Home

Featured Articles

Apr 09, 2026
YagnaSri

The Sabarimala case: Weaponisation of PILs Against Hindu Traditions

As the Supreme Court of India's Nine-judge Constitution Bench deliberates in April 2026 on the questions under examination in the matter about the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) mechanism, once a tool for the marginalised, it has become a weapon for ideological social engineering by the leftist gangs against the Hindus. This case is not the pursuit of justice by aggrieved devotees, but a coordinated effort by ideological outsiders to reform a faith they have not studied or understood, let alone practised. The foundation of the 2018 judgment on the Sabarimala Temple women's entry issue rested on a 2006 writ petition filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA). However, the institutional background of these petitioners reveals a startling disconnect from the shrine they sought to "liberate": No Devotional Connection: None of the IYLA members identified as devotees of Bhagwan Ayyappa or pilgrims to the shrine. They made no effort, even to pretend to be one. For them, it does not even matter. They are on a mission to save the world from the evils of Sanatana Dharma, and they are well funded, and their legal team is full of leftist heavyweights. Absence of Vows: None of the petitioners observed the Mandala Deeksha, the mandatory 41-day vow of celibacy and austerity throughout their lives. Third-Party Status: No woman among the petitioners claimed she was personally prevented from visiting or that she desired to worship at Sabarimala. They are not even pleading that they are devotees who wish to visit the temple. When the PIL was invented by the Indian Judiciary, wherein people who are not victims or have no connection to the victim could approach the High Courts and the Supreme Court and file a writ petition, the PIL jurisdiction exists under the scheme of the Indian Constitution to help those unable to access courts, such as the poor or illiterate. This process, for a short time, did a lot of good. However, as the years passed by, the entire machinery became a tool for the leftist gangs in New Delhi, especially for NGOs mainly funded by external entities. They began using this mechanism to mount third-party challenges to religious practices by those with no personal stake, which violates the doctrine of locus standi. In this litigation, this feature was further amplified with documented political and ideological motivations. Let us examine who these people are: Nikita Azad and #HappyToBleed Intervenor Nikita Azad, a prominent Left-feminist activist, rose to fame via the #HappyToBleed campaign. Azad uses social media to challenge concepts of menstrual purity in Hindu temples, adopts a consistent position that Hindu gender distinctions constitute "patriarchal oppression", and participated in the 2018 case proceedings not as an aggrieved worshipper, but as a declared ideological opponent of the tradition, and she was allowed to do so. Legal Representation: The Lawyers' Collective Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing Azad, brings her own historical context to the case. As the co-founder of the Lawyers Collective, Jaising has a long history of advocating for Leftist feminist "causes". It may not be out of place to mention here that the Ministry of Home Affairs cancelled the Lawyers Collective's registration in 2016 over alleged misuse of foreign funds. Ms Jaising has publicly stated that the Vedas and Manusmriti should have no place in judicial reasoning. She was a senior law officer under the UPA government, during which people of such an ideological persuasion were placed in prominent positions with considerable power and prestige. One of the worst actions of the entire matter is the position taken by the Kerala Government (LDF/CPI(M)) during the original proceedings. As the institutional trustee of the temple, the State had a duty to protect the denomination's religious practices under Articles 25 and 26. Instead, the CPI(M) government allied with the non-devotee petitioners. This alignment is attributed to the party's materialist ideology, which views certain Hindu practices as "feudal" targets for state-led reform. The subsequent political fallout was severe: in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the LDF won only 1 of 20 seats in Kerala, a defeat attributed largely to the alienation of Ayyappa devotees. Now, with the elections for the Kerala State Assembly underway, the LDF administration has made a U-turn, fully supporting the Temple traditions in the present revision. Now, the Nine-Judge Bench is currently addressing various questions, including Question 7 of the reference: Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination has the standing (locus standi) to challenge its internal practices via PIL. In fact, the long-established legal position, as held in the State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), mandates that courts dismiss petitions filed for political or ideological purposes. The original Sabarimala PIL cleared is argued to have failed this test due to: Abstract ideological harm replaced actual legal injury. The community being "helped", which is women, devotees of Swamy Ayyappa, are in fact opposed to the petition. The same petitioners have not filed similar challenges against gender-segregated practices in Islamic or Christian contexts, suggesting a targeted campaign against Hindu institutions. Summary of Key Actors in the Original Case Actor Role Affiliation Connection to Faith IYLA Lead Petitioner Organisational mission None; no members identified as devotees Nikita Azad Intervenor Left-feminist activist; #HappyToBleed founder None; declared opponent of the practice Indira Jaising Senior Counsel Co-founder, Lawyers Collective; ASG under UPA-II None State of Kerala Respondent CPI(M); Atheistic-materialist ideology Statutory regulator; abdicated duty to protect the temple traditions The review of the 2018 judgment is not a mere technicality. It touches the heart of the relationship between a secular State and a living religious civilisation. The nine-judge bench now has the opportunity to ensure that the PIL process is not weaponised by "ideological outsiders," affirming that constitutional protection extends to the internal traditions of all faith communities equally.

Apr 08, 2026
Siddhartha Dave

America’s Strategic Pause: Lessons from a Turbulent US-Israel, Iran War

In the complex theatre of contemporary geopolitics, wars are no longer decided solely on battlefields. They are shaped equally by narratives, negotiations, and the ability of nations to manage escalation without losing strategic credibility. The recent developments surrounding the United States, Iran, and the broader West Asian conflict present a compelling case study of this evolving reality. At first glance, the announcement of a temporary ceasefire and the suspension of strikes by the United States may appear as a routine tactical decision. However, a deeper examination suggests that this moment reflects something more profound—a recalibration of American strategy under pressure, and a shift in the balance of perception in the region. Reports indicate that U.S. President Donald Trump acknowledged halting military actions following diplomatic engagements that involved multiple actors, including Pakistan. While such mediation claims must always be scrutinised carefully, the very fact that Washington chose to step back from an escalatory path points to a critical reality: the United States, despite its military superiority, is no longer operating in an uncontested strategic environment. For decades, American interventions were characterised by overwhelming force followed by unilateral outcomes. From Iraq to Libya, the template was clear—military dominance translated into political leverage. However, West Asia today is a far more fragmented and contested space. Regional actors have acquired greater resilience, and global powers are increasingly constrained by economic costs, domestic political pressures, and the risk of wider escalation. In this context, the current pause in hostilities must be understood not merely as a ceasefire, but as a strategic pause. Iran, for its part, has sought to project the situation as a victory—arguing that it compelled the United States to accept negotiations and consider its framework of proposals. Whether these claims hold substantive truth is secondary to the larger point: in modern conflicts, perception often carries as much weight as reality. By surviving the initial wave of pressure and entering a negotiation phase, Tehran has positioned itself as a resilient actor rather than a defeated one. This is not to suggest that Iran has achieved a decisive victory. The internal dynamics within Iran, the pressures on its economy, and the continuing vulnerabilities of its regional network remain significant. Yet, in the realm of narrative warfare, it has avoided the image of capitulation—an outcome that holds immense value in West Asian political culture. Within the United States itself, voices have begun to question the strategic returns of such engagements. Concerns over financial costs, military casualties, and the absence of a clear end-state have resurfaced. This internal debate is crucial, as it reflects a broader fatigue with prolonged external interventions—something that has shaped American policy decisions in recent years. The situation also highlights the limitations of coercive diplomacy when not backed by a sustainable long-term strategy. Military action, without a clearly defined political objective, risks devolving into cycles of escalation and de-escalation without meaningful resolution. The two-week ceasefire, therefore, appears less like a resolution and more like a window—an opportunity for all sides to reassess their positions. Perhaps the most significant takeaway from this episode is the changing nature of power itself. The United States retains unmatched military capabilities, yet its ability to translate that power into uncontested outcomes has diminished. Conversely, regional actors like Iran may lack comparable conventional strength, but they compensate through asymmetric strategies, narrative building, and strategic patience. This evolving dynamic underscores a larger transition in global politics—from unipolar dominance to a more contested and fluid order. For Bharat, these developments carry important lessons. India’s consistent emphasis on dialogue, restraint, and strategic autonomy appears increasingly relevant in a world marked by overlapping crises. The principle articulated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi—that “this is not the time for war”—resonates strongly in such contexts. It reflects not only a moral position but also a pragmatic understanding of the interconnected nature of today’s global challenges. Energy security, trade routes, and diaspora safety are all directly influenced by stability in West Asia. Any prolonged conflict in the region has immediate implications for Bharat’s economic and strategic interests. Therefore, a balanced approach—engaging all sides while avoiding entanglement—remains the most prudent course. In conclusion, the current situation in West Asia should not be viewed through the simplistic lens of victory or defeat. It is, instead, a reminder that modern geopolitics operates in shades of grey. The United States has not suffered a conventional defeat, but neither has it achieved decisive dominance. Iran has not secured an outright victory, but it has avoided strategic collapse. What we are witnessing is not the end of a conflict, but the evolution of a new phase—where power is negotiated, narratives are contested, and outcomes remain uncertain. In such a world, the ability to balance strength with restraint, and ambition with prudence, will define the true winners.