HW Community
CAA and NRC – A Dissent on Grounds of Equality and Fraternity
Shimla- In the past few days, there has been unrest in the country over two actions of the parliament i.e firstly, due to introduction of a law called Citizen Amendment Act (CAA), which deals with granting of citizenship to refugees, and secondly, due to the declaration that India will soon have a register of citizens (NRC) where all citizens will have to prove their citizenship with documentary evidence.
About 60 petitions already stand filed in the Supreme Court challenging the (CAA) law. This is the first time in the history of the nation that religion has been considered as a determining factor for grant of privileges in a state enactment. The concern of the people is whether there exists a threat to fundamental values of “fraternity”, “equality”, and “secularism” upon which this nation is built upon. The question is “Whether Something which is not allowed to be done directly is being done indirectly i.e exclusion based on religion in the grant of citizenship”.
Another decision of the Government, the “NRC (National Register of Citizen)” is being sought to be imposed nationwide. This exercise has cost public funds from between 1200 Cr to 1600 Cr in Assam already. It has also led to 40 lakh people being declared stateless by the Government in the first instance, just in Assam. This exercise was, however, erroneously done, and on re-checking, the Courts found that the number was 19 lakh. There was an error of 20 lakh “Human Beings”, who stood declared stateless.
The number of deportation affected by this entire exercise of NRC in Assam is negligible. This begs the question, what is the need for conducting such an expensive and unreliable process and whether the present decisions of parliament are even necessary. Most importantly, if Acts themselves at all are permissible from the perspective of constitutionality, humanity and ethical standards.
Citizen Amendment Act (CAA)
The Law as it Was Before The Amendment:
The law before the amendment essentially said:
If you are in India and you are a non-citizen, without relevant papers, then you are an “illegal immigrant” and, in that case, you have no right be in the country and you are liable to be subjected to be detained and ultimately deported.
An exception to the above rule was;
If one could show that he was a person who was in India, and had come to India due to legitimate fear of being persecuted on any ground in the home country, then he would be eligible for a long term visa. The idea was that if someone is a refugee fearing persecution, then he can stay in India on long term visa basis and the case would be evaluated on ‘case by case basis’.
Notably and rightly so, “religion” had no role to play in the unamended law whatsoever.
The New Law
The 2019 amendment changes the above provision/ position. It creates classes of people who would be entitled to immunity. These classes have been made on the bases of “Religion and Nationality”.
The amendment distinguishes persecuted people who have been living in the country from, on or before, December 31, 2014. It puts them into two categories and says that; one category who are of a particular religion and nationality would be entitled to benefit in “grant of Indian citizenship” and other sets of people who belong to certain “Religion and Nationality”, would be ineligible for immunity in “grant of citizenship”.
The Act also reduces the requirement of residence in India for citizenship by naturalisation from 11 years to five years for these particular communities.
Classes of People Who Stand Excluded under Section 2 (B) of CAA 2019 are:
1. Based on Religion–Anyone who is not a Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians. The exclusion of Muslims, Atheists or any other religion is apparent.
2. Based on Nationality – a classification based on country, by restricting the benefit of acquiring citizenship through naturalisation to minority immigrants only from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
In other words, it says that for certain classes of people there is no immunity from being deemed illegal immigrants, and these classes of people can be denied citizenship and coupled with NRC they can even be put in detention centres or deported to their home country.
Due to such grave consequences, a closer examination of this classification made by the State warrants scrupulous scrutiny.
Violation of Equality
In the new law, the distinction is drawn between “persecuted people living within India” like refugees from before 2014. Amongst these persecuted people, one set is given benefit by the state and the other set is not. The distinction between persecuted people has been drawn just based on religion and nationality. In a secular country, religion cannot become the basis of granting or denying privileges to any person, be it citizen or a non-citizen. This idea goes against the mandate of “Fraternity”, “Equality” and “ Secularism” hence violates the basic structure along with various other constitutional provisions.
It is a settled position/principle of law that whenever there is an exclusion based on classification then;
a. There must be a yardstick to differentiate between those included in and excluded from the group, and
b. That yardstick must itself be reasonable.
Where a legislation discriminates based on an “intrinsic and core trait” of an individual, which in the present case is religion, it violates the “Right to Equal Protection from Laws”. This protection is available to non-citizens settled in India also. Classification based on religion does not form a reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia.
Therefore, the yardstick is reasonable only if it is not based on an “intrinsic and core trait” of an individual such as religion or sex, this is a constitutional limitation placed on the power of the State.
The determining principle for granting citizenship can never be religion, the only relevant factor was ‘persecution’, as it was in the unamended law.
Citizenship can be granted on the grounds of birth, descent, persecution, and naturalisation alone. Bringing religion as a criterion for granting citizenship cuts through the guarantees of Fraternity, Equality, and Secularism which form the basic structure of our constitution.
For example, if you have 10 people living in India as refugees from the past 40 years, all of them have been persecuted. Now you want to save them; you can choose to save all of them or none. However, if you chose to save few and not save the others, then those few who are excluded cannot be excluded purely on grounds of their religion, there has to be some other basis of making this choice. In the old law, it was just persecution. A secular state is bound by principles of secularism and cannot make decisions based on the identity of religion.
It is a capricious and unconstitutional law supported by impermissible sense of purpose. Few important legal positions are;
1. It is incorrect to say that the Act only applies to non-citizens and that Indians need not worry about it. Even though CAA does not at present impact Indian citizens, it impacts human beings who are living in India, who are being treated unequally and the State is acting against the fundamental fabrics of our constitution in handing out such treatment.
If you are a Hindu who came from Pakistan 50 years ago, you get immunity from being an illegal immigrant but if you are a similarly situated Ahamadia or Sufi or Atheist from Pakistan/ Afghanistan/Bangladesh, you don’t get immunity. Such a law cannot be passed by a secular nation.
2. It is incorrect to say that law is inclusive and seeks to benefit immigrants. On the contrary, the irrationality of exclusion is apparent from the fact that now, if a person is suffering from the wrong type of persecution, he won’t get immunity. Persecution in itself is not enough as it earlier was when the old law was in force. Now a determination of citizenship grant is made dependent upon a fact-finding probe into an individual’s religious beliefs.
A human being who has been persecuted have been divided unreasonably, arbitrarily into impermissible categories (religion), hence benefit is being denied in violation of Article 14.
3. The amendment arbitrarily pics up the three nations without any rationale. If you are a persecuted person living in India and you belong to the privileged group of countries, only then you get this immunity and if you don’t belong to these three countries, then you don’t get this immunity. These three countries are not the only neighbouring countries where people have been subjected to violence and religious persecution, for example, Tamils And Rohingyas, or Buddhists from Tibet. There is a ‘pick and choose’ method without having any determining basis or underlying rationale in selecting these three countries. Religious persecution has happened in other countries around us and there are people settled in India, from other countries, who are being excluded from this benefit. This action of exclusion based on nationality is manifestly arbitrary as there is no basis for choosing these three particular countries.
4. The inclusion of a few religions and nationalities is a welfare measure, but the problem is that persons who are equally entitled to get this immunity are being denied of this protection. This offends the equality principle and is discriminatory.
5. It is an incorrect argument to say that Policy matter cannot be tested upon the constitution and cannot be struck down on being arbitrary. The most fundamental principle of equality is that every person in India is entitled to equal protection of laws. Equal protection of law allows the govt to draw certain classifications, which must be reasonable, non-arbitrary and with a defined purpose.
If the purpose of this act is to save people from persecution then it cannot draw these distinctions. And if the purpose of the act is to save only certain religions from persecution, then the purpose itself becomes discriminatory, being only on grounds of religion. On this ground alone, the policy can be struck down.
FRATERNITY
Is a Law/Policy Undermining Fraternity Constitutionally Permissible?
A law can be struck down if it violates the basic structure of the constitution. One of the basic features of the Constitution along with “Equality” is “Fraternity” which is mentioned in its preamble. Fraternity is a prime value from where other principles like secularism take root. It is the first time in the history of the country that a law has been passed where the “determining principle” of classification of human beings is based on their “religion” alone. This has naturally caused unrest in the country, but among the protests, the voices of “unity of religions” and “brotherhood” are being raised. The voices counter a “Law” which on the face of it, is being perceived to be against the unity of the nation and drawn on communal grounds. As mentioned earlier, the law cannot solely be based on religion, as that would violate the equality principle and Article 14. Besides, this law also offends the principle of fraternity.
In a country such as India, with several disruptive forces, such as religion, caste and language, the idea of fraternity is imperative for ensuring “unity of the nation”, through a shared feeling of a common brotherhood.
According to various decisions of the courts this value has been understood to be of prime importance, though not many precedents exist. None the less, there are few which have given the meaning of this principle and have applied it for circumventing State’s power.
Looking at the issue raised in the present case, this principle can be expounded by the Apex court, as the heart of this problem lies in the values of “fraternity and brotherhood” amongst human beings.
According to the jurisprudential understanding, a fraternal bond is one that does not relate to the shared use of goods but rather a shared feeling that is intrinsic to the existence and functioning of the agents themselves. Any law which undermines or poses a threat to fraternity should outrightly be struck down as the other two great values of “liberty and equality” become illusory in the absence of the fundamental value of fraternity.
Drawing the relation between these three fundamental values, it is said that;
a) Liberty without fraternity, for instance, would bestow upon individuals unlimited powers to pursue individual aspirations, without regard to community sentiments and considerations.
b) Equality without fraternity is characterised as ‘barbaric’ equality, as individuals would have no consideration for the standing of other disadvantaged persons.
In light of this, it becomes imperative to ask that;
a) How have the courts interpreted the rights granted based on fraternity?
b) Can a law be struck down as it offends the “guaranteed commitment to the fraternity” in our Constitution?
c) Have the Courts directed the State to frame policies keeping these principles and constitutional limitations in mind?
The answers to the above questions can be found in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A Couple of important ones are discussed below;
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, amongst several conclusions the Court arrived at, it declared that the principle of secularism was an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. In arriving at that conclusion, the Court employed the principle of fraternity in a variety of contexts to assert that the idea of fraternity is a precursor to the attainment of secularism. The Court explained that the inclusion of secular ideals in constitutional provisions was not a product of mere chance but was consciously deliberated upon by the framers in response to the religious foundations of Pakistan. In substantiating this claim, the Court stated that India was historically a country where religious tolerance and a culture of fraternity existed, and the inclusion of secular provisions was accordingly a natural one.
The Court also established that “secularism is the bastion to build fraternity”, and therefore asserted that secular practice and thinking between diverse religious groups, would aid in the fraternal relations between those communities. The outcome of such religious tolerance would have a double impact on fraternity: it would ensure both the unity of the nation through peaceful interaction and the dignity of each citizen.
The Court held that the Constitution strives towards the promotion of secular ideals that would ensure fraternal relations which is the ultimate goal of the framers.
In the Nandini Sundar Case the Courts employed the idea of fraternity in three distinct fashions:
a. As a buffer to unchecked state power;
b. As a mechanism to promote more inclusive policy by the State and finally
c. To reinforce the Centre’s responsibility of upholding human rights in a federal structure.
The governmental policies that disempower humans based on religion are against the constitutional vision. The constitution mandates that power must vest in the State for the welfare of all and not few. The constitutional vision of welfare must be achieved, according to the promotion of fraternity.
The judges in Nandani Sunder case further added that when state power is not exercised responsibly, then there is an inevitable breach of Articles 14 and 21. In using fraternity in such a manner, the Court has elevated the idea of fraternity to a constitutional principle and not merely a noble declaration. In drawing a clear link between unchecked state power and Articles 14 and 21, the Court has created a nexus between the threat to fraternity and a consequent breach of fundamental rights.
The Court also employed the principle of fraternity to judicially review the policy of the State, it stated that it was the responsibility of the Government to ensure the security and integrity of the nation by means which were within the four corners of the Constitution.
The Court in the issue at hand can certainly adjudicate based on the principles mentioned in the above two cases and further expound it. The Courts must preserve constitutional morality which here is an idea of a “unified nation”, where a culture of fraternity flourishes. Hence any policy of the Government which gives rise to “disaffection and dissatisfaction” from its citizens and is a threat to the unity and secular ethos is liable to be struck down on this ground alone.
NRC National Register of Citizens
Assam is a border state and is suffering from the problem of immigration. In the 70s and 80s, the immigration problem led to a strong movement in Assam, which ended with “Assam Accord”. The part of the agreement between Assam and Indian union was the preparation of NRC, which essentially was an exercise of identifying “citizen of India in Assam” and rest who were “non-citizens”.
What we have seen in the last five years is that this NRC process has led to widespread exclusion and disenfranchisement. This is because the NRC procedure relies on documents, the documentary evidence showing that you are a citizen of India.
In a country like India with widespread illiteracy and poverty, this is a very difficult task. The most vulnerable people will be up for exploitation and harassment.
In Assam, the experience shows that 19 lakh people have been left stranded as ‘stateless non-citizens,’ as they have no documents. Amount of more than 1200 crores have been spent on this exercise with negligible deportation. More worrisome is the fact that 20 lakh people in Assam were found to be wrongly excluded by the Supreme Court in this exercise.
Can NRC go National as the Home Minister Has Suggested?
Data collected till now highlights three major issues which have come in the implementation of NRC in Assam, these are;
1. The most marginalised suffer the most and
2. The women suffer more than men due to insufficient documentation
3. A negligible amount of people are deported, and the law does not even serve its purpose efficiently even after consuming lots of time and public money.
Hence, if data shows that these two oppressed groups are the most affected by such an exercise and there has been no benefit achieved, then implementing the same in the rest of the country is illogical.
If you combine CAA and NRC, what you get is that if you are a non-Muslim, who has been left out of NRC, then you still have a possible path of citizenship from CAA. A class of people gets automatic immunity based on religion and nationality. If you are a Muslim, atheist, etc., you are completely ruled out even if you belong to these countries. Ultimately, you are subjected to deportation, or you are put in detention camps. It’s relevant to point out here that the condition of detention camps is terrible and inhumane and is a separate issue in itself.
Conclusion
CAA read alone is discriminatory as it discriminates between persecuted people and divides them in an impermissible category on arbitrary grounds.
The amendment to citizenship Act has brought about disaffection, dissatisfaction and fear in a class of people and has caused unrest in the country. There is internet shutdown (which amounts to the curtailment of the right to speech and expression) in various parts of the country and Section 144 stands imposed in few states. We have an exercise like NRC which wrongly excluded 20 lakh, people, from being a citizen. Now, this is being proposed for the whole country, in the coming days. Worryingly, this might lead to the biggest statelessness crisis of the world causing immense human suffering.
A class is being discriminated based on religion, by state action. The law is arbitrarily neglecting certain communities which is against the Fraternal and Secular values of our country.
The role of the courts as the bastion of fundamental values of the nation is about to be tested. In such times, our commitment to “fundamental duty” and the true values of our country i.e brotherhood and unity and non-violent protests are also under test.
(The post was first published in https://lawumbrella.wordpress.com/ )
Shimla—A quiet but worrying crisis is unfolding in Himachal Pradesh. Across several districts, traders, hoteliers, and restaurant owners are reporting a sharp shortage of commercial LPG cylinders, leaving many establishments with barely a few days’ supply. In a state where tourism drives the local economy, disruptions in cooking fuel supply can quickly escalate into a wider economic concern.
Local reports indicate the shortage is already affecting hospitality businesses. Traders in Shimla have warned that commercial gas stocks may last only a couple of days if fresh deliveries do not arrive soon, according to a report by Amar Ujala. Restaurant owners have echoed similar concerns in Solan and nearby tourist towns, where businesses fear that kitchens may soon struggle to operate without regular supplies, as reported by Dainik Jagran.
At first glance, the shortage appears to be a regional supply bottleneck. In reality, the problem is tied to wider disruptions in global energy markets triggered by the ongoing tensions in West Asia.
Tourism economy vulnerable to fuel disruption
Himachal Pradesh’s tourism sector relies heavily on thousands of small and medium establishments—restaurants, cafés, dhabas, and hotels. Unlike large metropolitan areas where piped natural gas networks are expanding, most commercial kitchens in the hill state still depend almost entirely on LPG cylinders.
This dependence makes the sector particularly vulnerable. Even short supply disruptions can force restaurants to reduce operations, limit menus, or temporarily shut down.
Industry bodies across India have already sounded the alarm. Restaurant operators have warned that continued supply disruptions could lead to closures across the sector. For a tourism-driven state like Himachal Pradesh, such disruptions can ripple through the wider economy.
The global trigger: instability in West Asia
The roots of the crisis lie thousands of kilometers away. The conflict involving the United States and Iran has begun affecting energy markets and shipping routes in the Gulf region.
A key concern is the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy corridors through which a large share of global oil and LPG shipments pass. India’s dependence on this route is substantial. Energy analysts estimate that a majority of India’s LPG imports originate from Gulf countries and move through this narrow maritime passage, as noted in a report by The New Indian Express.
Any instability in the region immediately affects supply chains. Shipping risks rise, insurance premiums increase, and cargo movement slows. These pressures eventually filter down to domestic markets.
Recent reports have also linked rising LPG prices and supply concerns to the Middle East crisis, with consumers expressing worry about the impact of the conflict on cooking gas costs, according to ANI News.
Domestic prioritisation, commercial shortage
When supplies tighten, governments typically prioritise household consumption. Domestic LPG cylinders are considered essential for daily cooking, and maintaining their availability becomes a policy priority.
However, this often leaves commercial users facing reduced allocations. Restaurants and hotels depend almost entirely on commercial cylinders, which are distributed through a separate supply channel.
In response to the emerging supply concerns, the government has reportedly taken steps to ensure adequate domestic availability of LPG, including directing refiners to increase production and manage distribution more closely, as reported by The Economic Times.
While such measures protect households, they can intensify shortages for commercial establishments.
Geography amplifies the problem
Himachal Pradesh faces additional logistical challenges. LPG cylinders used in the state are largely transported from bottling plants located outside its borders. Moving these supplies across mountainous terrain involves long supply chains and limited transport routes.
When upstream deliveries slow down—whether at ports, refineries, or bottling plants—the impact reaches hill towns more quickly and more sharply.
At the same time, alternatives remain limited. Large-scale piped gas networks are rare in the state, and many commercial kitchens lack the electrical capacity required for high-energy cooking equipment.
A warning for energy resilience
The emerging LPG shortage in Himachal Pradesh is more than a temporary supply issue. It highlights a deeper vulnerability in India’s energy system—heavy dependence on imported fuel and fragile supply chains exposed to geopolitical shocks.
For a café owner in Shimla or a hotel operator in Manali, the geopolitics of West Asia may seem distant. Yet the current situation demonstrates how closely global energy flows are tied to local economies.
A disruption in the Persian Gulf can slow tanker shipments, delay fuel supplies at Indian ports, disrupt distribution networks—and ultimately affect the availability of cooking gas in a Himalayan kitchen.
As the situation evolves, the hope in Himachal Pradesh is that supply lines stabilise quickly. But the episode offers a clear lesson: in an interconnected world, even the quiet kitchens of the mountains are not insulated from global conflict.
Mandi|July 11, 2025 — In the lap of the Himalayas, nestled among deodar forests and flowing streams, the district of Mandi has long stood as a symbol of Himachal’s tranquil beauty. But in the monsoon of 2025, that tranquillity was shattered — not by nature alone, but by a deadly combination of climate extremes, administrative apathy, and long-ignored warnings.
This year’s monsoon came not as a nurturing rain, but as a devastating deluge. What began in late June as a forecasted spell of heavy rainfall turned into one of the deadliest natural disasters in recent memory for Himachal Pradesh. And no place bore the brunt quite like Mandi.
The Collapse of Safety
Between June 20 and July 10, the state witnessed 91 rain-related deaths, out of which 17 occurred in Mandi district alone, making it the hardest-hit region according to the State Disaster Management Authority. More than 750 homes were completely destroyed, and another 880 partially damaged, while 10 bridges, multiple roads, and entire stretches of power and water infrastructure were washed away. In just 21 days, the estimated damage statewide crossed ₹750 crore.
The primary culprits? Landslides, cloudbursts, and flash floods — many of which occurred in the dead of night, catching villagers off guard.
In Siyathi village, 67 lives were saved not by sirens or warning systems, but by a dog’s bark. A resident, Narendra, told media:
“It was midnight. We were sleeping. Suddenly the dog began barking non-stop. We ran out. Within minutes, the entire hillside collapsed and our homes were buried.”
The dog, unnamed but hailed as a hero, became a symbol of what worked in a place where institutional response did not.
A Night of Heroes in Deji Village
In nearby Deji, two college students — Ronid Pundir and Sahil Thakur — from Thunag Horticulture College became real-life saviours. When a sudden cloudburst triggered a flash flood in the dead of night, the duo ran from house to house, waking families and helping them escape. Their actions helped evacuate over 150 people.
“We didn’t think twice. We just saw the water rising and started pulling people out,” Ronid told the media.
Despite such moments of courage, the tragedy left deep scars. In many parts of Seraj, Karsog, and Sundernagar subdivisions, residents reported that local authorities failed to respond in time. Emergency shelters were ill-equipped. In remote hamlets, stranded families waited hours, sometimes days, for rescue.
A Failure of Planning, Not Just Weather
Himachal’s vulnerability to extreme weather is well known. Yet critics argue that poor land use planning, unregulated construction near rivers, and unsafe road-cutting practices have greatly magnified the disaster’s impact.
Geologists and environmentalists have warned for years that road expansion projects and large-scale deforestation in hill regions have weakened slope stability. In many places, construction has occurred dangerously close to water channels, despite repeated advisories.
This time, the warnings played out in real-time — with mud, stone, and entire homes tumbling into ravines.
Government Response: Promises and Limitations
Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu visited the worst-affected villages, including Baga, Syanj, and Panglyur, personally distributing relief materials and speaking with the victims.
“No family should feel alone. The state stands with you,” he said during a relief camp visit.
The state government announced ₹7 lakh in compensation per fully destroyed house, and temporary shelters for displaced families. In contrast, the central government’s compensation — capped at ₹1.3 lakh — has drawn criticism from state ministers and the public alike.
Revenue Minister Jagat Singh Negi remarked:
“What we’re getting from the Centre is insufficient. Our people are suffering. We need stronger, faster support.”
A Glimpse into the Future
Perhaps the most chilling aspect of this disaster is that it may be only the beginning. Scientists warn that climate change is accelerating the frequency and intensity of such events in the Himalayas. Increased temperatures are destabilizing glaciers. Erratic rainfall patterns are overwhelming natural drainage systems.
Experts now call for a complete reassessment of infrastructure policy in Himachal — including bans on construction near rivers, better slope-stabilization in road projects, and improved early warning systems for landslides and flash floods.
“What’s happening is not natural anymore,” said a climate scientist from IIT Mandi. “It’s a man-made disaster wrapped in nature’s disguise.”
Beyond Numbers: The Lives Left Behind
In the hills of Mandi, statistics cannot capture the grief. Each day, as clouds gather, a quiet anxiety grips the village once more.
Shimla– In times of conflict, journalism must rise to its noblest purpose: truth, accountability, and responsibility. And yet, as India and Pakistan faced off once again across borders—bullets flying, lives lost, families shattered—a section of the Indian media turned tragedy into theatre.
From the moment reports of cross-border attacks surfaced, several primetime news anchors transformed their studios into shrill war rooms. Not to inform, but to inflame. Graphic war music, animated explosions, ticker tapes screaming “BREAKING”—the spectacle began. As soldiers bled on the border, TV screens bled hyperbole.
The most damning criticism did not come from adversaries but from global media observers. The BBC described Indian news channels’ coverage as “jingoistic and unhinged”. Al Jazeera and The Guardian echoed similar sentiments, noting how unverified reports, doctored videos, and belligerent studio debates replaced sober reportage.
Anchors, who had never seen a trench or a frontline, banged desks demanding military action. Unconfirmed reports were aired without attribution. Words like “annihilation,” “revenge,” and “surgical strike 2.0” were thrown around with theatrical bravado. There was no time to pause for facts. There was no room for nuance. There was only TRP.
The absurdity reached its peak when a few channels aired animations of fighter jets with triumphant music. Meanwhile, real families were burying their dead – soldiers and civilians alike.
In this chaos, journalism died a quiet death.
Media as Vultures
The metaphor is tragically apt. These channels, masquerading as patriots, behaved like vultures—circling the battlefield, feeding off the dead for ratings. Their hunger wasn’t for truth, but for viewership. They amplified hatred, dismissed dissent, and turned war into primetime entertainment.
And in doing so, they embarrassed India, not just at home but before the world.
The Cost of Sensationalism
When media loses its spine, democracy loses its mirror. The consequence is not just embarrassment—it’s danger. Misinformation in wartime can escalate conflict, trigger communal unrest, and mislead policymakers. A responsible media can cool tensions. An irresponsible one can fan the flames.
We must ask: Where is the human cost of war—the widows, the orphans, the destroyed homes? Where is the perspective from peace-builders, historians, and diplomats? Journalism is not supposed to echo government talking points—it is supposed to hold power to account, especially in wartime.
What Needs to Change
The Press Council of India, the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA), and civil society must take stronger action against media outlets that violate ethical standards. Viewers too must switch off noise in favor of news. The Indian media must remember that its loyalty is to truth—not to war, not to government, and certainly not to TRP.
War is not a spectacle. Soldiers are not content. And journalism is not war-mongering.
It is time Indian newsrooms return to their core duty: informing citizens with accuracy, dignity, and humanity.
Himachal’s LPG Supply Hit Amid Global Tensions, Likely to Affect Hospitality Industry
Himachal Teen Survives 12-Minute Leopard Attack, Kills Predator in Self-Defense
Weather Forecast for Himachal Pradesh For the Next Two Weeks
Monsoon 2025: Himachal Pradesh Suffers 199 Casualties, Over ₹1,905.50 Cr in Damages
Home Decor Ideas 2020