Religious Bigotry: A Mark of Backwardness

Every society and religion has faced social evils, but progressive communities have always embraced reform. For instance, Hindu society once struggled with practices such as child marriage, sati, and dowry. These customs, though deeply entrenched, were eventually abolished through legislation and widespread public support.

Similarly, Muslim societies have grappled with harmful practices such as Triple Talaq, Halala, and restrictive interpretations of the Hijab. While some of these issues have been addressed through reform laws, what remains troubling is the resistance from certain community leaders who oppose change. Practices like Misyar marriages among Sunnis and Mutah marriages among Shias persist in some regions, highlighting the need for continued reform.

The eradication of such evils depends on the spread of scientific education and rational thought. Reformers in India raised their voices against sati, child marriage, and dowry, leading to laws that were widely accepted without opposition from Hindu religious leaders. In contrast, within Islam, reform efforts often encounter resistance from fundamentalist and radical elements.

A striking example comes from Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who sought to modernise society and limit religious conservatism. He famously criticised the hijab, calling women in veils “walking tents.” His reforms, however, faced strong opposition, including the Khilafat movement, which was ironically supported by leaders like Mahatma Gandhi despite its regressive stance.

Figures such as Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali spearheaded the Khilafat movement, prioritising religious orthodoxy over social progress. The establishment of institutions commemorating such leaders raises questions about the true spirit of secularism.

It is tragic that nations like Turkey and Iran—once seen as pioneers of reform—have regressed into regimes dominated by religious bigotry. Social reform must never be obstructed by religious obscurantism. Leaders and followers of all faiths must adapt to the pace of modern times. Societies that resist progress are destined to remain backward in every sphere of life.

Judicial Criticism and the Limits of Public Discourse

 

It is a settled principle of law that once a judgment is delivered, it enters the public domain. Citizens, scholars, and practitioners are free to analyse, appreciate, or criticise it based on their understanding. Such engagement enriches jurisprudence and strengthens democratic debate. However, there is a crucial boundary: while judgments may be critiqued, motives must never be attributed to the judges who delivered them. To do so undermines judicial independence and erodes public confidence in the institution.

Unfortunately, contemporary discourse often blurs this line. Instead of analysing judgments on their merits—examining statutory interpretation, precedent, or reasoning—many commentators resort to questioning the personal background or alleged biases of judges, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria. This trend is not only intellectually shallow but also corrosive to the majesty of law.

The recent cases of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), illustrate this problem. Bail under UAPA is exceptionally stringent: courts must be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of terrorism-related offences. This makes bail far harder to obtain than in ordinary criminal cases. By contrast, parole—such as that repeatedly granted to Baba Ram Rahim—is a different legal mechanism altogether. Parole is a temporary release of a convict already serving a sentence, usually for humanitarian reasons such as illness, family emergencies, or education. It is granted by administrative authorities, not directly by courts, though courts may intervene if parole is denied arbitrarily. Furlough, distinct from parole, is a routine break granted for good conduct.

Thus, comparing bail under UAPA with parole for convicts is legally unsound. The two operate under entirely different frameworks, purposes, and thresholds. When biased commentators equate these distinct legal processes or attack judges personally, they mislead public understanding and weaken respect for judicial institutions. Criticism of judgments is welcome; scandalising judges is not. The judiciary’s authority rests on public trust, not coercive power. If this trust is eroded by reckless commentary, the rule of law itself is imperilled. Courts have the power to initiate contempt proceedings against those who scandalise or lower the authority of the judiciary. While suo motu action is exercised sparingly, there is a strong case for vigilance against commentators who substitute serious legal analysis with personal attacks. Protecting judicial dignity is not about silencing dissent—it is about ensuring that dissent remains within the bounds of reasoned, lawful discourse.

Opposition to Hindi shows the inanity of Tamil politicians

The people of Tamil Nadu are suffering greatly from the denial of the three-language formula in schools. Strangely, even those who know a little Hindi pretend not to. They say so out of fear of politicians. It can be said in all fairness that Muslims do not hesitate to converse in Hindi in all parts of the state. Why Tamilians, who have a knack for learning many languages, are denied the chance to learn Hindi is beyond anyone’s imagination. What is most shocking is that people have not launched any agitation against the imbecility of those in power.

Because of the anti-Hindi attitude, opportunities for communication and mobility across India are reduced, limiting access to certain jobs that require Hindi. Many central government jobs, national companies, and customer-facing roles require Hindi proficiency. Without it, candidates from Tamil Nadu often face disadvantages compared to others, though those who are highly educated do overcome this difficulty by learning the language soon.

Travelling or working in North and Central India becomes harder without Hindi, as English is hardly spoken in smaller towns. Hindi dominates Indian cinema and TV. Thus, not knowing it often limits participation in mainstream cultural conversations.

The National Education Policy (NEP) promotes a three-language formula including Hindi. Tamil Nadu’s resistance sometimes creates tension with the Centre, potentially affecting funding and opportunities. In pan-Indian organisations, Hindi often becomes the informal medium of communication. Non-speakers may feel excluded. Currently, Tamil Nadu does not have any Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs). The main reason is the state government’s opposition, rooted in Tamil Nadu’s unique two-language policy and its resistance to the three-language formula promoted by the Centre. This has led to decades of refusal to allow JNVs, even though the central government funds them fully.

JNVs across India follow the three-language formula (regional language, Hindi, English). Tamil Nadu enforces a two-language policy (Tamil + English), rejecting compulsory Hindi, which is nothing but the height of foolishness. With the intervention of the Supreme Court, it is hoped that the issue will be resolved. The Supreme Court has directed Tamil Nadu to identify land in every district for establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) and to hold consultations with the Union Government, rejecting the state’s objections that these schools conflict with its two-language policy. The Court emphasised that JNVs should not be turned into a language issue and highlighted their role in providing quality education to rural and underprivileged students. The obduracy of Tamil politicians in favouring English and opposing Hindi, that too, at the detriment of the people, is not understandable. In fact, people should stand up and fight against the irrational policies of Tamil political parties.  

 

The Impeachment Motion is an attempt to browbeat Justice GR Swaminathan

Opposition parties, which swear by the constitution, are brutally violating it. A judge, in fact, speaks through his/ her judgments. Once the judgment has been pronounced, he/ she becomes functus officio. And in the same vein, it must also be said that after the pronouncement of the judgment, it becomes public property, and it can be subjected to praise or criticism. A judgment can be right or wrong. If that is wrong, the same can be appealed, but no judgment can be extracted from the judge by unjustified pressure.

However, what the opposition parties and their leaders have done by giving notice of impeachment against Judge G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court, with the signatures of 107 Members of Parliament, to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, shows their colossal ignorance of the Constitutional provisions. The notice was handed over jointly with the INDIA bloc leaders, including Priyanka Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, marking a coordinated move by the opposition alliance. The development is related to an order that allowed a section of devotees of the Uchchipillaiyar Temple to light the traditional Karthigai Deepam, a stone lamp pillar located near a Dargah at Thirupparankundram in Madurai.

The MPs moved the notice under Article 217, read with Article 124 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say, Judges can only be impeached on two grounds: proved misbehaviour or incapacity. These are the constitutional standards applied to judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India.

Proven misbehaviour covers actions that violate judicial ethics, integrity, or dignity. Examples include corruption, abuse of judicial office, bias, or conduct unbecoming of a judge. Misbehaviour must be proved through an inquiry by a judicial committee before Parliament can act.

Incapacity refers to a judge’s inability to discharge duties due to physical or mental disability. Here, there is nothing which could be proved against Justice Swaminathan. Clearly, this impeachment motion is an attempt to browbeat a judge; therefore, it must be dismissed by the Speaker with the contempt it deserves. 

Implementation of Four Labour Codes

Four Labour Codes (a) Code on Wages, (b) Industrial Relations Code, (c) Social Security Code, and (d) Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code have come into force from today, i.e. 21st November 2025. These four Codes have subsumed 29 labour laws. The main change is the subsuming of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Absence of disputes implies a harmonious relationship between labour and management. Therefore, every industrial relations legislation necessarily aims at providing conditions congenial to industrial peace. Almost all interruptions are due to industrial disputes. The object of all labour legislation around the world is to ensure fair wages and prevent disputes.

From now onward, it will be part of the Industrial Relations Code. Apart from the Industrial Disputes Act, the other two acts which have been subsumed within it are: the Trade Union Act and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders). Not many changes have been made in this code from other labour acts. However, this restructuring ensures uniformity in working hours, overtime pay, and worker protections, aligning India’s labour ecosystem with global standards. Therefore, these changes are bound to impact every category of worker, including corporate employees, factory workers, gig workers, and those in the unorganised sector.
Universal Minimum Wage
The government will now set a statutory floor wage based on minimum living standards. States must ensure their minimum wages remain above the statutory floor wage, creating nationwide uniformity. For the first time, all employees, including unorganised-sector workers, are covered. The new wage definition brings clarity. “Wages” will now include basic pay, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance. At least 50% of total compensation must be basic pay, preventing companies from inflating allowances. This change may lead to lower take-home salaries but higher PF and gratuity benefits, as per labour experts quoted in earlier policy discussions.
Gender Equality
The codes prohibit gender-based wage discrimination, ensuring equal pay for equal work. Timely wage payment rules now apply to all employees earning up to Rs 24,000 per month, widening protection.
Work Hours and Overtime
The weekly cap remains 48 hours. Daily limits may be increased, but overtime must be paid at twice the normal rate. For the first time, work-from-home provisions are officially recognised, especially for services and IT sectors, giving companies and employees more flexibility. Gig and platform workers, drivers, delivery partners, and freelancers will receive social security benefits. Aggregators will contribute 1–2% of their turnover into a dedicated social-security fund.
 Industrial Relations: The threshold for requiring government approval for lay-offs, retrenchment, and closure has increased from 100 to 300 workers.
Employees must now give a 14-day strike notice, preventing sudden flash strikes. The codes introduce an inspector-cum-facilitator system with web-based, algorithm-driven inspections, reducing harassment.
Compliance, from licenses to registers, is now digitised under the “One License, One Registration” rule.
Gratuity for Fixed-Term Employees
Fixed-term workers will now get gratuity on a pro-rata basis, without needing to complete five years.
Factory and Contract Labour
Factories with 20 workers (with power) and 40 workers (without power) will now come under the Factory Act.
The Contract Labour Act applies to establishments with 50 or more contract workers.

 

 

The Need for a Contributory Pension Scheme for Professionals and Workers

A mandatory Contributory Pension Scheme must be introduced for professionals, including Lawyers, Journalists, and Chartered Accountants, as well as for Industrial Workers and Farmers.

Many self-employed professionals, such as lawyers and journalists, currently have no provision for old-age security. This gap often leads to them living in penury and becoming dependent on family. Journalists, in particular, often face a very difficult life after their working years. While professionals like chartered accountants and small businessmen may be more financially savvy, the need for a safety net remains critical for all.

While a few state governments offer small monthly pensions for journalists, these schemes are too few and the amounts provided are too meagre to be effective. A robust, mandatory system is essential.

Proposal for Lawyers

Bar Councils are perfectly positioned to establish beneficial pension schemes. They can generate substantial funds through mandatory contributions from several sources:

1. Mandatory Registration Deposit: Every new entrant must deposit a reasonable sum with the State Bar Council upon registration.
2. Monthly Contribution: Lawyers must make a modest monthly contribution.
3. External Support: The Bar Council should seek support from Bar Associations and governments.

A portion of these accumulated funds should be allocated to a dedicated pension fund, payable after the age of sixty or sixty-five. While high-earning advocates should have the flexibility to forgo the pension initially, the option to receive it later must always be available.

Proposal for Journalists

Media proprietors must be mandated to maintain a dedicated pension fund for their employees, with additional support from state governments.

This fund must be separate from the existing, and often inadequate, PF-linked pension scheme. State governments should either significantly increase their existing pension contributions to journalists or redirect those funds to strengthen the centralised pension fund. Journalists, having worked hard to enrich their media proprietors, deserve a secure and dignified retirement.

Implementing Universal Welfare

Ultimately, similar welfare measures should be implemented for all sectors. All workers who generate profits through hard toil deserve comprehensive pension benefits in their old age. Instead of governments distributing discretionary "largesse," structured contributory schemes should be implemented for all workers and even for farmers, ensuring security across the board.

Nitish Kumar’s Enduring Legacy in Bihar

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar will be remembered for many contributions, but two stand out as truly transformative for the people of the state. One of his most impactful initiatives was the distribution of free bicycles to school-going girls. I was deeply moved to witness hundreds of girls, during my last visit to Rajgir, confidently pedalling to schools located miles from their homes—something that was once nearly unimaginable. In the past, many girls were forced to abandon their education due to the constant threat posed by anti-social elements. Today, thanks to this initiative, along with the provision of mid-day meals and essential school supplies—books, notebooks, pens, and pencils—girls enjoy the same educational support as boys.

This shift has had a profound effect: the literacy rate among girls in Bihar has seen a significant rise during Nitish Kumar’s tenure. Such a safe and encouraging environment for girls’ education was virtually unthinkable during the earlier Lalu Prasad Yadav era.

The second landmark achievement of Nitish Kumar’s administration has been the enforcement of Prohibition, a bold move undertaken despite resistance from within his own party and bureaucracy. Those familiar with the ground realities know that the liberal availability of alcohol had devastating effects, especially on the poor and women. The state witnessed numerous deaths due to the consumption of cheap, adulterated liquor, compounded by the lack of adequate medical facilities. Prohibition, though controversial, brought relief to countless families who had suffered silently for years.

Looking ahead, Bihar’s path to sustainable development lies in industrialisation. The state must create opportunities that can curb the mass migration of its workforce. Biharis are known for their intelligence and hard work, and they have contributed immensely to the prosperity of other states through sheer determination and effort.

While corruption may never be entirely eradicated, it can certainly be curtailed under the leadership of individuals like Nitish Kumar—leaders known for their integrity and commitment to public welfare.