SAVE OUR SEAFARERS

Helplines buzz with alerts from seafarers trapped in Middle East war

One email came from a seafarer asking to confirm whether his salary would go from $16 a day to $32 because he was in a designated war zone.

AFP Published March 29, 2026 

This photo, released by the Royal Thai Navy, shows smoke rising from the Thai bulk carrier ‘Mayuree Naree’ near the Strait of Hormuz after an attack on March 11. — AFP/File

Seafarers’ helplines say they are overwhelmed with messages from crews stuck in the Gulf by the Middle East war, desperately seeking repatriation, compensation and onboard supplies.

“Writing to urgently inform you that our vessel is currently facing a critical situation regarding provisions and one crew health conditions,” read an email from one seafarer on March 24 to the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF)’s Seafarer Support team.

“Immediate supply of food, drinking water, basic necessities is required to sustain the crew,” said the message to the team’s helpline.

The ITF said it had received more than 1,000 emails and messages from seafarers stuck around the Strait of Hormuz and the wider region since the war erupted with US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28.

Bomb strikes

Some sought to clarify what their rights are while navigating a war zone, while others sent videos of bombings striking next to their ship and asked the federation for help to get off board, according to ITF documents seen by AFP.

“It is an extraordinary situation, there is a lot of panic,” Mohamed Arrachedi, ITF’s Network Coordinator for the Arab World and Iran, in charge of handling requests from seafarers in the region, told AFP, describing the situation as “really shocking”.The Thailand-flagged cargo ship Mayuree Naree engulfed in black smoke in the Strait of Hormuz following an Iranian strike, March 11. via Royal Thai Navy

“I get calls from seafarers at two o’clock, three o’clock in the morning.

They call me the minute they have access to the internet,” Arrachedi said on Wednesday by telephone from Spain.

“One seafarer called in a panic, saying: ‘We are here bombed. We don’t want to die. Please help me, sir. Please get us from here.”

About 20,000 seafarers are currently stuck in the Gulf, according to the UN’s maritime body, known as the IMO, and at least eight seafarers or dock workers have died in incidents in the region since February 28.

All correspondence was shared with AFP on condition of anonymity, as the helpline guarantees confidentiality to seafarers.

War zone rights

The International Bargaining Forum (IBF), a global maritime labour body, has declared the area a war zone.

This normally gives seafarers exceptional rights, including repatriation at the company’s cost and double pay for those working on ships covered by IBF agreements — around 15,000 vessels worldwide, according to the ITF.

Despite this, many seafarers — especially on ships without such labour agreements — are reporting difficulties with getting repatriated.

In one email sent to the ITF on March 18, a seafarer said the ship’s operator was ignoring the crew’s requests to leave, arguing that there were no flights from Iraq and refusing alternative routes.

“They are forcing us to continue to do cargo operations and STS (ship-to-ship operations) even [when] we raise our concerns about our safety, and we are in a war-like area. They are keeping us in a position with no options,” read the email seen by AFP.

The International Seafarers’ Welfare and Assistance Network (ISWAN), another organisation operating a helpline, told AFP on Wednesday that it had seen “a 15-20 per cent increase in calls and messages” since the start of the war, with a third relating to repatriation difficulties.

$16 a day

Another major concern is compensation.

“About 50pc of emails we receive concern pay,” Lucian Craciun, one of five members of ITF’s support team processing requests at the organisation’s headquarters in London, told AFP.A cargo ship in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in the United Arab Emirates on March 11. — Reuters/File

He said many seafarers choose to stay on board despite the dangerous conditions because they cannot afford to leave.

One email seen by AFP came from a seafarer asking to confirm whether his salary would go from $16 a day to $32 because he was in a designated war zone.

The ITF says such low salaries indicate that the shipowners do not have labour agreements in place to ensure decent pay.

Seafarers working under such arrangements are particularly at risk because their contracts often do not cover operations in war zones, and owners tend not to respond to requests from organisations such as the ITF, according to the support team.

When that happens, the ITF reaches out to the flag states and, if that does not work, to the state port authority where the vessel is located.

Arrachedi said that many such cases in the Gulf are still unresolved, with seafarers desperately awaiting responses from operators.

Trump Claims Saudi Crown Prince ‘Kissing MyAss’ as He Praises Arab Allies Over NATO

The Wire Staff
21 hours ago


“He thought it’d be just another American president that was a loser … he didn’t think he’d be kissing my ass,” he said about Mohammed bin Salman.

US President Donald Trump speaks at the Future Investment Initiative in Miami, Florida. Photo: Screenshot from YouTube/The White House.

New Delhi: Claiming that Arab nations were closely working with Washington in the ongoing war against Iran, US President Donald Trump said Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had effectively ended up “kissing my ass”.

Speaking at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Florida, Trump elaborated on that claim by recounting what he said was a conversation with the Saudi royal about the US’s resurgence under his presidency.

“He said, you know, it’s amazing … a year ago, you were a dead country. Now, you’re literally the hottest country anywhere in the world,” Trump said.

Trump then directly linked that assessment to his characterisation of the current dynamic with Riyadh, repeating his claim in full rather than as an aside. “He didn’t think this was going to happen … he didn’t think he’d be kissing my ass … he thought it’d be just another American president that was a loser … but now he has to be nice to me,” he said.

He followed that with praise for the Saudi crown prince, calling him “a fantastic man” and “a warrior”, and saying the kingdom “can be very proud” of his leadership.

Trump said Saudi Arabia had stood with the US during the recent conflict with Iran, along with other Gulf partners. “Saudi Arabia fought, Qatar fought, UAE fought, Bahrain fought and Kuwait fought,” he said, adding that they “were with us … they were with us”.

The remarks come nearly a month into the US-Israel military campaign against Iran, which began on February 28 with large-scale strikes targeting Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure.

Iran immediately expanded the conflict across the region, with Tehran launching missile and drone attacks not only at Israel, but also multiple Gulf countries that host US military assets.

Despite coming under fire, the Gulf states have not formally joined the war as combatants. They have instead remained publicly cautious, concerned about the risks of retaliation and the broader economic fallout, particularly disruptions to energy infrastructure and the Strait of Hormuz.

However, according to some media reports, Gulf countries, especially the UAE and Saudi Arabia, have been egging Trump on to continue the war to decimate Iran’s military capabilities.

Against that backdrop, Trump portrayed them as active partners in the campaign on Friday.

He named Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan alongside the Saudi crown prince, describing them as “three great people” who had been “under tremendous attack” but remained aligned with Washington.

At the same time, Trump contrasted their role with NATO allies, saying, “we’re very disappointed … with NATO. They didn’t come to our aid”, and adding that the Gulf countries had done more “in all fairness … more so than NATO”.

He also linked political alignment to economic ties, pointing to Saudi investment commitments and defence deals, while urging Riyadh to join the Abraham Accords. “It’s now time … we’ve now taken them out … we got to get into the Abraham Accords,” he said.

Closing his remarks, Trump expressed a desire for his legacy to be that of a “great peacemaker”, claiming he has already “settled eight wars” and was the rightful recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize.

He repeated his claim to have intervened to halt a conflict between India and Pakistan. “I even stopped India and Pakistan … they were going at it … I said, if you keep fighting, I’m going to put a 250% tariff on each one … ‘all right, we won’t fight anymore’,” he said.

Peacemaker’s role

Rafia Zakaria 

March 28, 2026 

DAWN

The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.

IT is impossible as a Pakistani not to marvel at this moment. At a time when the world order has been shaken at a speed that challenges belief, Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders have accomplished a remarkable recasting of the country’s role in the world.

In a milieu where everyone is fighting — Iran against the US and Israel, the GCC countries being dragged into the conflict — Pakistan has offered to act as a peace broker. As a first effort, it delivered a 15-point US peace plan to Iran — publicly rejected but said to be still under unofficial review.

Pakistan’s emergence as a potential peacemaker reflects a new vision for its global and regional role — one that has been created by the collective effort of the country’s civilian and military leadership. It deserves to be commended because it reveals a recognition of and capitalising on stark new global realities. The first of these is a worldwide trend towards militarism.

Last year, global military spending reached a record $2.63 trillion, driven largely by Europe, which saw a sharp increase of 21 per cent. This increase is notable because it parallels a recession in the relative influence of international law. In stark terms, it means that countries have assessed the changing global order and decided — at least in monetary terms — to put their faith in weapons.


Pakistan’s role as potential peacemaker is quite a feat.

Central to this has been the reduced influence of transnational institutions like the UN, created to prevent precisely such arms races.

Pakistan is well situated to take advantage of this new trend in the world order. Historically, it has had to rely on militarism to survive in an inhospitable environment. International law, including UN resolutions mandating a Kashmir referendum, has never delivered on promises such as the plebiscite.

Despite Pakistan raising the issue again and again at the UN, little has been achieved over the decades. Indian aggression meant Pakistan had to invest in weapons even as its own population endured huge privations because of massive defence spending.

The twin realities — the failure of transnational institutions to provide security and the necessity of weaponisation — are reflected in Pakistan’s long familiarity with the conundrums confronting the rest of the world. This makes Pakistani diplomats and military leadership uniquely qualified to offer insight in making sense of the world.

Militarism may not be the ideal basis for the governance of any country, but pragmatism dictates its selection when it guarantees survival.

It is no small irony that Pakistan’s role as peacemaker in West Asia rests on its identity as a heavily militarised state. It is impossible not to note that the war on Iran, at least in the American telling, centres on the claim that Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, though internal debates have existed about pursuing such capability. Undoubtedly many in Iran — facing the onslaught of US and Israeli bombing — now wish such capability had been developed as a deterrent.


Then there is the fact that Pakistan — because of its geography and strategic importance — is accustomed to juggling complex relationships with global powers. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, its foreign policy has resembled an acrobat juggling multiple rings of fire. Unlike some other countries, Pakistan maintains close ties with China while also engaging with America.

As it happens, the very complexity of Pakistan’s foreign policy — managing relationships with powers that have divergent interests — has now become its greatest ability.

It is impossible to predict the outcome of the conflict. However, as the past year and the dramatic shifts in the world order suggest, conflict and war will be constant realities of the future. Fundamental questions, whether the petro-dollar will survive, whether the US or China will win the AI race, and what will replace the post-World War II liberal order, will not be resolved quickly.

Pakistan’s emergence as peacemaker rather than pariah state is a remarkable feat of foreign and military policy, one that capitalises on the harsh realities of existence.

The outcome of the ‘mediation’ remains unknown, but positioning itself at the centre of global relevance reflects commendable statecraft and leadership. Whether or not Pakistan is able to assist in resolving this conflict, its emergence as a state that helps rather than hurts the possibility of peace is a significant achievement in itself.


Published in Dawn, March 28th, 2026


Rafia Zakaria is an attorney and human rights activist. She is a columnist for DAWN Pakistan and a regular contributor for Al Jazeera America, Dissent, Guernica and many other publications.
She is the author of The Upstairs Wife: An Intimate History of Pakistan (Beacon Press

 2015).

 

She tweets @rafiazakaria

rafia.zakaria@gmail.com

Will defiant Iran win peace?

Abbas Nasir 

Published March 29, 2026

DAWN

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.


AS missiles, drones and bombs were hitting targets on all sides of the Persian Gulf, news broke of a mediation effort led by Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt that generated a faint hope that at some stage it would result in the cessation of hostilities triggered by the brazen US-Israel attack on Iran and the latter’s retaliatory action.

However, Israel may have extinguished that hope when, in a major escalatory move, it attacked a number of steel and power plants and a nuclear facility in Iran late on Friday. These attacks came despite US President Donald Trump’s declaration that he was extending his earlier five-day deadline to another 10 and refraining from attacking such sites to give negotiations a chance. I doubt Israel would have acted alone.

Iran, which was unequivocal in threatening ‘unprecedented’ retaliation if such sites were hit, responded by issuing a list of similar targets in Israel and in Gulf States which host US bases and troops. Western security sources were expecting significant Iranian retaliation. Do the US and Israel have enough in their armouries to blunt such an assault?


Slowly but surely reports have been appearing in the usually circumspect American media that the missile interceptors of the US, Israel and their allies are running out and also that America’s inventory of Tomahawk cruise missiles is running low as they have so far launched some 800-plus of these weapons on Iran.


Not one of the stated war objectives of the US-Israel combine has been met, particularly not ‘regime change’. Iran is still raining missiles and the Hezbollah and Houthis have also joined the war.

Experts are pointing out that US companies have been asked to ramp up production of all kinds of offensive and defensive missiles but there are two impediments. The first is that they can’t be mass-produced at the drop of a hat; it will be several months, even up to a year, before they start to beef up inventories. And secondly, China owns or controls up to 98 per cent of some of the rare earth materials that are reportedly needed in the guidance and targeting systems of these missiles. It isn’t exporting them currently.

As these lines were being written, one report has suggested that in the latest Iranian missile/drone attack on a US base in Saudi Arabia, one or more E-3 AWACS planes were hit along with some aerial refuelling tankers. The significance of the damage to E-3s is that they were sent to the Middle East after Iran struck various US radars severely limiting the ability to keep an eye on incoming missiles and other projectiles.

The US media has also reported that Iran is able to make operational some of its tunnels within 48 hours of Israel-US bombing to seal off their openings. It uses these to launch missiles and access its stockpiles buried deep underground, often in rocky terrain. Iran may be in severe pain but it has clearly not lost its ability to inflict pain right back.


Meanwhile, not one of the stated war objectives of the US-Israel combine has been met, particularly not ‘regime change.’ Iran is still launching missiles, and its so-called proxies Hezbollah in Lebanon have also joined the fight and the Houthis of Yemen, too, are jumping in.

The despatch of about 10,000 US Marines and servicemen/women has been taken as an indication of some sort of attempt by the US to capture one or more Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf. But military experts argue that any such attempt seems mindless in the face of what they assess are the losses the US will have to take. Perhaps, their ground mission is elsewhere.

It seems Israel’s provocative targeting of key sites in Iran and the latter’s retaliation, some of which has already come and some is feared, may not have derailed the negotiation process. The Pakistan foreign minister is hosting his Turkish, Egyptian and Saudi Arabian counterparts soon. The presence of US and Iranian interlocutors can’t be ruled out, even as it appears unlikely.

The biggest obstacle to any move forward in any peace talks will be Iran’s experience of being attacked while in the midst of negotiations last year and earlier this year. Of course, the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, barring a few carriers Iran has flagged through, will push up energy prices to a level where the damage to the global economy and the markets will be unsustainable.

Trump is a master at double-speak. So, nothing he says can be taken at face value, as Israel demonstrated by violating his 10-day moratorium on striking power plants and other infrastructure.

Rising energy prices and the possibility of further huge damage to the Gulf energy infrastructure may force him to put a leash on Benjamin Netanyahu, the genocidal psychopath at the helm of the apartheid state, who is trampling international law and possibly even reshaping the regional security architecture to the detriment of the US itself.

Much will depend on whether the psycho can be put on a leash or will continue to wag the dog. Equally, peace moves will hinge on who gains the upper hand in the Washington, D.C. split where the vice president and the CIA director are said to favour an end to the war and the secretaries of war and state believed to be firmly in Bibi’s lap.

abbas.nasir@hotmail.com

Published in Dawn, March 29th, 2026

Crisis meeting

Editorial 

Published March 28, 2026

DAWN

WITH a catastrophic war raging on the nation’s borders, it is imperative that the civilian and military leadership continue to consult each other and other stakeholders in order to steer Pakistan through these stormy waters.

On Thursday, with the US-Israeli war on Iran on the agenda, President Asif Zardari chaired a high-level meeting of the nation’s top officials to discuss a way forward. The moot was attended by the prime minister, chief of defence forces, key cabinet ministers and the PPP chief. The meeting stressed the need for “national consensus and public awareness” related to the challenges spawned by the aggression.

As a neighbour of Iran, and located at a stone’s throw from the Gulf, Pakistan is especially vulnerable to the fallout of this conflict, as well as the shockwaves that are shaking the global economy. Of particular concern to those in attendance were Pakistan’s economic and energy security issues. Such consultations should continue, particularly if the conflict drags on.

In fact, parliament should play a more active role, with lawmakers briefed on the evolving situation. In the past, parliamentary consultation has proved successful in shielding the country from geopolitical storms. The Yemen quagmire — in which Arab states wanted Pakistan to participate in the anti-Houthi campaign — is a case in point. The legislature wisely advised against stepping into the Yemeni imbroglio.

In a similar vein, Pakistan should try and avoid being pulled into offensive operations against Iran. Tehran’s attacks on its Gulf neighbours are indeed unwise and complicate matters. But Pakistan cannot afford to get sucked into the Gulf vortex, and risk its fragile internal stability. The Gulf states are Pakistan’s friends and allies, and the country must do all it can to support them; sending surplus food supplies to help them tide over the crisis is one example of what can be done. At the same time, Iran, too, has deep cultural and historical links with this country; getting involved can negatively affect Pakistan’s internal sectarian dynamics.

Therefore, Pakistan should try and stay neutral. The path this country is currently pursuing — trying to find a diplomatic off-ramp — is the best available option. Pakistan is in a unique position; it enjoys a measure of trust with Iran, while its ties with the Arabs, particularly the Saudis and the UAE, are excellent, even though greater clarity is needed on the mutual defence agreement signed with Riyadh last year. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has exhibited a marked liking for Pakistan’s current civil and military leadership.

Pakistan cannot be expected to work miracles to end this brutal conflict. But it can surely act as a facilitator to help all belligerents reach a peaceful and just settlement.

Published in Dawn, March 28th, 2026

A Bitter Irony: 9 Hollywood Films On Slavery, As US Rejects UN Resolution Against Enslavement

As the UN declares transatlantic slave trade the gravest crime against humanity, Hollywood's long reckoning with slavery feels more urgent and more ironic than ever.

Aishani Biswas
Updated on: 28 March 2026 

OUTLOOK INDIA

9 Hollywood Films On Slavery As US Opposes UN Resolution Photo: IMDb



Summary of this article


The UN has formally declared transatlantic slave trade the gravest crime against humanity, but the US voting against the resolution makes Hollywood's long history of confronting slavery feel sharply ironic.


American films have repeatedly returned to slavery not as the past, but as something that still shapes identity, justice and everyday life.


From brutal realism to genre storytelling, these films refuse to soften the history of slavery, forcing audiences to engage with its ongoing impact.


In a move that has sparked global debate, the US has voted against the United Nations General Assembly resolution declaring transatlantic slave trade as the "gravest crime against humanity". Backed by 123 countries and proposed by Ghana, the resolution calls for reparative justice, formal apologies, and a deeper reckoning with a past that continues to shape present inequalities.

When history is capitalised on screen but resisted in politics

The irony is difficult to ignore. The United States, a country whose film industry has repeatedly confronted the brutality of slavery, was among the very few that opposed the resolution, alongside Israel. Several European nations abstained.


Ghana's leadership framed the resolution as a necessary step towards healing, pointing out that the legacy of slavery still manifests in racial disparities today. The resolution may not be legally binding, but politically and morally, it draws a line in the sand: history cannot be softened, delayed, or selectively remembered.


This is where cinema becomes impossible to dismiss. Hollywood and its filmmakers have never treated slavery as distant history, but as a wound that continues to live and breathe. These films do not always get it right, and sometimes they are frustrating, stylised, or even exploitative. But taken together, they form an uneasy archive—one that often shows more willingness to confront the past than the politics of the present.


Here are nine films that engage with American slavery and its aftermath, forcing audiences to sit with what the world is still struggling to formally acknowledge.


1. The Colour Purple (1985 / 2023)

A Still From The Colour Purple 1985 Photo: IMDb


Based on Alice Walker's 1982 novel The Color Purple, the story found its first major screen adaptation in 1985, directed by Steven Spielberg. A new musical version followed in 2023, directed by Blitz Bazawule.


The story itself is not set during slavery, but remains inseparable from its legacy. Generations after emancipation, Black women are still negotiating violence, erasure and survival in a system built on their oppression. What makes The Colour Purple endure is its refusal to reduce suffering to spectacle. It centres interiority, sisterhood and resilience. If slavery was about stripping people of their identity, this film is about reclaiming it, piece by piece.

2. Sinners (2025)

A Still From Sinners Photo: IMDb


Directed by Ryan Coogler, Sinners premiered in 2025 and quickly became more than just another period film. Set against the backdrop of the Jim Crow-era South, it uses horror and music to tap into something deeper about memory and inherited trauma.


The film didn't just land; it stayed. Its run at the 2026 Academy Awards only cemented that, with 4 wins, including Best Actor for Michael B. Jordan and Best Original Screenplay for Coogler. Autumn Durald Arkapaw made history as the first woman and woman of colour in 98 years to win the Oscar for Best Cinematography.


What makes Sinners stand out in this conversation is its refusal to treat the past as contained. Slavery is not presented as history that can be revisited and neatly understood. It lingers, it mutates, it bleeds into the present. And that's exactly what gives the film its weight.


3. Django Unchained (2012)

A Still From Django Unchained Photo: IMDb


Quentin Tarantino’s take on slavery is divisive, and rightly so. It turns unimaginable brutality into a revenge fantasy, stylised and at times almost gleeful.


Yet, dismissing it entirely would be too easy. Django Unchained doesn't present slavery in a strictly realist or historical way. Instead, it uses genre, in this case a stylised revenge Western, to tell the story. The discomfort it creates is part of its point.


Still, it raises a larger question: who gets to tell these stories, and how? Films such as Django Unchained deepen the irony when filmmakers like Tarantino publicly espouse Zionism and their support for Israel during an ongoing genocide in Gaza.


4. 12 Years A Slave (2013)

A Still From 12 Years A Slave Photo: IMDb


Directed by Steve McQueen, this is perhaps the most unflinching depiction of American slavery in modern cinema.


Based on the real story of Solomon Northup, a free Black man kidnapped and sold into slavery, the film refuses any cinematic cushioning. There are no heroic shortcuts, no softened edges. The violence is relentless, but so is the humanity.


It remains essential viewing because it does not let audiences look away.

Outlook Explainer: Why Did The United Nations Call Slavery The Gravest Crime?
BY Mohammad Ali


5. A Time to Kill (1996)

A Still From A Time to Kill Photo: IMDb


This film isn't about slavery in a literal sense, but about everything it left behind.


Set in the American South, this courtroom drama lays bare how deeply racial injustice is still woven into everyday life. The legal system here isn't neutral; it feels loaded, shaped by a history that refuses to loosen its grip.


That's exactly why this film belongs on this list. Slavery didn't simply end; it shifted, reappearing in structures that continue to decide who gets justice and who doesn’t. Few films make that connection between past and present feel this immediate, or this uncomfortable.


6. Roots (1977 / 2016)

A Still From Roots Photo: IMDb


Based on Alex Haley's 1976 book Roots: The Saga of an American Family, this landmark series follows Kunta Kinte, a young man taken from West Africa and enslaved in America, and then traces his descendants across generations, all the way into post-Civil War life.


What gives Roots its weight is that it doesn’t rush through history; it lets you feel how slavery fractures families and erases names. Yet somehow, it cannot fully erase memory. You watch identities being stripped away, but also quietly held on to.


That scale is what makes it so affecting. Slavery here isn't a single story or moment; it's a continuum that reshapes everything it touches, across decades.

7. Emancipation (2022)

A Still From Emancipation Photo: IMDb


Inspired by the photograph of "Whipped Peter", this film follows a man fleeing enslavement through unforgiving terrain.


It leans into survival and endurance, sometimes at the cost of emotional depth. But its central image, the scarred back that became proof of slavery's brutality, remains one of the most haunting visual records in American history. The film reminds us that documentation itself was a form of resistance.

8. Lincoln (2012)

A Still From Lincoln Photo: IMDb

Directed by Steven Spielberg, Lincoln turns its gaze towards the political machinery behind abolition, focusing on the tense final push to pass the Thirteenth Amendment.

It is less concerned with the lived experiences of the enslaved and more with the system that enabled slavery to exist for so long, and what it actually took to begin dismantling it. The film leans into backroom negotiations, fragile alliances and moral bargaining, showing how even something as fundamental as freedom had to be fought for within a deeply resistant structure.

That choice has been criticised, and fairly so, for sidelining Black voices. But it also lays bare an uncomfortable truth: justice, especially at that scale, is rarely clean. It is slow, compromised and often shaped by those in power. What the film leaves you with is a question that still feels relevant: how much should be negotiated in the pursuit of what is right, and who gets to make that call?

9. Sankofa (1993)

A Still From Sankofa Photo: X


Directed by Haile Gerima, Sankofa brings in a perspective that mainstream Hollywood has often overlooked or avoided.


Using a time-travel narrative, it pulls the African diaspora into a direct encounter with slavery, collapsing the distance between past and present. You're not just watching history unfold, you're made to feel its weight, its violence and its emotional cost in a way that’s hard to shake off.


The film is raw, spiritual and unapologetically political. It resists familiar storytelling rhythms and instead leans into something more urgent and personal. Sankofa doesn't just revisit history; it challenges you to reckon with it, especially if you're part of the world that continues to benefit from its aftermath.

Why these films still matter

Here's the thing about cinema. It cannot replace policies and storytelling is not the same as accountability. But when governments hesitate to formally acknowledge the scale of historical injustice, culture often steps in to fill that silence.


These films, across decades and styles, do one thing consistently: they refuse to reduce slavery to a footnote. They insist on its brutality, its complexity and its ongoing impact.

The contradiction remains stark. A country that has produced some of the most powerful cinematic reckonings with slavery is still reluctant, at a political level, to fully endorse that reckoning on the global stage. What this really means is that the work is far from over. Not in politics, not in culture, and certainly not in how history is remembered.

If these films have taught us anything, it is this: forgetting is never neutral.

SMOKERS’ CORNER: GHOSTS ON THE SCREEN

Nadeem F. Paracha 

Published March 29, 2026

DAWN/EOS

Illustration by Abro

On the screen, horrific images of World War II flicker, showing the skeletal figures of Jewish men, women and children in Nazi concentration camps being marched into the horrors of the “Final Solution.”

It is a sombre cinematic and television ritual we have come to expect. Yet, if one observes the scheduling of these screened tragedies, a pattern emerges.

Whenever the state of Israel faces widespread condemnation for its brutal excursions in the Middle East, the Western entertainment industry develops a sudden, renewed obsession with Jewish victimhood during the last world war.

This is what media scholars call “affective management”, a term describing how our emotional responses are curated by those who control the narrative. In 1988, academics Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky examined this as an attempt to mitigate the public relations (PR) disaster of the present with the trauma of the past.

By re-running the tragedy faced by the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis, the Western entertainment industry provides a moral counterweight that often dilutes contemporary criticism of Israeli state violence. The criticism becomes ‘antisemitism’.

In the 1970s and 1980s, as Israel’s image gradually mutated from the ‘underdog’ of 1948 to a regional leviathan, especially following its 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Western airwaves were hit with a wave of Holocaust dramas. The 1978 NBC miniseries Holocaust did not just win Emmys. It reached hundreds of millions of viewers precisely as the international community began to grapple with Israel’s diplomatic isolation at the United Nations (UN).

From acclaimed Holocaust dramas to nationalist blockbusters, the strategic revival of past trauma can influence public perception, shifting attention from present-day violence to the moral weight of historical suffering

When the First Intifada broke out in the occupied territories of Palestine in the late 1980s, during which young Palestinians fought Israeli troops with slingshots, the American broadcasting network ABC responded with the expensive multi-part epic War and Remembrance.

As the world watched nightly news footage of Israeli soldiers using violent tactics against Palestinian stone-throwers, War and Remembrance provided an emotional diversion. It ensured that the image of the Jew as the eternal victim remained the dominant cultural framework, even as the Israeli state was acting as the primary aggressor.

In 1997, media scholar Yosefa Loshitzky noted that the “sacralisation of the Holocaust” provides a moral shield, creating a binary where the memory of a past genocide is used to silence discourse on Israel’s contemporary human rights violations.

Films such as The Zone of Interest (2023), which depicts a troubled German commandant of a concentration camp during World War II, do not simply appear by chance. They are launched with massive fanfare at film festivals, precisely when discourse on apartheid or genocide in the Middle East reaches a boiling point.

In the age of Netflix and streaming, this reflex has become even more frequent. During the recent ‘Gaza War’, in which Israeli forces killed tens — if not hundreds — of thousands of Palestinian men, women and children, and during Israel’s recent attacks on Lebanon and Iran, streaming platforms seemed to have gone into overdrive.

Suddenly, films such as Schindler’s List (1993) and The Pianist (2002), meditations on the horrors of the Holocaust, were pushed to the top of ‘recommended’ lists, while old and new documentaries on World War II appeared to tell the same story repeatedly.

This is what the American literature professor Michael Rothberg, in his book Multidirectional Memory, identifies as “screen memory.” The term describes a historical trauma brought forward specifically to obscure a problematic contemporary reality. Viewers become so preoccupied weeping for the victims of the 1940s that they find themselves with very little emotional bandwidth left for the families currently being pulled from the rubble in Gaza and Iran.

However, this is not exclusively a Western speciality. Bollywood has also mastered this art of cultural deflection. Whenever the Modi government in India faces international heat over its increasingly exclusionary treatment of minorities, the Mumbai dream factory starts to churn out ‘epics’ about internal enemies whose ancestors supposedly sought to destroy Hinduism.

This is the Indian version of “competitive victimhood”, or the act of shouting about the past sufferings of the ‘self’ so loudly that the current suffering of ‘the other’ becomes mere background noise.

For example, 2020’s Tanhaji: The Unsung Warrior reimagined India’s historical Muslim rulers as monstrous invaders while elevating Hindu warriors as the ultimate defenders of Hinduism. Similarly, films such as The Kashmir Files (2022) or Article 370 (2024) framed the Indian state’s military presence in Kashmir not as an occupation but as a moral necessity, to prevent a return of past tragedies that befell Hindus.

In this narrative, the ‘other’ (largely Muslim) is cast as the eternal aggressor. This shift has been described by the US-based academic Nilanjana Bhattacharjya as the “new Bollywood”, where the screen memory of past conflicts is used to displace the immediate reality of contemporary state-led violence.

This trend went into overdrive after the Indian air force suffered major losses against Pakistan in May 2025. This time, instead of resurfacing a past trauma, a past victory from the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war was brought forward to displace the reality of a recent defeat. This year’s Border 2 is an example.

The Turks, under the banner of ‘Neo-Ottomanism’, have followed a similar script. While Ankara’s regional ambitions draw Western criticism, Turkish television has been dominated by historical fantasies such as Dirili: Erturul. Such shows re-imagine the Ottoman past as a period of heroic resistance against the West and internal traitors. As the Germany-based transcultural studies scholar Josh Carney points out, these dramas function as a “moral reset” for the modern state, priming the audience to view Turkiye as a beleaguered fortress defending its sacred heritage.

The early 20th century Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci wrote that dominant groups shape “cultural common sense”, making their version of history the absolute moral benchmark. When the Western entertainment industry consistently rewinds material on the violence against Jews, it establishes a framework where the security of the Jewish state is an ethical necessity that transcends international law.

By flooding the public sphere with historical trauma, the industry effectively moves the focus from the present to the past. The result is a self-reinforcing loop, where the market for historical tragedy becomes most active exactly when that tragedy serves a political purpose.

Across the board, from Hollywood to Mumbai, the industry’s reflex turns complex contemporary human rights issues into a binary struggle of survivors versus villains. It is a potent form of cultural hegemony, ensuring that the ghosts of the past remain more real to us than the dying children of the present.

Published in Dawn, EOS, March 29th, 2026


Nadeem F. Paracha is a researcher and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com. He is also the author of ten books on the social and political history of Pakistan.
He tweets @NadeemfParacha

NYT: Elon Musk Was on Trump-Modi Call on West Asia Crisis; India Says Talks Were Bilateral

The Wire Staff
28/Mar/2026

The New York Times noted that Musk's presence on the call for yet unclear reasons was unusual as he no longer holds an official post. The Indian foreign ministry has said the call was bilateral.

Elon Musk. Photo: Thomas Hawk/Flickr CC BY NC 2.0

New Delhi: Elon Musk, the billionaire businessman who runs Tesla, X and SpaceX, was part of a recent phone call between US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the West Asia crisis, the New York Times reported on Friday (March 27).

Citing US officials, the report said it was not clear why Musk was on the call or whether he spoke. It described his presence as “an unusual appearance by a private citizen on a call between two heads of state during a wartime crisis”.

Neither the US nor Indian side mentioned his presence in their public accounts of the conversation.

When contacted by The Wire, India’s external affairs ministry had initially stated queries should be directed to the US side. The US embassy in New Delhi, when reached, said the matter should be taken up with the White House.

Responding to queries from ANI on the report, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “President Trump has a great relationship with Prime Minister Modi, and this was a productive conversation.”

Later, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal issued a statement. “We have seen the story. The telephone conversation on 24 March was between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump only. As has been stated earlier, it provided the opportunity for exchange of views on the situation in West Asia.”

For example, The call, held on early Tuesday morning as per local Washington DC time, was first flagged by US ambassador to India Sergio Gor, with Modi confirming it soon afterwards in a post on X. There was no statement or readout issued by Trump or the White House about the call.

Modi said he had a “useful exchange of views” with Trump on the situation in West Asia, stressing the need for de-escalation and underlining the importance of keeping the Strait of Hormuz “open, secure and accessible”. He said both sides would remain in touch on efforts aimed at restoring peace and stability.

According to the NYT report, the discussion centred on the fallout from the Iran conflict, particularly disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global energy supplies. The paper noted that the halt to most maritime traffic had “led to surging energy prices worldwide and roiled markets”.

The newspaper also pointed out that Musk does not hold a government position anymore, making his participation striking given that “sensitive matters involving national security are often discussed” in such calls.

It was not clear in the report whether Musk spoke during the conversation or why he was included.

The report added that Musk’s business interests intersect with the issues at hand, pointing to investments from West Asian sovereign wealth funds in his companies and his long-standing interest in expanding commercially in India. It stated that SpaceX has been considering an initial public offering that could be affected by global economic instability.

IRONY

In Nation of  Meat Bans and Lynchings, India's Meat Exports Rose in Last Five Years: Govt Data

The Wire Staff
25/Mar/2026


Growth is driven primarily by buffalo meat exports, which accounts for an overwhelming share of India’s meat export earnings, at consistently around 97 to 98% over the five years.

A meat shop in Bengal's Andal, photographed because it was left open despite a directive from the BJP to keep it shut during Chhath Puja. Photo: Madhu Sudan Chatterjee/The Wire.

New Delhi: In the time that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and its foot-soldiers have harassed, injured and killed citizens over the sale, transportation and consumption of meat, India’s own exports of meat have only grown, an answer given by the government in parliament has revealed.

The government’s data shows India’s meat exports rising from $3.22 billion to $4.16 billion in the last five years.


Communist Party of India (Marxist) member of parliament John Brittas asked the Minister of Commerce and Industry for:

(a) quantum and details of the meat export from India during the last five years, the details thereof, state-wise and category wise;
(b) quantity of beef, buffalo and other categories of meat exported from India during the last five years, the details thereof, year-wise, State wise and category wise; and
(c) details of revenue earned from meat export during the last five years, the details thereof, year-wise, state-wise and category-wise.

In response, junior commerce minister Jitin Prasada said that the government maintains records only of “total meat exports” from India and does not have state-wise details. “The data for State wise exports of Meat is not maintained in absence of validation, as these are based on the basis of the state-of-origin code reported by the exporters in the shipping bills,” he said.

Prasada also claimed that as per Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT)’s Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), “the export of beef (meat of cow, oxen, calf) is prohibited and is not permitted to be exported.”

The government thus provided in its answer the quantity of buffalo and other categories of meat exported from India during the last five years, and year-wise details of revenue earned from meat export during the last five years.



In 2020-21, exports of 10.98 lakh metric tonnes were valued at about US $ 3.22 billion. This increased in 2021–22 to US $ 3.38 billion and about 11.90 lakh tonnes. In 2022-23, while the quantity remained almost similar at around 11.91 lakh tonnes, the export value dipped slightly to US $ 3.27 billion.

A sharp rise was seen in 2023-24, when exports climbed to US $ 3.83 billion and 13.13 lakh tonnes, marking the highest volume in the period. In 2024-25, export value reached its peak at about US $ 4.16 billion, although the quantity declined slightly to around 12.74 lakh tonnes.



From the above two charts, it is clear that India’s meat exports are dominated by buffalo meat, which contributes to the bulk of India’s earnings across five years.

Buffalo meat exports rose from 2020-21, dipped slightly in 2022-23, and then surged to a peak in 2023-24, with export earnings reaching their highest level in 2024–25 despite a drop in quantity.

Growth is driven primarily by buffalo meat exports, which accounts for an overwhelming share of India’s meat export earnings, at consistently around 97 to 98% over the five years.

Sheep/goat and poultry meat exports show growth in both volume and value, though they remain a small share. Processed and other meat categories fluctuate and decline over time, becoming negligible by 2024–25.

This data comes close on the heels of a Scroll.in report on the fact that the 160-year-old Allana group, India’s top exporter of buffalo meat, donated an unprecedented Rs 30 crore to the Bharatiya Janata Party.

This information comes in the background of numerous reports of Bharatiya Janata Party, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal and other Hindutva party workers issuing threats to shut down meat shops ahead of or during any Hindu festivals. Same threats appear from time to time for meat shops close to places of Hindu worship, often from governments.

Instances of Muslim and Dalit meat traders being beaten up or lynched to death by purported cow protectors are by now well known.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for DALIT

Reclaiming Humanity Through Organic Food, Slow Life

At a time when analog is taking over and more are more startups are latching on to the “slowness” trend, these organisations have managed to carve a niche.

Chitrangda Singh
Published at: 7 March 2026

OUTLOOK INDIA


Reclaiming Humanity Through Organic Food, Slow Life


Summary of this article


The Farm, run by Shalini Philip and Arul Futnani, was started to sustain a family dairy farm as Chennai’s urban sprawl grew.


reStore, a non-profit organic shop, connects consumers directly with farmers where everything in this store is sourced directly from organic farmers who set their own prices.


Both initiatives emphasise community and sustainability, reminding consumers that what ought to be is called luxury.



At The Farm restaurant, the serenity is palpable as you walk through its tended garden, complete with a temple complex and a 40-year-old frangipani tree. It settles next to you at your table, under the shade of tall bamboo and leafy trees, or under the large, thatched roof with a view of wood-fired pizza ovens. The farm cats lounge in various corners, and you feel yourself unwind in their image as you settle in for a leisurely meal in a cocoon against the tirade of city life thundering just outside. Time moves slow.



Shalini Philip and Arul Futnani have been running The Farm on the rapidly developing outskirts of Chennai for 17 years and counting. Here, the food you eat still holds the spirit of the earth it was grown in. It is a small part of the thriving dairy farm that they have managed to keep alive amid skyscrapers, technology parks and myriad construction sites, symptomatic of the bleed of a metro city.


They tell me that they started the restaurant in a bid to sustain the family farm as Chennai’s urban sprawl crept closer to their doorstep. Selling produce wouldn’t help them break even on labour and land costs. “We were 100 per cent foolish. We followed our hearts and not our heads. We are not trained chefs, but we both love food,” Philip recalls with a smile.

Related Content

Uttar Pradesh Government: Seeds Of Change

Calling their menu “lawless”, she tells me how it developed to use what the farm produces throughout the year. The wood-fired ovens were chosen over electric ovens to use the farm’s surplus eucalyptus wood (originally planted to improve arid soil). The residual heat of the ovens is used overnight to slow-cook the

pork and dry out breadcrumbs (made from leftover home-baked bread) to coat their crispy cutlets. The ash from the ovens is then sprinkled in the fields as pesticide.

Being a dairy farm, they taught themselves to make artisanal cheeses, which crown their famous cheese plates, accompanied by homemade crackers and preserves, and adorned with garden blooms. For Christmas, they use the winter roselle flowers from the farm to make a jam they swirl into fresh ice cream.



A micro-roastery sits cutely in a corner of the restaurant where special ‘The Farm’ blends are roasted. Responding to my quizzical expression, I am told that this was their lockdown project while they had time on their hands, and they now source beans from carefully chosen estates all over India to make blends “with their own names and stories” and even supply to friends’ cafes in the city.


The restaurant espouses sustainability, offering organic and local produce, farm-to-table dining and employing closed-loop agricultural practices. But this terminology is conspicuously absent from their brand and design language. “We don’t tomtom these buzzwords, because to us, these practices are simply the most logical way to do what we do,” Philip explains.



Nothing that happens at the farm, the restaurant and its little shop is accidental. Their farm grows what the restaurant needs, as much as the restaurant uses what the farm offers it. Futnani and Philip’s way of life and doing business is a labour of their love for their farm, their love for food and their steadfastness in placing profit secondary to this. Their food carries the flavour of this authenticity.

Restoring Farmers’ Faith

A little closer to Chennai sits a rustic house, across from an imposing KFC. As you enter the gate, you are greeted by some or the other herbs drying in the sun, and just up the path, baskets of farm-fresh vegetables are set out to be probed, weighed, and piled into the bags you should have brought with you.



Inside the house, you will first find an assortment of homemade laddoos and treats, and past that, a variety of treasures from spices and unpolished millets and pulses and local honey, to podis and chutneys and herbal skin and hair care. A little room holds tins of cold-pressed oils and a larger room with an intoxicating fragrance holds more than 20 varieties of local rice.


This is reStore—a non-profit organic store started in 2008 by a group of passionate residents of Chennai looking to build sustainable practices into their lives. Everything in this store is sourced directly from organic farmers who set their own prices, and the store operates on a zero-waste principle.



Radhika Rammohan, one of the founders of reStore, tells me that they were moved by the increasing farmer suicides and the fraying connection between food and its consumers. Combining their experience working with non-profit and farmers’ organisations, they tried to emulate the food cooperatives and farmers’ markets they had seen in the West to create a transparent and fair way to bring food from the farms to city consumers.

“re-Storing” Farmers’ Faith


When asked how popular the store was at a time when ‘organic’ was not even a trend, Rammohan says: “Our launch in 2008 was attended by over 300 people, and this was just because of print media and internet groups.” In its 18th year, reStore sees a steadily growing customer base, despite the challenges of quick commerce, which it simply can’t compete with and the appeal of unbruised, uniform produce packaged in shiny plastic.


“Unlike a modern store where the customer is king, we are unable to absorb costs to give them perfect produce because our farmers set these prices. As with anything organic, there may be minor spoilage or damage. At a supermarket, they can just include that difference in the price and give you what looks perfect.” At reStore, the customer has to bring a degree of empathy and understanding for the imperfections of organic produce and real food. The gentle request to remove your shoes before you enter the shop is symbolic of what reStore asks of its customers—incurring a slight inconvenience for something bigger than you.


Philip, Futnani and Rammohan acknowledge the demands of a world that runs on the profit and loss axis, but they do not let it shake them from the purpose that launched them on their respective journeys.


Philip wonders whether The Farm is missing out on attracting clientele because they do not exploit the buzzwords that draw eyeballs, but, instead, choose to let their work speak for itself. Rammohan, too, wonders whether more people would be inclined to buy from the store if it could serve greater delivery demands and use plastic to store and transport produce more efficiently.


But that is inconsistent with who they are. As the popularity of sustainability rises, the commodification of the principles they have not let go of will also increase the noise in the spaces that they operate in. Philip affirms that the trends may come and go, but they just continue doing what they do.


The trend of labelling it a ‘luxury’ to enjoy local food and buy direct from farmers implies that this is a privilege. The demands of the market will produce red herrings that commodify these principles and exacerbate this perception. But The Farm and reStore are examples of ventures that throw their doors open to share what they treasure and believe in—hero-ing what they stand for and not merely what makes money.


As Radhika points out: “It is ironic that what ought to be is called luxury.” They are not alone. With the rise of community-supported agriculture, it is becoming easier to support local farmers—organisations like Navadarshanam outside Bangalore and Solitude Farm in Auroville offer baskets of fresh produce for consumers at home. The rise of permaculture workshops and courses allows urban dwellers to take ownership of their food by growing produce in limited spaces. Organisations like Locavore have created communities where participants share knowledge of local ingredients and heritage recipes. But to meaningfully engage with this ecosystem, we must recognise those who are in it for the long haul rather than a quick buck.


While the internet creates confusion and cacophony, it is also a source of community and knowledge. The Instagram page of The Farm blew up during the pandemic, and harvested many new followers around the world.


Priyanka Patel, an ecology conservationist working on a re-wilding project outside Bangalore, muses that “people who love plants somehow always find each other”. Through her Instagram, she has met people around the world who are generous with knowledge and curious about her work—although she wonders how many people will show up for these causes beyond their screens.

organic farming


By being generous with our time and effort, we have the opportunity to go the extra mile from consumers to actors with agency—to get our hands off our touchscreens and into the earth. The year 2026 is predicted to be the ‘year of the analog’, and it hopefully identifies in us the desire to return to our intuition about what is good, for us, and for the world around us. As the market latches onto slowness as a trend, it too will become a strategy rather than a standard. But it is returning to our first principles of community, care and intention that will motivate us to make the effort to engage with our world offline, and support local businesses and efforts. To quote Vandana Shiva: “Our separation from the natural world is a form of dehumanisation.” Reclaiming our connection to and our consumption of food is also reclaiming our humanity.


Chitrangda Singh is a corporate lawyer-turning-academic with an inimitable love for food and a good story

It Matters Nothing — War Is War

A poem about the futility of war and growing indifference


Ashwani Kumar
Updated on: 23 March 2026

OUTLOOK INDIA

It Matters Nothing — War Is War Photo: Artwork by Anupriya



Another girl is dead, another boy wounded. It matters nothing—war is war.

The oven is quiet in my kitchen. A cup grows cold beside the window.


I take a bite of the shrinking day, light a candle, and bake myself in the open for those who are dying for coffee.


Strange coincidence: I no longer remember there are not many bakeries in town.


Is it the wrath of God, or a futile struggle for survival?


Another girl is dead, another boy wounded. It matters nothing—war is war.


Ashwani Kumar is a poet, writer and professor in Mumbai. His most recent collection of poems is titled Map of Memories.

India’s First Court-Approved Passive Euthanasia Patient Harish Rana Dies

Once a BTech student at Panjab University, Rana became the face of India’s end-of-life debate after the Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of life support under a supervised medical protocol at AIIMS Delhi.


Outlook News Desk
Curated by: Pritha Vashishth
Updated on: 24 March 2026 7:25 pm


Hairsh Rane


Summary of this article


Harish Rana, the first patient in India to be granted passive euthanasia by the Supreme Court of India, died at All India Institute of Medical Sciences Delhi.


The Supreme Court had allowed doctors to withdraw life-support measures through a carefully supervised medical protocol, marking a significant step in India’s legal and ethical approach to end-of-life care.


Rana’s case has become a landmark in India’s debate on the right to die with dignity, highlighting the role of palliative care, medical ethics, and legal safeguards in decisions around passive euthanasia.


Harish Rana, the first person in India to be granted passive euthanasia by the Supreme Court of India, died on Tuesday at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Delhi, bringing an end to a long and painful chapter that has come to symbolise the country’s evolving conversation around dignity in death and end-of-life care.

The press release by AIIMS read Mr. Harish Rana passed away at 4:10 PM on 24th March 2026 at AIIMS, New Delhi. Hewas under the care of a dedicated team of doctors and was admitted to the Palliative Oncology Unit (IRCH), led by Dr. (Prof.) Seema Mishra, HoD, Onco-Anaesthesia.

Rana was just a young engineering student when his life took a tragic turn in 2013. At the time, he was pursuing a BTech degree at Panjab University. A fall from the fourth-floor balcony of his hostel left him with severe head injuries that caused irreversible brain damage. The accident pushed him into a permanent vegetative state, a condition in which patients remain alive but show no signs of awareness or cognitive function. For the next thirteen years, Rana survived with the support of artificial nutrition and intermittent oxygen assistance, while his family navigated the emotional and medical complexities of caring for someone who could neither communicate nor recover.

Over time, Rana’s case moved beyond the personal tragedy of one family and entered the national legal and ethical arena. The prolonged nature of his condition, with no meaningful hope of recovery, raised profound questions about whether life should be sustained indefinitely through medical intervention when consciousness and quality of life have effectively disappeared. These questions ultimately reached the Supreme Court of India, which in March 2026 allowed passive euthanasia in Rana’s case.

Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal Of Life Support In Landmark Passive Euthanasia Case

The court’s order permitted doctors to withdraw life-support measures in a carefully regulated manner. Passive euthanasia, unlike active euthanasia, does not involve administering substances to cause death. Instead, it involves the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining medical treatment, allowing the natural process of death to occur. The decision was seen as a landmark moment in India’s legal landscape, translating the court’s earlier recognition of the right to die with dignity into a concrete medical application.

Following the Supreme Court’s directive, Rana was shifted from his home in Ghaziabad to the palliative care unit at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Delhi. The procedure was overseen by a multidisciplinary team of specialists, including experts in neurosurgery, anaesthesia, palliative medicine and psychiatry. The team worked under a carefully structured protocol designed to ensure that the withdrawal of life support was carried out gradually and ethically, while prioritising the patient’s dignity.


Doctors first assessed Rana’s condition in detail and then began the gradual withdrawal of artificial nutritional support under continuous monitoring. The process was conducted with sensitivity, reflecting both the legal scrutiny surrounding the case and the ethical weight of the decision. Medical professionals involved in the procedure emphasised that the goal was not to hasten death but to allow a dignified and natural end to a life that had long been sustained solely through medical intervention.



Rana’s death on March 24 marked the conclusion of a case that has had wide-ranging implications for India’s healthcare and legal systems. For years, discussions around euthanasia in India remained largely theoretical, shaped by court rulings and philosophical debates but rarely implemented in practice. Rana’s case transformed that conversation into a lived reality, forcing institutions, doctors and policymakers to confront the complexities of end-of-life decision-making.


The case has also drawn attention to the broader role of palliative care in India, a field that focuses on improving the quality of life for patients with severe or terminal conditions. Experts say the Rana case underscores the need for clearer medical protocols, stronger legal safeguards and greater awareness among families about patients’ rights and medical options at the end of life.