Assam: Communal tensions erupt in Dhubri after suspected cow head discovered near temple
The animal remains were found by a person visiting the Hanuman temple in ward number 3, around 7.30 am. The discovery led to widespread protests in the area by 9 am.
According to the Assam Tribune, this was the third such incident at the same temple.
A large number of residents blocked a road adjacent to the temple. They shouted slogans and burned tyres as part of their demonstration, Assam Tribune reported.
They also prevented the police from removing the remains of the animal, insisting that it must remain untouched until 'those responsible are identified and arrested'.
Tensions escalated in the area despite a large number of police personnel being deployed, India Today NE reported. By 11 am, Dhubri Deputy Commissioner Dibakar Nath and Superintendent of Police Nabin Singh arrived at the location, addressed the crowd and promised a comprehensive inquiry into the incident.
On Monday, the deputy commissioner issued orders prohibiting five or more persons from gathering in the Dhubri town under section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The administration has also banned rallies, processions, meetings or demonstrations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Malegaon blast case acquittals expose a deep-rooted bias in Congress
The recent verdict in the Malegaon blast case has not just acquitted individuals like Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya — it has exposed something far more sinister: The Congress party's consistent and deep-rooted prejudice against the Hindu community. As someone who believes in justice, constitutional morality, and the inclusive spirit of India, I find it essential to call out this ideological poison for what it is. The judgment in the 2008 Malegaon blast case is damning, not for the accused but for the political ecosystem that manipulated agencies, planted narratives, and criminalised identities. The court noted how the prosecution failed to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt, how witnesses turned hostile, and how the fabric of the case was stitched together with political intent. As someone who has followed the case closely, including the detailed biography of Lt Col Purohit by journalist Smita Mishra, I was appalled. Here was a decorated Army officer who had been entrusted with infiltrating terror networks, but who ended up being framed as a terrorist himself. His nine years behind bars were not just a personal tragedy — they were the outcome of a Congress-led UPA regime that needed to invent 'Hindu terror' to balance Islamist terror in the public discourse. This perverse narrative was systematically constructed by three key Congress leaders. In August 2010, then-Union Home Minister P Chidambaram publicly warned of a new phenomenon of 'saffron terrorism', alleging that radical Hindu outfits were implicated in bomb blasts. His colleague Digvijay Singh then popularised the term within the Congress ranks, describing 'terrorism among Hindus' while paradoxically objecting to religious descriptors for terrorism. The campaign reached its peak when then-Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde defended 'saffron terror' at a party conclave in January 2013, claiming his ministry's confidential papers substantiated the allegations. Years later, Shinde would admit that coining the term was a mistake — but by then, irreparable damage had been done to innocent lives and India's social fabric. This perverse narrative found its way into diplomatic cables too. In the WikiLeaks cable from 2009, Rahul Gandhi reportedly told then-US Ambassador Timothy Roemer that Hindu radicalism was a bigger threat to India than Lashkar-e-Taiba. This was not a stray remark. It was a window into the Congress's ideological framework, where the Hindu is always the problem and the minority vote bank must always be coddled, even at the cost of truth. Go back to 1951. When the Somnath temple was reconstructed after centuries of devastation, India's first President Rajendra Prasad, agreed to attend the inauguration. But Jawaharlal Nehru disapproved, fearing it would look like 'Hindu revivalism'. Fast forward to 1985. The Supreme Court delivers a progressive judgment in favor of Shah Bano, a Muslim woman seeking alimony. But Rajiv Gandhi caved under pressure from conservative clerics and overturned the ruling through legislation. In 1988, the Congress government banned Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses — even before protests erupted in India. It wasn't about public order; it was about pre-emptively appeasing a vote bank. And perhaps the most shocking of all: In 2006, then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared, 'We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development. They must have the first claim on resources.' I am a Dalit, and I cannot stay silent at the suggestion that national development should be filtered by religion. What about the poor Hindu, the Dalit student, the tribal child? Does their struggle not count? Today, when Rahul Gandhi speaks of 'social justice' and champions Dalit rights, one must ask: How does denying reservation to marginalised communities in prestigious institutions like AMU and Jamia serve social justice? This is the height of hypocrisy — using Dalit symbolism for votes while systematically undermining Dalit interests in policy. This isn't just about Congress. It's about the future of India's democracy. A nation cannot move forward if it continues to be shackled by ideological hatred and historical bias. Hindu identity is not extremist. It is civilisational. And those who equate it with terror not only insult India's history —they endanger its future. The Congress party owes an apology. To the falsely accused. To the institutions it compromised. And to the silent Hindu majority who have endured humiliation in the name of 'secularism'. The writer is national spokesperson of the BJP
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Former SSP, DSP among 5 Punjab cops convicted of killing 7 in 1993 fake encounter
A CBI court in Mohali Friday convicted five retired Punjab Police officers, including then Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), in a case pertaining to two alleged fake encounters in 1993 in which seven men of Tarn Taran's Rani Vallah village were gunned down. Among the victims were four Special Police Officers (SPOs). The court of Special Judge Baljinder Singh Sra convicted former SSP Bhupinderjit Singh, DSP Davinder Singh, Inspector Suba Singh, ASIs Gulbarg Singh and Raghbir Singh, all retired, of criminal conspiracy, murder, destruction of evidence, and fabrication of records under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, and 218 of the Indian Penal Code. All five were taken into custody following the verdict. Five other accused police officers during the course of the trial while one turned prosecution witness. The quantum of sentence will be pronounced on Monday. The case stems from two separate alleged fake encounters in June and July 1993, in which seven men were picked up by the police, illegally detained, tortured, and later shown as killed in staged encounters. According to the CBI, five of the seven victims belonged to Dalit communities. According to investigation carried out by the CBI, the victims were initially picked up in connection with a robbery case in village Sangatpura. However, they were later declared as militants and shown to have been killed in armed encounters with the police. Their bodies were not returned, nor were families informed. As per the CBI, on the morning of June 27, 1993, Inspector Gurdev Singh — then SHO of Sarhali police station — led a police team that picked SPOs Shinder Singh, Desa Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Balkar Singh alias Bobby, and another person Daljit Singh — all residents of Rani Vallah — from the residence of a government contractor in the presence of family members. They were taken to PS Sarhali, where they were allegedly tortured to confess to the robbery. Subsequently, on July 2, 1993, Sarhali police filed an FIR (No. 61/93) claiming that three SPOs — Shinder Singh, Desa Singh, and Sukhdev Singh — had absconded with government-issued arms. On July 12, police claimed that while escorting one Mangal Singh to village Gharka for recovery in a dacoity case, their party was attacked by militants. In the alleged crossfire, Mangal Singh and three others — Desa Singh, Shinder Singh, and Balkar Singh — were shown as killed. Police recovered arms and ammunition from the scene and registered another FIR (No. 72/93) at Sarhali police station. The forensic analysis, however, revealed inconsistencies. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory found that the bullet casings collected at the scene did not match the weapons allegedly recovered from the deceased. Post-mortem examination reports also indicated that the victims had been tortured prior to death. Despite being identified by two ASIs, the bodies were cremated as 'unclaimed' and 'unidentified.' In a separate incident, the CBI found that another victim from the earlier group, Sukhdev Singh, had been handed over to Verowal police. Around the same time, police abducted Sarabjit Singh from village Hansawala and Harwinder Singh from Kaithal, Haryana. All three were shown as killed in another encounter on July 28, 1993, allegedly involving Verowal police officers. An FIR (No. 44/93) was registered at Verowal police station, and police documented the recovery of a bolt-action rifle, a 12-bore gun, and a .303 rifle. The CBI found these documents to be fabricated to justify the killings. The case was originally brought to light as part of the broader investigation into mass cremations of unclaimed bodies in Punjab during the militancy era, spearheaded by human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra. Following Supreme Court orders on December 12, 1996, the CBI began its inquiry. The central agency registered a regular case in 1999 based on the complaint of Narinder Kaur, wife of SPO Shinder Singh. She alleged that that her husband was killed in a fake encounter and cremated as an unidentified person. The CBI filed a chargesheet in 2002 against 11 accused officers. However, trial proceedings were delayed due to legal stays between 2010 and 2021. During this period, five of the accused died. Out of 67 witnesses cited by the CBI, 36 died away during the prolonged trial, and only 28 were able to testify. Sarabjit Singh Verka, counsel for the victim families, welcomed the court's decision and noted that justice had been delayed but ultimately delivered. Gurmeet Kaur, widow of SPO Sukhdev Singh, said, 'I was pregnant when my husband was killed. We didn't even know he had died until 15 days later. He left home for duty and never returned. I raised my children doing domestic work. We sold off everything we owned to fight this case. Now, after 32 years, justice has finally been served. She urged the Punjab government to grant her children jobs and compensation. 'Now that the court has declared my husband innocent, I hope the government recognizes our suffering,' she said. Nishan Singh, son of another victim, said, 'We fought the case in high court, the Supreme Court and later in the CBI court. We are hopeful that justice will be done with strict punishment to the guilty and compensation for the affected families so that we can rebuild our lives.'
The Hindu
9 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Madras HC restrains Savukku Shankar from defaming ADGP Davidson Devasirvatham in Sivaganga custodial death case
The Madras High Court has restrained YouTuber 'Savukku' Shankar alias A. Shankar from making defamatory allegations, insinuations or imputations against Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) S. Davidson Devasirvatham in relation to the alleged custodial death of B. Ajith Kumar of Sivaganga district in June this year. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted the interim injunction for a period of four weeks pursuant to a defamation suit filed by the ADGP (L&O) accusing the YouTuber of presenting concocted tales woven out of unverified gossip, with a tone of certainty, in order to mislead the people at large and create suspicion and hostility. The judge agreed with senior counsel P.H. Arvindh Pandian, representing the ADGP, that the derogatory and defamatory manner in which the statements had been made would prima facie affect the reputation of his client holding high office and that Article 19(2) of the Constitution protects a citizen from being defamed. In an exhaustive affidavit filed in support of his injunction application, Mr. Devasirvatham recalled his professional accomplishments since he joined the Indian Police Service (IPS) in 1995 and said that the YouTuber had, however, exhibited a longstanding pattern of targeting him with false and malicious allegations. The ADGP said that the YouTuber had in July 2022 launched a targeted smear campaign linking him with the fake passport scam. The online slander extended to repeated demands for his suspension and removal from service and the defamatory outbursts quietened only after the Madras High Court gave a clean chit to him. Though the reputational damage caused due to that campaign, spearheaded by the YouTuber directly and also through his proxy Varaaki, remained unremedied, 'I chose not to respond publicly and continued to discharge my official duties with discipline and commitment,' the ADGP said. However, after the recent Sivaganga custodial death of a temple security guard, the YouTuber had once again taken to the social media to level a series of grave and unfounded allegations against him, the ADGP complained and said that a completely false narrative had been constructed linking him with the death. 'The statements are entirely false, wholly unverified and manufactured without any basis. However, they were presented by the first respondent with a tone of authority and a pretense of insider knowledge thereby misleading the public into believing that they are grounded in official sources or confidential information,' the ADGP said. He went on to state: 'The truth, however, is that the first respondent possesses no personal knowledge of any such instructions, has no access to official communications, and is utterly devoid of evidence to support these reckless and defamatory allegations.' Claiming that the intention of the YouTuber was to deliberately sow doubts in the minds of the public, the ADGP said, 'these falsehoods are pushed by the first respondent with sensationalism, using provocative and conspiratorial language to stir public emotion and tarnish my name.' Mr. Devasirvatham said, the insidious allegations were amplified by other social media influencers leading to an orchestrated wave of repetition across digital platforms. 'What started as one person's false and harmful claim quickly grew into a digital echo chamber where repeating the lie made it seem like a fact,' he lamented. Apart from praying for an interim injunction specifically against the YouTuber, the ADGP also sought a John Doe/Ashok Kumar order (an order passed against unknown people) against all those unidentified individuals indulging in a malicious campaign against him in the digital space. 'Unlike accredited journalists governed by professional ethics, institutional oversight and legal consequences for irresponsible reporting; the respondents herein are often self-styled 'commentators' or 'digital influencers' who exploit the viral mechanics of platforms such as YouTube, X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook to spread scandalous narratives solely for sensationalism and viewership. Their content is unfiltered, unverified and unaccountable and crafted not with a sense of public duty but with the sole aim of gaining clicks, followers, or political mileage,' he said.
