OPINION

Sarah Hurwitz and liberal Zionism’s Hail Mary

Sarah Hurwitz’s now-viral appearance at the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly has exposed the crisis of Zionism in the U.S. and Jewish leaders' desperation to confront it.

By Alison Glick 

 November 25, 2025 

MONDOWEISS

Sarah Hurwitz speaking in May 2017 

(Photo: Thor Brødreskift / Nordiske Mediedager/Wikimedia)


Sarah Hurwitz’s now-viral appearance at the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly last week is a gift to anti-Zionist and Palestine solidarity activists. The former speechwriter for Barack and Michelle Obama unwittingly does more in ten minutes to demonstrate the desperation and moral depravity of those who have spent the last two years attempting to stifle pro-Palestine sentiment and justify genocide than many have done in hours of speechifying.

Thanks to the social media bogeyman she identifies early in her comments, millions have listened, aghast, as she bemoans TikTok “smashing our young people’s brains all day long with video of carnage in Gaza. And this is why many of us can’t have a sane conversation with younger Jews, because anything we try to say to them they’re hearing through this wall of carnage.”

The “it’s TikTok’s fault” complaint is nothing new, of course. But her pivot to blaming Holocaust education for young Jews empathizing with Palestinians and increasingly abandoning support for Israel was an unexpected twist. Yes, you read that right. Holocaust education did us wrong. Granted, there is much to criticize about how mainstream Holocaust instruction is conducted. But Hurwitz is not joining those prominent Holocaust scholars who critique the kind of “postmemory” Holocaust education that insists on Jewish victimhood in perpetuity and weaponizes it to wage war on Palestinians and others. In Sarah’s view:

And you know I think unfortunately, the very smart bet that we made on Holocaust education to serve as antisemitism education in this new media environment, I think that is beginning to break down a little bit because, you know, Holocaust education is absolutely essential, but I think it may be confusing some of our young people about antisemitism. Because they learn about big, strong Nazis hurting weak, emaciated Jews, and they think oh, antisemitism is like anti-black racism, right? Powerful white people against powerless black people. So, when on TikTok all day long, they see powerful Israelis hurting weak, skinny Palestinians, it’s not surprising that they think, Oh, I know the lesson of the Holocaust is you fight Israel. You fight the big powerful people hurting the weak people.

So, the lesson of the Holocaust we’re supposed to learn is: Never again for us, but for Palestinians, never say never. And never be confused into empathizing with them, regardless of what you see on social media.

The memes and analyses of these comments are plentiful, and I recommend dipping into a few to understand the common themes.

But wait, there’s more.

Hurwitz’s condescending remarks about young Jews and jaw-dropping statements about the Holocaust deserve the scorn that has been heaped upon them. Yet flying below the analytical radar are other comments she makes later in her talk, which reveal the crisis of Zionism in the U.S. and how utterly desperate “leaders” like Hurwitz are in facing it.

In the last two minutes of the panel, Hurwitz mentions a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed a public high school football coach to continue conducting post-game Christian prayers on the 50-yard line. In explaining her reaction to the ruling to the JNF audience, the Harvard law grad waffled over if it was good or bad, until she realized the true import of the decision — it would help ensure young Jews feel okay about being alone. Of course, she doesn’t want a Jewish football player to feel bad (or a Muslim, Hindu or atheist. After all, she is a good liberal). But young Jews just need to get used to the idea of being uncomfortable outsiders, and we need to stop coddling them because we Jews have a higher purpose to serve:


I don’t think feeling uncomfortable at the 50-yard line is the worst thing because to be a Jew is to be different. And I think leaning into our difference, embracing our difference, our values, our wisdom. I think if that makes us a little bit uncomfortable, that’s not really the worst thing in the world.

Why, after careening in her remarks from “brain-smashing TikTok,” to insisting upon viewing the seven million Jews in Israel as not just co-religionists but “my siblings,” to emphasizing the primacy of 2500 year old Jewish texts as the ultimate guard against anti-Zionism, does Hurwitz end with a three-year-old Supreme Court decision about a praying Christian football coach?

Let’s call it Hurwitz’s Hail Mary pass.

She knows the jig is up. She knows that’s so when she admits that “I sound obscene” while trying to convince young Jews not to believe what their lyin’ eyes see happening in Gaza. She knows that’s so when she faults Holocaust education for somehow evincing a power analysis that, in her world, wrongly posits Israel as capable of oppression. She knows that’s so when she advocates absurdly for banning all Jewish day school students from having a smartphone until their senior year, because arguments for Israel can’t be heard through the “wall of dead children” in Gaza they would otherwise see. And if the jig is up but you need young people to join you in doubling down on Zionism, then the only thing left is to convince them that being Jewish means embracing the noble sacrifice of being different and virtually alone in supporting an ethno-nationalist state that is committing a genocide most people oppose. After all, there are worse things in the world. Just don’t look for them on TikTok.

OPINION

Do the lessons of the Holocaust apply to Israel and “skinny Palestinians”?

Michael F. Brown

26 November 2025

The Electronic Intifada

Sarah Hurwitz, speaking here in 2017, has come under intense criticism for her comments in a November 2025 speech to the Jewish Federations of North America. 

Thor Brødreskift  Nordiske Mediedager

Sarah Hurwitz, author and former speechwriter for the Obamas, has suggested that Holocaust education is failing.

For Hurwitz, the problem lies with universal lessons being applied to Israel, an unacceptable outcome in her view.

Journalist Spencer Ackerman responded at Forever Wars, “I feel like I’m going to lose my mind if I don’t address her astonishing remark that Holocaust education in the United States has improperly taught a universal lesson against genocide.”

Speaking to the 2025 general assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, Hurwitz claimed last week that “since October 7 [2023], but really before then, there have been huge shifts in America on how people think about Jews and Israel, and I think that is especially true of young people. So we are now wrestling with a new – I think – generational divide here, and I think that’s particularly true in that social media is now our source of media.”



Social media, notwithstanding all its viciousness, does provide some vital information. Hurwitz dislikes it, however, because social and alternative media also highlight Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza.

News sources other than mainstream corporate media are making an enormous difference in getting a fuller picture of the Gaza reality to the American public.

Having watched hundreds of hours of CNN during the Gaza genocide, I can attest to how frequently the network downplays Palestinian deaths and ignores Palestinian accounts of Israeli war crimes and torture. Younger people are getting a much more unfiltered view of the genocide than older viewers relying on a CNN out of touch with reality and profoundly biased toward Israeli apartheid (which goes almost entirely unmentioned by the network).

Letting out her inner xenophobe against “global media,” Hurwitz said the American media “generally didn’t express extreme anti-Israel views. You had to go to a pretty weird bookstore to find global media and fringe media. But today we have social media which is a global medium … shaped by billions of people worldwide who don’t really love Jews.”

Here she wrongly conflates concern about Israeli policies with anti-Jewish hatred.

“I sound obscene”

TikTok, she maintained, is “just smashing our young people’s brains all day long with video of carnage in Gaza. And this is why so many of us can’t have a sane conversation with younger Jews – because anything that we try to say to them, they are hearing it through this wall of carnage. So I want to give data and information and facts and arguments and they are just seeing in their minds carnage, and I sound obscene.”

Her sounding obscene is one thing she got right.

For Hurwitz, previously a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the lessons of the Holocaust are not never again for anyone, but that carnage and genocide are acceptable if it’s Israel carrying out such crimes against Palestinians. That’s obscene to much of the younger generation – targeted by Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania at the general assembly as well – and people in general.

As Spencer Ackerman put it, “Hurwitz cannot cope with a younger generation of Jews recognizing the obscenity in what her Zionism has convinced her is justifiable.”

She’s gone so far as to say she wants to keep young Jews off smart phones until their senior year of high school. It’s mandatory ignorance in order to promote Zionist propaganda.

Social media commentators and young people found her approach simultaneously laughable and horrifying.

Despite Hurwitz’s wishes to the contrary, the horror of Gaza cannot be obscured even with CNN failing to tell the full story, long-time anti-Palestinian journalist Bari Weiss now entrenched as editor-in-chief at CBS News, President Donald Trump intimidating college students and administrators, and pro-Israel Larry Ellison’s Oracle joining other investors to buy TikTok.

Hurwitz contended that the very smart “bet” that “we made on Holocaust education to serve as anti-Semitism education in this new media environment … is beginning to break down a little bit … Holocaust education is absolutely essential, but I think it may be confusing some of our young people about anti-Semitism because they learn about big, strong Nazis hurting weak, emaciated Jews and they think, ‘Oh, anti-Semitism is like anti-Black racism, right? Powerful white people against powerless Black people.’”

She added, “So when on TikTok all day long they see powerful Israelis hurting weak, skinny Palestinians, it’s not surprising that they think, ‘Oh, I know the lesson of the Holocaust is you fight Israel. You fight the big, powerful people hurting the weak people.’”

Well, yes, people committing genocide should be challenged. But not for Hurwitz if it’s Israel carrying out the crimes.

Hurwitz, in a different interview, has gone so far as to compare the far right’s absurd notion of there being a “white genocide” in the United States implemented by Jews to the left’s accurate concerns of Israel carrying out a genocide in Gaza.

According to Hurwitz, “The right is saying that Jews are doing a white genocide, and the left is saying they’re doing a genocide in Gaza, it’s like the same, it’s like very similar tropes.”

In fact, the “white genocide” claim is false and the Gaza genocide assertion is fact as confirmed by numerous genocide experts. Muddying the waters as Hurwitz does is dangerous and intended to prevent action against Israel’s devastating criminal bombardment of Gaza.

While dangerous and detrimental to efforts to end Israeli war crimes, Hurwitz’s repeated speaking engagements and wild claims are in a way a gift that keeps on giving. She is inadvertently exposing how pro-Israel activists and the genocide wing of the Democratic Party – in a desperate effort to shore up support for Israel – are not just harming Palestinian rights but undermining universal lessons against racism.
Often, the question is asked: What would you have done to stop the horror of the Holocaust?



It’s a question intended to lead to reflection and thoughts on how to prevent future genocide.

But during the Gaza genocide the Trump administration has moved to disrupt and impede organizations documenting Israeli human rights abuses in Gaza. When Palestinian human rights organizations such as the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Al Mezan and Al-Haq took legal issue with Israeli war crimes and genocide in Gaza, the Trump administration sanctioned them in September for their work at the International Criminal Court against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant.

Trump and his administration get the point Hurwitz is making: Don’t challenge Israeli wrongdoing. Enable it. And penalize those who seek to document the crimes.

Mamdani mockery at JFNA

The Jewish Federations of North America, according to participant and long-time politician Rahm Emanuel, appeared to misspell the name of Zohran Mamdani, the elected mayor of New York City who is a proponent of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement for Palestinian freedom and equal rights and recognizes the Gaza genocide for what it is.

The JFNA did not respond to questions Friday and Monday from The Electronic Intifada about the misspelling. That misspelling elicited laughter from the audience.

The lack of response from JFNA leaves open the possibility the misspelling was racist and intentional, possibly along the lines of a tweet from Elon Musk referring to Mamdani as “Mamdumi or whatever his name is.”

That the JFNA is aligning with denial of the Gaza genocide and smears of Mamdani is no surprise. The rhetoric from Hurwitz on display at the general assembly, however, points to an awareness that Israel has lost an immense amount of support over the past two years.

Genocide will do that.

Michael F. Brown's blog

A Dalit Chief Justice in a Hindu Majoritarian India

Indira Jaising | 22 Nov 2025

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Over the past decade, the new normal has been an increasing decline in standards of judicial independence and integrity. As the 52nd chief justice retires, we reflect on his complicated legacy as a jurist, an administrator, and a Dalit chief justice in a withering democracy.

While evaluating the tenure of outgoing Chief Justices of India (‘CJI’), one is constantly looking for the gold standard against which to match it. And unfortunately, in the past decade, I have been unable to find that gold standard. Tragically, but truly, we seem to be stuck in a situation where the new normal is a further decline in standards of independence and institutional integrity rather than an ascending standard towards a legacy of judicial independence, judicial integrity of the institution, and a lasting constitutional jurisprudence. The task of evaluating becomes painful. 

Three chief justices of India have retired in quick succession of each other and it would be useful to look at their respective social backgrounds and “legacy”. The first of the three came from a Brahmin community - a dynasty judge - Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the second came from a professional legacy - Justice Sanjeev Khana - who as we all know was chosen out of turn to be the Chief Justice of India, and the third belonged to a Dalit community, Justice B.R. Gavai. 

Looking for differences among the outgoing chief justices is normal and there are many differences between the three: some not so significant, some extraordinarily significant.  

In terms of tenure length, both CJI Khanna and CJI Gavai had short tenures and hence evaluation of their jurisprudential legacy would be difficult; opportunities were rare in that short period. It must be said though that during his short tenure CJI Khanna was much appreciated by many for the transparency he showed in making public the material available against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court when cash was found at his residence. He later recommended that the matter be carried forward by the Government to its logical conclusion by setting up an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.  This single step enhances the stature of the Judiciary in achieving some form of accountability for misconduct within its ranks. 

On the judicial side, his order staying the filing of further suits relating to the Places of Worship Act put a halt to the build up of communal violence in the country and was no small achievement. A challenge to the validity of the Act is pending  and we will no doubt see it come to some conclusion during the tenure of the incoming Chief Justice. Under CJI Khanna’s tenure, three appointments were made to the Supreme Court -  among which was that of Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was appointed out of turn with the apparent aim of selecting him to become a future chief justice - an emerging phenomenon we will come back to later. 

Although the tenure of CJI Gavai was also short, expectations from him were high given he was to be the only second Dalit chief justice in a Brahmin dominated court (with a Brahmin, CJI Chandrachud, who also came from the Bombay HC, having most recently steered the Court for a long tenure). 

That being said, I must avoid the temptation to evaluate CJI Gavai's tenure against that of CJI Chandrachud, on whose ‘legacy’ I have already written. I will make a bold attempt to not draw those parallels. 

The times we live in require us to primarily evaluate the functioning of a Chief Justice on the administrative side rather than on the judicial side. Attacks on the independence of the judiciary have come mainly from a majoritarian government attempting to pack the court with friendly judges. How have successive Chief Justices dealt with these challenges?

Added to this is the fact that  the tenures of Chief Justices are relatively, and generally, not long, in the case of CJI Gavai, being not more than six months of which about two months went in vacations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to leave a jurisprudential mark within this short period. 

We live in times where there are concerted attacks by the ruling regime against the judiciary, in particular against the very system of appointing judges by the collegium, the intention being to  give to the executive primacy in the matter of appointments. These attacks are brutal, straightforward and ideological. In their brutal form, we have seen comments from the former law minister Kiren Rejuju and the former vice president Jagdeep Dhankar who openly attacked the Collegium system as being one that needs to be abandoned. 

It appears that CJI Chandrachud was able to deal with these attacks through a process of negotiations where we saw the law minister lose his portfolio owing to consistent, caustic attacks against the judiciary. No government can afford to have such open confrontations with the judiciary where 90 percent of all court work relates to challenges to government work. We possibly saw the same thing happen with Dhankar, who not only attacked the collegium system but also the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution of India, and ultimately saw an untimely end of his tenure during CJI Gavai’s chief justiceship. It may not be possible to establish a connection between these events but I would imagine that there exists a back channel of communication including seminars and conferences where the Judiciary and the executive have opportunities to voice differences between them at the policy level .

For all intents and purposes, it would appear that the two Chief Justices -  Justice Chandrachud and Justice Gavai - are incomparable from any point of view. Whereas, one was born into a  “legacy” family  whereby his father, once India’s longest serving CJI, seemed determined to ensure that his son became the Chief Justice of the country, the other came from a political background. Justice Gavai’s father was the founder of the Republican Party of India (Gavai) faction, a duly elected member of Parliament, and later the governor of Bihar, Sikkim and Kerala. Interestingly, it is possible that Justice Chandrachud was consulted by the CJI Ranjan Gogoi led Collegium in the matter of Justice Gavai’s appointment and he recommended Justice Gavai’s appointment.

No two people could have been more different from each other. One a Brahmin, the other a Dalit. In October, when a rogue lawyer threw a shoe at CJI Gavai, angered by his remark against Lord Vishnu earlier, it snowballed into a cascade of casteist harassment by the Hindu right wing. CJI Chandrachud, too, had been one of the most trolled judges of the Supreme Court. While CJI Gavai certainly established his reputation as being secular, CJI Chandrachud had made no secret of his Hindu pride on public platforms and in personal communications with the executive .

Yet, when one begins to compare outcomes for the institution, how different they were from each other is a question that historians will have to answer in the days to come.

Tragically, but truly, we seem to be stuck in a situation where the new normal is a further decline in standards of independence and institutional integrity

Undoing a past ‘legacy’

To some extent, CJI Gavai’s tenure was marked by an attempt to undo decisions taken by CJI Chandrachud, which in a manner of speaking, had come to represent his style of functioning. Given the disappointments that we had faced with CJI Chandrachud, CJI Gavai’s decisions early on his tenure, including symbolic ones, such as reinstating the Supreme Court’s old logo gave the appearance of being measures which were intended to undo an undesirable legacy. That same month, he dismantled  the Rs 2.6 crore air-conditioning and glass panels in the corridors. It was also under his tenure that the Supreme Court wrote to the Centre for the immediate repossession of the CJI’s official residence where CJI Chandrachud had overstayed. While these were welcome decisions, to what extent were they truly an undoing of CJI Chandrachud’s legacy, especially in terms of  long-term impact on the functioning of the judiciary?

What is the long term impact of Justice Gavai’s tenure  on the institutional integrity of the court? 

For one, as an administrator, CJI Gavai’s role in implementing the 200 point roster system for reservation of SC and ST employees in the Supreme Court, three decades after the R.K. Sabharwal judgment is one that could leave a lasting memory. However, not only is it to be followed up with rigorous implementation, it was also a missed opportunity to bring reservations in promotion within the Court - something Dr K.S. Chauhan had advocated for. 

Did the Gavai Collegium leave a damaging legacy?

The primary means, however, of studying the long-term legacy would be in terms of understanding how the Collegium functioned under him, and the judges he appointed during his tenure, across India’s 25 High Courts, and the top Court.

High Court appointments

Let us begin with the High Courts. Some analysts have pointed out that some of the premier High Courts in the country have been ‘disturbed’ by appointments made by CJI Gavai’s Collegium in very significant ways. Taking the Delhi High Court (‘HC’), for instance, owing to an alarming frequency of judicial transfers (something the Delhi HC Bar Association, in a September letter to CJI Gavai noted to have caused ‘unease’), except for Justice V. Kameswar Rao, none of the five senior most judges of the HC are from Delhi. This has resulted in a destabilizing of tradition in the manner of administering the HC since the Collegium judges are not familiar with either the functioning of the bar or of the HC.

One of the institutions of the Delhi HC which has been impacted by these changes is its Mediation Centre. The Mediation Centre of the Delhi HC was probably the longest running mediation centre and had the reputation of being a role model. Knowledgeable sources now argue that the legitimacy of the Mediation Centre has been substantially reduced and neglected .

Although bulk appointments of judges have been made to the High Court of Bombay, many argue that under CJI Gavai's tenure, due care has not been taken to ensure that competent people are appointed. While some argue that the increase in numbers itself leads to access to justice by fast-tracking hearings in Court, others point out that an incompetent judge only adds to arrears. That apart, at least two of the judges appointed had adverse intelligence reports, and were appointed despite clear knowledge of these adverse reports for the sole reason that they were recommended by the Collegium headed by CJI Gavai. 

CJI Gavai has also faced rightful criticism for the Collegium under him having recommended and appointed his nephew, Raj Wakode, as a judge of the Bombay HC. It is no solace to learn that CJI Gavai recused himself from the Collegium in relation to Wakode’s appointment, neither is the claim made by his brother that Wakode is more of a “distant relative”, keeping in mind the full extent of the chief justice’s position as ‘first among equals’, and the empirical proof of widespread nepotism in India’s judicial appointments. 

In another instance, the Bombay HC Chief Justice, under whose tenure a circuit bench was set up in Kolhapur (a longstanding desire of CJI Gavai), was duly appointed to the Supreme Court in August 2025. Justice Alok Aradhe did not do much else to qualify him for the appointment over many others (Justice A.S. Oka, also from Bombay HC was compelled to write an article pointing out that due process of law was not followed in the setting up of the Bench.) 

Notably also, judges from the Bombay HC, such as Justice A.S. Chandurkar, were elevated to the Supreme Court by bypassing senior women judges who had a legitimate claim to being appointed to the Supreme Court, including Justice Revati Mohite Dere.

It is often said that the Bombay HC is well represented in the Supreme Court. This is a misunderstanding. The truth is, it is Nagpur that is well represented in the Supreme Court of India.

For all intents and purposes, it would appear that the two Chief Justices -  Justice Chandrachud and Justice Gavai - are incomparable from any point of view. 

Supreme Court appointments

Five judges were appointed under CJI Gavai’s tenure to the Supreme Court, and none incorporated greater gender, caste or religious diversity to the bench. Each of these appointments were cleared in an average span of only 2.6 days since the date of recommendation. I would argue that it is now a given that the sooner the executive clears a file for appointment of a judge to the Supreme Court, the more evident it is that the person is acceptable to the ruling party. 

By far, the most damaging decision taken by the outgoing Chief Justice is the appointment of Justice V.M. Pancholi to the Supreme Court, handpicked to become the Chief Justice of India, similar to Justice Bagchi’s appointment by the Khanna Collegium. One of the biggest issues that emerges from this discussion is that ‘Kaun Banega Chief Justice of India?’ has become a lottery - a lottery whose outcome can be fixed only by the Collegium in consultation with the government. The chosen one will now be the Chief Justice of India with no other criteria to recommend him. For instance, The Leaflet’s data analysis shows that while appointing Justice Pancholi, CJI Gavai’s collegium overlooked many potential chief justices who were not only more senior to him, but could have improved the Court’s gender, caste, religious and regional composition.

The other truly dangerous precedent set by Justice Pancholi’s appointment is that the decision of the Collegium was not unanimous. If indeed a person can be appointed by the Collegium without the decision being unanimous, it would be a matter of time before individual members of the Collegium could be split along ideological lines, where the majority decides. Then, we will begin to see minorities within minorities. The sole woman judge in the Supreme Court, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, was also the sole judge to dissent on Justice Pancholi’s appointment, having the conviction to place on record her objections. Perhaps in this entire saga, Justice Nagarathna’s show of integrity and courage was the only redeeming factor. But even she did not , in her dissent, mention that successive Chief Justices had not corrected the gender imbalance in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India. 

Also notably critical about the Gavai collegium was its subservience to the executive on the issue of transfers. While the memorable example of Justice Atul Sreedharan’s transfer to the Allahabad HC showed the continuing timidity of the Collegium, the Gavai collegium interestingly stated explicitly that the decision was being taken “at the government’s request.” If there were any scope of being transparent about the immense pressure from the executive that the judiciary is functioning under, this was a show of that, and the Collegium gave us a glimpse into its own withering independence. 

Although bulk appointments of judges have been made to the High Court of Bombay, many argue that under CJI Gavai's tenure, due care has not been taken to ensure that competent people are appointed. 

The dangerous legacy of intra-court appeals

A further dangerous precedent that we have seen during the tenure of CJI Gavai is what could fairly be described as ‘intra-court appeals’. These consist of multiple instances where the Court either recalled or overruled decisions of other judges through constitutionally suspect mechanisms. At least three such instances pertained to decisions by the bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala: first, in early August, when Justice Pardiwala’s bench directed that an Allahabad HC judge not be given the criminal roster until retirement (for allowing criminal prosecution in a civil case), CJI Gavai “requested” the bench to recall its adverse directions, which it did. Later, that same month shortly after Justice Pardiwala’s bench passed a problematic order to clear out Delhi’s stray dogs to relocate them to shelters and pounds, CJI Gavai, as ‘master of the roster’, referred the matter to a larger bench, which on August 22, modified the earlier order. One could argue that both these decisions ironically ended up with the same result that was being sought to be corrected:  the deviation from judicial norms of functioning. The third, and most recent of such incident would be when a Constitution Bench led by him on Presidential Reference overruled the commendable judgment by Justice Pardiwala setting timelines for the President and Governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures using the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142. While the issue had obtained constitutional quietus, the Union succeeded in re-litigating its cause and the Court left India’s federal structure precarious.

There were other instances beyond those concerning Justice Pardiwala. Earlier this month, after a split verdict was delivered where Justice Sanjay Kumar wrote a strong verdict directing formation of an SIT, consisting of equal number of Hindu and Muslim officers to investigate the lynching of a teenage Muslim boy, CJI Gavai’s bench, on a mere mentioning by the Solicitor General, stayed Justice Kumar’s direction. In late July, a special bench led by Justice Gavai recalled a May judgment by Justice Bela Trivedi which had rejected a resolution plan by JSW Steel for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. 

Few things reflect the devastating legacy of this regression jurisprudence than CJI Gavai’s decision earlier this week to recall, on a review petition, the Supreme Court’s progressive Vanashakti judgement, delivered by Justices Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan in May, which had struck down a 2021 EIA notification that allowed ex post facto grant of environmental clearance. The Vanashakti decision had been a welcome aberration to the Court’s consistently declining environmental jurisprudence. Justice Bhuyan’s dissenting note that the majority’s decision was “backtracking” on the Court’s own sound environmental jurisprudence carried a note of caution that must reverb with us.

Perhaps in this entire saga, Justice Nagarathna’s show of integrity and courage was the only redeeming factor. 

Was there a coherent jurisprudential legacy?

CJI Gavai adjudicated over at least three politically, constitutionally significant matters. With the can of worms of the Places of Worship Act challenge temporarily put under cover, CJI Gavai extensively heard arguments on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, finally delivering an interim judgment in September. While the judgment stayed certain problematic provisions, it did not engage with several strands of issues that were raised, including the amendment’s abolition of the evidentiary concept of Waqf by User that the Court allowed to stand. Many have argued that the interim judgment accepts on face value certain misinformed narratives pushed by the State, such that Waqf is widely an instrument of encroachment by Muslims. Second, CJI Gavai’s bench commendably issued procedural safeguards against the egregious practice of investigating agencies like the ED summoning lawyers representing their clients, providing some relief to the bar. And third, CJI Gavai’s bench struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, which allowed disproportionate power to the executive in the Search and Selection Committee that selected tribunal members - a move that bides well for judicial independence. He also left a track record of granting bail when the arrest itself was illegal for want of reasons communicated to the accused and stood thereby on the side of liberty .

However, by and large, one can conclude that the functioning of the Supreme Court lacked judicial and administrative discipline. It may even be pointless evaluating the legacy of CJI Gavai from the jurisprudential lens for the simple reason that his tenure was too short. Judging from the perspective of his performance in his parent High Court - Bombay High Court - there can be no doubt about the fact that he has a clarity of thought, simplicity of writing in his judgments and ability to deal with complex issues within manageable legal frameworks. His judgments continue to be leading judgments in the High Court of Bombay and no one can doubt his intellectual abilities. 

The question that remains, however, is whether they were put to use in the Supreme Court? Or even, whether his tenure was too brief to be able to answer that question? 

However, by and large, one can conclude that the functioning of the Supreme Court lacked judicial and administrative discipline.

A Dalit chief in a Hindu majoritarian India

What then is the difference between a judge who takes pride in his Hinduism - Justice Chandrachud and a Dalit judge who is secular - both of whom steered a constitutional court in a Hindutva State? Perhaps little in terms of safeguarding the independence of the judiciary or resisting executive pressure in the matter of appointment of judges. The ideological judge is here to stay.

The last thing I think I would like to say is that often a judge has to be judged not just by his tenure on the bench, but also by what he does post-retirement, which is the real giveaway. One has to await and see whether Justice Gavai enters the political fray as a major player. There are indeed very few options for a person who retires as the Chief Justice of India.  Arbitration, though an available option, is often unsatisfying to ambitious people, especially for those who are politically ambitious or see their role as public intellectuals’.

Sixty-five is no age to retire and there is no doubt that Justice Gavai will continue to contribute to public life. It also remains an open question to see whether he will be accepted as a political spokesperson or leader within the Dalit community. Indications are that the community is critical of him for his judgment on sub-categorization of scheduled castes and more particularly his comments in relation to ‘creamy layer’ within the community. In September, Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis has reportedly stated that the government is planning to introduce the creamy layer concept within the scheduled caste community, splitting the community down the line.

Justice Gavai took up the mantle as a Dalit head of judiciary in a Hindu majoritarian state, and in many ways his tenure characterised this complex positioning. The casteism he faced from the Hindu right for staying committed to his Ambedkarite ideology continues to show us why, especially in Hindu majoritarian India, we need more judges, more chief justices from marginalised, underrepresented communities. For who he was, and what he represented in terms of staying clear of right wing Hindu performance, the significance of having our judiciary led by judges not ideologically subservient to the ruling regime came out sharply. 

The biggest challenge facing the Supreme Court of India is to maintain the independence of the Collegium system The new and emerging challenge is to lay down guidelines to the process of how the Chief Justice of India is selected. Perhaps one needs a Fifth Judges case for that, whose time is awaited. 

While we welcome diversity of caste, class, gender and religion, whether under a Brahmin chief justice or a Dalit chief justice, or a yet-to-come woman chief justice, the judiciary’s  performance will ultimately be judged not by his or her identity alone, but by the leadership provided in maintaining the institution’s independence. A moment of reckoning is still awaited. 

Indira Jaising is a noted human rights lawyer and a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India. She is also a co-founder of The Leaflet.

Courtesy: The Leaflet

India: The Red Fort Blast A Singular Shock – Analysis

The Red Fort

November 18, 2025 
SATP
By Ajit Kumar Singh


On November 10, 2025, at least 10 civilians were killed and another 32 injured when a slow-moving car exploded near the iconic Red Fort in Delhi at around 6:52 pm [IST]. Two days later, on November 12, the Government officially termed the suicide blast a “terror attack”.

In a press release, the Government stated, “The country has witnessed a heinous terror incident, perpetrated by anti-national forces, through a car explosion near the Red Fort on the evening of 10 November 2025. The explosion resulted in multiple fatalities, and caused injuries to several others… The Cabinet directs that the investigation into the incident be pursued with the utmost urgency and professionalism so that the perpetrators, their collaborators, and their sponsors are identified and brought to justice without delay.”

In a related incident on November 14, 2025, at around 11 pm [IST], a blast occurred at the Nowgam Police Station in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), while authorities were extracting samples from a large cache of explosives confiscated from Faridabad, Haryana, in connection with an inter-State terrorist module suspected to be linked to the Delhi blast.

J&K Director General of Police, Nalin Prabhat, stated, “Due to the sensitive and unstable nature of the recovered material, the sampling and examination were being carried out with extreme caution. Despite all precautions, an accidental blast occurred… “

Prior to the incident near Red Fort, according to the SATP database, the national capital had recorded at least 35 terrorism-related incidents resulting in 134 deaths and 885 injuries, since 1997. The last terrorist incident occurred on October 20, 2024, when Khalistan Zindabad Force terrorists carried out a blast in Rohini, Delhi, though no casualties were reported. The last incident of Islamist terrorism occurred on January 29, 2021, when a low-intensity Improvised Explosive Device exploded near the Israel Embassy in New Delhi; no one was injured, though some vehicles were damaged. The last major (resulting in three or more fatalities) terrorist attack in Delhi occurred on September 7, 2011, when a blast at the reception area near Gate No. 5 of the Delhi High Court killed 13 people and injured 89, one of whom died later. The Hizbul Mujahideen was responsible for the attack.



Since the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008, which killed 175, including 144 civilians, six major terrorist attacks have taken place outside major conflict theatres – J&K, Punjab and the Northeast – before the November 2025 Red Fort blast. These included: February 13, 2010: 16 civilians, including three foreigners (a Sudanese, an Italian, and an Iranian), were killed, in a terror attack at Pune in Maharashtra.
July 13, 2011: 19 civilians were killed in a terror attack at Mumbai in Maharashtra.
September 7, 2011: Nine civilians were killed in a terror attack at Delhi.
February 21, 2013: 17 civilians were killed in a terror attack at Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad Urban District, Andhra Pradesh.
October 27, 2013: Eight civilians killed in a terror attack at Patna in Bihar. Lashkar-e-Taiba/Indian Mujahidin were responsible for the attack.
December 26, 2013: Five persons killed and several injured in a bicycle bomb blast in Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, suspected to have been engineered by the Kamtapur Liberation Organisation, which observes its Martyrs’ Day on December 28.

The October 27, 2013, incident in which eight persons were killed in six serial blasts near Gandhi Maidan — the venue of then Bharatiya Janata Party prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi’s rally in Patna, Bihar — remains the last major Islamist terror attack outside India’s principal theatres of conflict, since the 26/11 attacks.

Since October 2013, there have been 17 Islamist terrorist incidents (excluding the November 2025 Delhi blast) outside these conflict theatres, resulting in 30 fatalities — civilians: six; Security Force (SF) personnel: three; terrorists: 19; Not Specified: two. The last of these that resulted in a civilian fatality occurred on June 28, 2022, when Kanhaiya Lal Teli, a Hindu tailor, was murdered in Udaipur, Rajasthan, by two assailants reportedly linked to the Islamic State. The attackers filmed the killing and circulated the video online.

At peak, in 2008, 362 lives were lost in 39 incidents of Islamist terrorist depredations outside the principal theatres of conflict in India, including, 281 civilians, 29 SF personnel and 15 terrorists. Five of the seven years between 2002 and 2008 recorded over 100 fatalities in such incidents. In the 10 years between 2015 and 2024, five recorded zero fatalities.

The dramatic improvement in the situation was largely due to sustained pressure by the SFs throughout this period (October 28, 2013-November 9, 2025), which led to the neutralization of a large number of terrorist modules across the country. Crucially, the nationwide network of domestic facilitators in the Students’ Islamic Movement of India and its offshoot, the Indian Mujahideen, was completely dismantled by the security and intelligence agencies, crippling the operational capacities of terrorist groups operating out of Pakistani and Bangladeshi soil at that them. At least 918 terrorists/associates were arrested during this period, before the Red Fort blast, and several terrorist plots have been foiled before they reached the stage of execution.

Despite the shock of the Red Fort incident of November 10, a far greater catastrophe has been averted, as SFs recovered around 2,900 kilograms of explosives from Faridabad, Haryana. Though the investigations are ongoing, preliminary investigations indicate likely linkages between the Faridabad haul and the Red Fort blast.

The trail of this case began on October 17, 2025, Jaish-e-Mohammed propaganda posters were found pasted in Srinagar’s Nowgam area. Police arrested the persons who put up the posters, Nisar Ahmed Dar, a labour contractor from Nowgam; 19-year-old Yasir-ul-Ashraf from Bunpora; and 25-year-old Maqsood Ahmad Dar from Bunpora on October 19 in Nowgam. Their interrogations led to the detention of 24-year-old cleric Mufti Irfan Ahmad Wagay from Nadigam village in Shopian the same day, at the Nowgam mosque. Further probes exposed a 22-member terror module, resulting in the November 5 arrest of Doctor Adeel Ahmad Rather in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh; the November 8 arrest of Doctor Muzamil Ahmad Ganie in Faridabad, Haryana; and November 9-10 arrests of Doctor Shaheen Saeed in Faridabad, and Zameer Ahmad Ahanger, 29, from Wakoora village in Ganderbal, J&K. Additional detentions on November 11 in Pulwama included Tariq, Aamir, Umar Rashid, Ghulam Nabi, Doctor Sajjad Malla, and Shameema Begum, as well as the early November arrests of Hafiz Mohammad Ishtiyak in Mewat, Haryana, and an unnamed paramedic at Srinagar’s Government Medical College on October 19; Doctor Umar Mohammad Nabi is believed killed in the blast, while another Doctor Umar remains absconding. The plot, alleged intended to target multiple locations across six cities, but was thwarted when 2,900 kilograms of various explosive materials, including just under 360 kilograms of ammonium nitrate, were seized in Faridabad.

Separately, just days before the Faridabad recovery, on November 8, 2025, the Gujarat Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) arrested three persons, including Doctor Ahmed Mohiuddin Saiyed – an MBBS graduate from China – for allegedly attempting to produce Ricin, a deadly organic toxin, to carry out a bio-terrorism attack. The Gujarat ATS also searched Saiyed’s residence in Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, on November 11, 2025, and seized several unidentified chemicals and raw materials packed in cartons.

The Government’s responses to the Red Fort blast have been uncharacteristically cautious, and it took three days for the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to announce that the incident was a terrorist attack. In the past, the top leadership and state agencies have been quick to identify the groups affiliations and state sponsors of alleged perpetrators, but there is evident reluctance to do so in the present case, principally due to the strategic and policy implications that would then bind the Government. In the wake of Operation Sindoor, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had declared that “any future act of terror will be considered an Act of War against India,” and that Operation Sindoor was not over, but only in suspension, and would be reactivated by any future act of terrorism by Pakistan-linked groups. These statements, and subsequent declarations by various prominent ministers and the Defence, Home and External Affairs ministries, create an expectation of escalated retaliation against Pakistan in case of a terrorist attack linked to groups operating or directed from that country. Given the complex and ambiguous outcomes of Operation Sindoor, both in the military and diplomatic spheres, it is evident that the Government would be reluctant to hastily commit itself to such a course of action.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has consequently declared, with great caution, that “those behind the conspiracy will be brought to justice”, but has scrupulously avoided reference to any possible linkages to Pakistan, as have other prominent members of his Government and Party. In an interesting contrast, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s knee jerk response to the Islamabad Court suicide bombing of November 11, 2025, just a day after the Red Fort bombing in New Delhi, was to blame India – even as his Defence Minister Khwaja Muhammad Asif identified the Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) as the group involved, and accused the Afghan Taliban of providing support and safe haven to its leadership and cadres. Shebaz Sharif’s reaction to the Islamabad Court bombing is the more typical of the trajectory of the India-Pakistan discourse, where Islamabad and New Delhi have been quick to accuse each other in the wake of such incidents in the past.

It remains to be seen whether such evasion will remain sustainable as the investigations, now headed by the National Investigation Agency, India premier counter-terrorism investigator, proceed, and how the national political-strategic narrative evolves. It is clear that, despite the political rhetoric, a repeat or further escalation of a response on the model of Operation Sindoor is unlikely to serve India’s interests. The Government, however, appears to have painted itself into an infructuous corner, and needs to extricate itself from its current predicament. Terrorism will not magically disappear as the result of fitful ‘punitive’ strikes in Pakistan, and occasional terrorist strikes in India cannot negate tremendous counterterrorism successes forged by the country’s security and intelligence agencies. Terrorism is no longer an existential threat to the country, and a steady consolidation, and proportionate and covert punitive measures against Pakistan where its responsibility is established, would far better serve India’s national interests.

Ajit Kumar Singh

Senior Fellow, Institute for Conflict Management

SATP

SATP, or the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) publishes the South Asia Intelligence Review, and is a product of The Institute for Conflict Management, a non-Profit Society set up in 1997 in New Delhi, and which is committed to the continuous evaluation and resolution of problems of internal security in South Asia. The Institute was set up on the initiative of, and is presently headed by, its President, Mr. K.P.S. Gill, IPS (Retd).

 

Women’s World Cup: Cricket and Religion in India

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd | 18 Nov 2025

• 
  
• 
  

It is one thing that players follow a faith in their personal life, but in a stadium or in public discourse, religion should not be made a source of controversy.

Image Courtesy:  X/@BCCIWomen

Cricket has become a most visible corporate and upper middle-class game in India. It is also the most expensive game. More than any other game, the players, the billionaires, and politicians hang around cricket because the leisure class and the rich have made it a party and a home gossip game. It has established a serious interlink between Hindi cinema, cricket and political parties.

Though in India, cricket has a rural version called ‘chirragone’ in the Telugu-speaking region, which I played in my childhood in my village, the British colonial rulers introduced their own version of cricket to India. Now, it has become the most popular Commonwealth game.

Well-known British author George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), saw this game as that of fools, who have nothing else to do and have enough money to live on with, and plenty of leisure and seekers of eternal pleasure.

Shaw said: “Cricket is a game played by 11 fools and watched by 11,000 fools," indicating the game's perceived absurdity. Another well-known quote is his observation that "The English are not a very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity".  

Perhaps by the end of 19th Century, secularism was sweeping the socio-political atmosphere of the United Kingdom and church attendance was gradually getting reduced. The rich and upper middle classes of any society need an anchor around which social gossip becomes necessary. Cricket emerged as that anchor of social gossip in Britain and gradually spread to other colonial countries.

Opposite Direction

In the present situation, cricket seems to be travelling in the opposite direction that Shaw’s Britain is going in. It is becoming a de-secularising game, as the new proponent of the game in India is the Right-wing Hindutva spiritual ideological force. This force has already de-secularised most of the rich and upper middle classes that sustain cricket.    

Cricket has become a Hindutva-tainted game, at least for now. Its promotion has become part of the vote and anti-minority weapon. From the Prime Minister to the streets, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) activists and Hindutva billionaires are treating the sport as a source of power politics and business advertisements.

During Congress rule and other party prime ministers’—Charan Singh, V.P Singh, Chandra Shekhar, HD Deve Gowda or I.K.Gujral – rule, this game was not so politicised. But the Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP-RSS have turned the game into their own ideological game by following a method of politicised promotion. In the process, it has also done one good thing -- promoting women to play this game on par with men. Power also forces certain unexpected changes among the rulers, whatever be their ideological orientation.

Women’s World Cup

During the recent Women’s World Cup, the victorious Indian cricket team, while inspiring the nation, particularly young girls and women, religion was also made a tool to fan conflicting religious views through social media.  

The Prime Minister’s tweet on X after India won the match with Pakistan recently linked it to the India-Pakistan war and Operation Sindoor, giving it a political dimension. That created an opinion among the youth that cricket can be used for political and religious ends.  

Religious contentions around the game became more brazen after the Indian women’s team won in the World Cup semi-finals over the powerful Australian women’s team, when India’s Jemimah Rodrigues stated, "Firstly, I want to thank Jesus, because I couldn't do this on my own. I know he carried me through today”.

A young girl, who made 127 runs that defeated the mightiest women’s team of the world that won the same trophy for seven times, in a situation of emotional joy, using the name of Jesus, was turned into a communal social media frenzy by Right-wing forces. However, Jemimah’s religious childhood training and her using the name of Jesus, as a modern girl and cricketer, has implications for the secular environment of the game. Players, whatever be their religious belief, should be careful in the public domain.   

Taking spiritual symbols' names even in a fit of emotion in a country like India creates an environment of de-secularised discourse around the game. Quite surprisingly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who interacted with the victorious women’s team when the nation’s eyes were on them, raised the issue of Deepti Sharma’ belief in Jai Sriram and Hanuman. This has a much more serious politicised religious implication.

Sport advances in a democratic, secular environment, not in a communal environment. Our schools and colleges must give opportunity to girls and boys without tagging sports to any religious ideology.  

It is one thing that players follow a faith in their personal life. One may go to Hindu temples, one may go to Church, one may go to Masjid or Vihar for personal spiritual fulfilment, but in the stadium or in the public discourse, religion should not be made a source of controversy.

It is true that the present regime in Delhi has consciously encouraged women players. Of course, with regard to wrestlers, it failed to address their harassment by the board chairman. Lot of dust was raised around it.

However, India lifting the Women's World Cup rekindled a new hope. The conscious promotion of girls in the realm of sports at the school level will certainly help in changing the status of women in every sphere of life.          

The writer is a political theorist, social activist and author. His latest book is the ‘Shudra Rebellion’. The views are personal.