allegations and counter-allegations. It is a time of crisis when the whole nation must unite to fight terrorism, whether it is outside or inside the country, this is not the time for mudslinging. Unfortunately, I am seeing that ruling party workers and supporters are directly inciting violence.”
Chowdhury cited a teacher from Manubazar “openly saying that Muslims should not be allowed to stay in India and that CPI(M), Congress, and secularists should be attacked. Where are the police? Where is the cyber cell? Sadly, a retired teacher and a youth have been arrested in Ambassa for peaceful calls to unite people against terrorism. It is not a crime to call for peace. Why is there no action against ruling party leaders giving threats on social media?”
The CPI(M) leader urged the Chief Minister and DGP: “Please remember that the administration has no political party. If the administration acts with one eye closed, terrorists will be encouraged. This is not the right way to fight terrorism. Those writing such things on social media must refrain. The unity of the people of India is essential."
Despite repeated attempts by this reporter, police authorities did not respond to queries. Messages and emails to IGP (Law and Order) Manchak Ippar and SP (Police Control) Ranadhir Debbarma remained unanswered. Only AIGP (Law and Order) Ananta Das responded, stating that he was on leave and could not comment, and advised contacting Debbarma, who is in-charge—but those attempts too yielded no response. Other police sources were tight-lipped when asked how the police were viewing the matter overall, including social media comments and counter-comments related to the Pahalgam incident. Some of the queries were: How many people have been arrested in total? Names and details? Exactly what charges have been filed against them, and under which sections? Regarding the posts that led to their arrests, what exactly was written? Some alleged obscene remarks about ‘Tripureshwari’ have circulated on social media, though the person in question posted an apology—has he been arrested? Also, a post demanding this person be 'sacrificed' has surfaced. A seemingly retaliatory post to his contains alleged derogatory remarks about another religious entity. Has any action been taken in these cases? Posts advocating violence against a particular community, Opposition party members, and secularists have appeared. Has any action been taken in these contexts? If not, surely there must be some reasons. What are those reasons? However, no response has been received from any officer, even after a considerable time has elapsed.
Meanwhile, the Tripura Police has issued a warning against forwarding communal content—similar to statements made during the 2018 mob lynching spree, which resulted in few or no concrete actions.
Also, the Chief Minister convened a meeting with the SPs and DMs, reportedly to identify foreigners staying in the state illegally. No Pakistanis have been found in the state so far, claimed a source.
The writer is a freelancer based in Tripura. The views are personal.
