To leftists,

Fadak tha, Fadak hain, Fadak rahega. Jitna bhi koshis karlo, failure ke siwah kuch nehi milega.

"Nationalism is inspired by the highest ideals of the human race, satyam [the truth], sivam [the good], sundaram [the beautiful]. Nationalism in India has to be inspired by these ideals; and in that case, nationalism will not be narrow, chauvinistic, or aggressive." - Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

Satyam (The Truth): Instilling truthfulness, integrity, and intellectual honesty.

Shivam (The Good): Motivating a lifelong spirit of service, sacrifice, and community welfare.

Sundaram (The Beautiful): Awakening dormant creative faculties and driving a rich cultural and artistic renaissance.

Vande Mataram

Fadak tha ,Fadak hain,Fadak rahega.
Jitna bhi koshis karlo , failure ke siwah kuch nehi milega.

"Nationalism is inspired by the highest ideals of the human race, satyam [the truth], sivam [the good], sundaram [the beautiful]. Nationalism in India has to be inspired by these ideals; and in that case, nationalism will not be narrow, chauvinistic, or aggressive." - Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

• Satyam (The Truth): Instilling truthfulness, integrity, and intellectual honesty.
• Shivam (The Good): Motivating a lifelong spirit of service, sacrifice, and community welfare.
• Sundaram (The Beautiful): Awakening dormant creative faculties and driving a rich cultural and artistic renaissance.

Vande Mataram

Throughout the post-independence era, successive Congress-led administrations utilized constitutional, statutory, and regulatory legal mechanisms to shape, control, and manipulate the Indian media space. Rather than relying solely on arbitrary executive actions, the state repeatedly codified restrictive measures into law to establish systemic leverage over publishers, editors, and journalists.

The primary legal strategies utilized by Congress administrations to manipulate the media space from 1947 to 2014 include:

1. Constitutional Alteration to Limit Free Speech

When early judicial rulings protected the press from state overreach, the government altered the constitutional framework itself to broaden its regulatory powers:

• The First Amendment (1951): Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Romesh Thapar and Brij Bhushan, which struck down state-level bans and pre-censorship orders , Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill. This amendment altered Article 19(2) by introducing broad, subjective exceptions to free speech—specifically "public order," "friendly relations with foreign states," and "incitement to an offence"—enabling the legislature to bypass judicial checks and enact highly restrictive press laws.
• Emergency Amendments (1975–1977): Under Indira Gandhi, the state suspended the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22. The Forty-Second Amendment (1976) was subsequently enacted to strip the courts of their power of judicial review over constitutional changes, effectively eliminating legal remedies for jailed journalists and censored publications.

2. Direct Statutory "Gag" Laws and Censorship Legislation

The state enacted specific legislations designed to censor independent content and punish non-compliant media houses:

• Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951: Enacted under Nehru, this law gave the state sweeping powers to penalize publications deemed to print "objectionable" content under the newly expanded Article 19(2) exceptions.
• The Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matter Act, 1976: Passed during the Emergency, this draconian law allowed the executive to preemptively prohibit the publication of any newspaper for up to two months, demand financial security deposits from printing presses, and seize materials without allowing the affected parties recourse to judicial intervention.
• Repeal of Parliamentary Reporting Protections (1976): The Indira Gandhi administration repealed the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act of 1956—famously known as the Feroze Gandhi Act. This legal change stripped journalists of their immunity from civil and criminal defamation lawsuits when reporting on debates and corruption allegations raised inside Parliament, forcing editors to self-censor.
• Abolition of Watchdogs: The state legally abolished the Press Council of India in 1976 to prevent independent oversight of press-related grievances.

3. Indirect Economic and Regulatory Strangulation

To avoid the public backlash of direct censorship, Congress-led governments used commercial and industrial regulations as indirect tools to control the press:

• The Newsprint Control Orders: Under the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73, the Indira Gandhi administration capped the maximum page count of major newspapers to 10 pages and restricted their circulation. This policy aimed to economically cripple large, critical English dailies under the guise of managing foreign exchange reserves, a tactic the Supreme Court eventually declared unconstitutional in Bennett Coleman v. Union of India (1973).
• Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act: The government misused the MRTP Act to regulate and restrict the number of copies a newspaper could print, artificially capping the audience reach of independent media conglomerates.

4. Draconian Penal Provisions and Anti-Defamation Bills

The executive introduced strict criminal penalties to discourage investigative journalism and suppress dissent, both in print and on digital platforms:

• The Defamation Bill of 1988: Prompted by the Bofors corruption scandal, the Rajiv Gandhi administration drafted an anti-defamation bill containing several highly punitive clauses. It expanded the definition of criminal defamation, inverted the legal principle of "presumption of innocence" by placing the burden of proof entirely on the accused journalist (Section 12), mandated personal court attendance for editors (Section 18), and enabled private, in-camera summary trials (Section 14). This bill was ultimately withdrawn following a nationwide strike.

• Section 66A of the IT Act (2009): Transitioning to the digital era, the UPA government introduced Section 66A, which criminalized the online transmission of "grossly offensive" or "annoying" information. Because the offense was cognizable, the police were legally empowered to arrest internet users, political cartoonists, and social media critics without a warrant, effectively censoring digital political speech until the law was struck down in 2015.

5. Bureaucratic Consolidation and Fiscal Manipulation

The state leveraged administrative authority and financial reliance to influence media operations:

• Weaponization of Government Advertisements: Through the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP), the central government classified newspapers into "friendly," "neutral," or "hostile" categories. It systematically withheld government advertisements—a vital source of revenue—from critical and independent publications to force them into financial compliance.

• Forced Mergers of News Agencies: In 1976, the government forced the merger of India's four major independent news agencies (PTI, UNI, Samachar Bharati, and Hindustan Samachar) into a single, state-run news monopoly called Samachar, giving the ruling party absolute control over the national news wire.

• Delay of Broadcasting Autonomy: The Congress party resisted granting independence to state-run electronic media. Although the Prasar Bharati Act was passed in 1990 to grant autonomy to Doordarshan and All India Radio, successive administrations delayed its implementation for seven years. It was only enacted in 1997, ensuring that the state maintained a direct monopoly over television and radio broadcasting for decades.

• The 2005 NDTV "Report Card" Incident

According to Baru—the former media advisor to Manmohan Singh—NDTV aired a "report card" episode in 2005 that evaluated the performance of Union Ministers, highlighting both the best and worst performers.

The Prime Minister's Anger: The broadcast reportedly angered Manmohan Singh, who was in Moscow at the time, as it featured Foreign Minister Natwar Singh negatively, potentially complicating Singh's efforts to push the Indo-US civil nuclear deal through parliament.

The Phone Call: Singh instructed Baru to call Dr. Prannoy Roy (who was incidentally an economic advisor to Singh in the 1990s). The PM took the phone himself and reprimanded Roy over the broadcast.

The Aftermath: Dr. Roy later told Baru that he had not been scolded like that since he was in school and that Singh had sounded "like a headmaster".

https://gemini.google.com/share/1776f65b3dce [ Full Report ]

Feel Free to go through.

Focus on your own internal politics and do not blindly flatter or support others. If you are going to show favoritism toward someone, please first study what the other side has done or is currently doing. Compare the two properly, and only then should you criticize or support.

No one has ever given Indian media houses an upper Hand in Freedom of Speech.

Foreign Minister of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir speaks at an event hosted by the Egmont Institute in Brussels, Belgium on July 19, 2016.

# The Paradox of Solidarity: Analyzing CPI(M)’s "Double Standard" in Global vs. Domestic Protests

In the complex landscape of Indian politics, few entities demonstrate the organizational discipline of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) \[CPI(M)\]. However, as we move through 2026, a stark contrast has emerged in how the party mobilizes its cadre. While the party displays a ferocious defense of "national sovereignty" on the global stage, it frequently pivots to a "civil liberties" defense when domestic national security is at stake.

# The Global Engine: Defending Foreign Sovereignty

When it comes to international "anti-imperialist" causes, the CPI(M) operates with surgical precision and massive scale. The party views global conflicts not just as humanitarian crises, but as battlegrounds against Western hegemony.

* Palestine & Israel (2025-2026): The scale of mobilization has been staggering. Led by the Students' Federation of India (SFI) the party coordinated approximately 18,000 decentralized actions across India. Their demands were specific: a total military embargo on Israel.

* Verify the Scale: [People’s Dispatch: Palestine Solidarity Movement Grows in India](https://peoplesdispatch.org/2025/10/14/palestine-solidarity-movement-continues-to-grow-in-india-activists-demand-israel-respect-ceasefire/)

* The 2026 Iran Crisis: Following military strikes on Iran in February 2026, the CPI(M) Polit Bureau immediately activated its state machinery. From burning effigies in Delhi to black-flag pickets in Kerala, the rhetoric was clear: Indian "silence" was a betrayal of anti-colonial history.

* Official Stance: [CPI(M) Statement Condemning Attacks on Iran](https://cpim.org/condemn-the-attacks-on-iran/)

# Major Protest Locations in India

# 1. Kolkata (The Central Hub)

* **Dharmatala (Esplanade) to Sealdah:** The Left Front organized a massive protest march through central Kolkata. Protesters carried placards denouncing terrorism and identity-based hatred. +1

* **Kolkata Airport:** While not a protest in the traditional sense, Left leaders joined the solemn arrival of the victims' bodies (Bitan Adhikari, Samir Guha, and Manish Ranjan Mishra) to hold silent vigils and pay tribute, using the occasion to appeal for communal harmony.

# 2. Murshidabad (District Mobilization)

* **Berhampur:** Local party units held demonstrations following the news of the attack. Murshidabad has been a focal point for Left mobilization due to its sensitive communal landscape and historical CPI(M) presence.

* **Beldanga:** Protests and roadblocks occurred here in early 2026, though some of these were linked to broader grievances regarding the safety of migrant workers from the region, exacerbated by the tensions following the Pahalgam incident.

* **Guwahati, Assam:** The CPI(M), alongside CPI and CPI-ML, organized a joint protest at Rotary Point in Guwahati Club.

* **Kulgam, Jammu & Kashmir:** CPI(M) leadership in Kashmir, notably \[Comrade Mohamad Yousuf Tarigami\], organized protests and engaged in local peace efforts.

* **New Delhi:** The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) issued strong condemnations and held meetings to demand a parliamentary inquiry.

Only 7 Protest from CPIM for Pahalgham Attack and a Press release from **Polit Bureau**

* [https://www.facebook.com/IndianDefenceNow/videos/cpi-protests-against-the-indian-govt-for-suspending-the-indus-water-treaty/625797950487621/\](https://www.facebook.com/IndianDefenceNow/videos/cpi-protests-against-the-indian-govt-for-suspending-the-indus-water-treaty/625797950487621/)

* [https://ommcomnews.com/india-news/cpi-ml-general-secy-opposes-centres-move-to-suspend-indus-waters-treaty/\](https://ommcomnews.com/india-news/cpi-ml-general-secy-opposes-centres-move-to-suspend-indus-waters-treaty/)

# Domestic Dissonance: Security vs. "Dissent"

The "double standard" emerges when the party addresses internal threats. Critics point out that the same party which guards Iranian or Palestinian sovereignty often appears lenient toward those challenging Indian sovereignty.

* The JNU Controversy (2016): When an event on campus labeled the execution of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru a "judicial killing," the CPI(M) did not condemn the sentiment. Instead, they framed the state’s response as an attack on "Democratic Rights."

* The Burhan Wani / Umar Khalid Case: In July 2016, student leader Umar Khalid (often supported by Left fronts) faced backlash for comparing Hizbul commander Burhan Wani to a "revolutionary." While the CPI(M) organizes anti-terror rallies in West Bengal for local political optics, it has been accused of providing intellectual cover for Kashmiri separatism under the guise of seeking "political solutions."

# Selective Sovereignity Paradox

The CPI(M) maintains a dual-track strategy that is increasingly difficult to reconcile. Externally, they are the staunchest defenders of borders and sovereignty (as seen in their 2026 Iran protests). Internally, however, they often champion the "rights" of those who explicitly question India’s territorial integrity.This creates a perceptual gap: The party characterizes global strikes as "unacceptable violations" of international law, yet views domestic slogans against the Indian state as "legitimate expressions of anger." For the average observer, this remains the defining contradiction of the Indian Left.

বাকি টা আপনার ডিকোড করে নিন।এরকম কেনো?কিসের জন্য?

Thank you

সিপিআইএম রাস্তা দেখিয়েছিল , টিএমসি সেই রাস্তা আরও চওড়া করে এগিয়ে নিয়ে গেছে।

মমতা কে আমেরিকা টাকা দিচ্ছে? 2:20 - 2:50 [ Time stamp] কি কেস এটা.