Hindutva Groups' Threats, Boycott Calls Drive Muslim Families Out of Two Pune Villages
A team of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) members conducted a fact-finding exercise on July 2 in both villages, only to find a palpable climate of fear, shuttered businesses, disrupted lives, and displaced families.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.
Mumbai: In a disturbing wave of targeted communal intimidation and socio-economic boycotts, several Muslims have been forced to flee the Paud and Pirangut villages in Mulshi taluka, Pune district. Although most of these Muslim individuals and their families have lived in these villages for over two decades, many Hindus from the villages have justified the boycott claiming that they are 'non-native Muslims'.
A team of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) members conducted a fact-finding exercise on July 2 in both villages, only to find a palpable climate of fear, shuttered businesses, disrupted lives, and displaced families.
The PUCL and APCR investigations followed reports of illegal posters calling for a boycott of non-native Muslims, which surfaced after an alleged desecration of an Annapurna Devi idol on May 2, in Paud, followed by a march by BJP and other right-wing groups on May 5. At these rallies, open threats were given to the Muslims of the village.
The posters, along with threats and harassment, created a communal atmosphere, PUCL says, prompting them to submit a memorandum to Pune Rural Superintendent of Police Sandeep Singh Gill.
The posters eventually were removed. But the damage it caused were much deeper. The Muslim-owned businesses like bakeries, scrap shops, salons, and chicken shops continue to remain closed.
'Despite repeated complaints to the police, we've received no protection to reopen our businesses,' said owner of Roshan Bakery in Paud, during a press conference that the PUCL organised in Pune on July 4. The owner further added, 'Our family has lived here for 40 years, yet we're labelled outsiders because my father's village is in Uttar Pradesh. We were warned not to reopen our bakery or face consequences.'
Besides Roshan Bakery, two others – New Sangam and New Bharat – have been padlocked, costing around 400 workers their daily wages. The bakery provided employment to both Muslims and non-Muslims. 'Five Hindu vendors who sold our bread door-to-door are now jobless,' added owner of Bharat Bakery, which was established over 32 years ago. 'This isn't just about religion; it's about destroying our means of survival,' he said.
The fact-finding committee met with Paud Police Station Inspector Santosh Girigosavi, who confirmed that controversial posters were removed following the SP's orders. However, the issue does not get resolved just with the removal of the posters. Several Hindutva members have allegedly been openly intimidating Muslim business owners to lease their shops and leave. Hindu Rashtra Sena member Dhananjay Desai, who has earlier faced trial in the killing of a IT professional Mohsin Shaikh in 2014 and was subsequently acquitted for want of evidence, has been once again accused of orchestrating threats from a farmhouse near Vitthalwadi village in Pune. Police confirmed a case against Desai for seizing a farmhouse, declaring that he is absconding.
Another scrap shop owner, whose shop was set ablaze in early June, causing a loss of Rs 20 lakh, recounted his ordeal. 'I've lived here for years, married here, but after my shop was burned, I had to move my family to Kamshet. I filed a complaint and requested compensation, but nothing has come of it.' Like many others, he hopes to return once the situation stabilises.
The hate campaign has also targeted religious spaces. Posters outside two mosques restricted namaz to local Muslims, deterring worshippers from nearby Kolvan village. Though removed, the fear lingers, with Muslims avoiding the mosques. 'The atmosphere is still tense,' a local Muslim resident, requesting anonymity, has said.
The displacement has taken a severe toll. Many have had to flee to their ancestral villages in Uttar Pradesh; several have found refuge in close by Kamshet. In all this, along with livelihood, the children are the worst affected. Many had to abruptly stop their education.
One of the villagers also shared instances of heightened surveillance that he and other Muslims from the village have been facing. 'A WhatsApp group of 400 villagers tracks our movements. When I went to a medical store for my son's medicine, my photo was immediately shared in the group,' he said.
Ashok Matre, former Congress taluka president in Pirangut, lamenting the erosion of Mulshi's 'historical harmony', said, 'Muslims used to participate in the [Hindu religious festival of] Harinaam Saptah, wearing traditional attire. But groups like RSS, Shiv Pratishthan, and Hindu Rashtra Sena have poisoned minds.'
PUCL condemned the economic boycotts as 'unconstitutional'. The Indian constitution, the human rights group emphasises, guarantees that an individual can conduct business anywhere. Civil rights groups are preparing legal action to address the violations.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
OECD Tax Framework Collapses as G7 Bows to Trump's reciprocal tax threat
Published : Jul 07, 2025 16:03 IST - 6 MINS READ Developments that have occurred in quick succession have crushed the successful efforts made in recent years to increase global cooperation aimed at raising tax revenues to take on a host of global challenges. Late in June, the non-US six (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK) in the G7 announced that they had agreed to a 'side-by-side solution' that amounts to a retreat from the existing global agreement to cooperate on corporate taxation. They have decided to exempt US multinationals from being subject to a minimum tax on their profits of 15 per cent, as required under an agreement sealed in 2021. To recall, after years of negotiation, an agreement titled the 'OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)' was arrived at in 2021 under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with non-OECD countries too joining the discussion. That agreement was a commitment on the part of over 140 governments to work towards implementing a common framework to tax the global profits of transnational companies that find ways to transfer to and record their profits in low tax locations where they often have little economic activity. The BEPS framework was a means to combat such tax avoidance practices that reduce national and aggregate global tax revenues, and help governments tax profits in jurisdictions where economic activity actually occurs and value creation takes place. Also Read | A summit of subordinates The core of the agreement, which recommended 15 actions, was named Pillar Two of the framework. This was by no means far-reaching. It merely set a 15 per cent floor rate of tax on the profits of multinationals in all the cooperating jurisdictions, which was much lower than the 25-30 per cent considered reasonable by those looking to raise resources for meeting various financing challenges. Dissatisfaction over this and the tardy move to implement the OECD agreement set off demands for a global tax convention under the auspices of the UN, which would give less developed countries more of a say in determining the terms of the agreement and a greater role in its implementation. Some progress has been achieved on this, with a UN General Assembly decision to constitute an ad hoc committee to draft the terms of reference for a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. Negotiations on the convention were to occur over 2025 to 2027. Weaponised tariffs However, from the very start the US—though a party to the OECD agreement—has been expressing reservations about a number of the proposed measures, especially the Pillar Two global minimum tax. With US multinationals being the principal adopters of profit-shifting strategies, they would have been the main targets of any such minimum tax, however low. So, the US, while committed to the inclusive framework, campaigned during Donald Trump's first term as President of the US, for a much-diluted version of the minimum tax proposal. And, in Trump's more aggressive second term, in which he has chosen to weaponise tariffs and taxes, Pillar Two seems to be under attack. Going on the offensive, the original version of Trump's so-called 'big beautiful' budget Bill included a section—Section 899—that authorised the US government to impose 'revenge taxes' on foreign investments emanating from countries that 'discriminated' against US firms in their tax practices. Support for a minimum corporate tax on global profits in locations were they were actually earned was seen as an instance of such discrimination. In the face of that threat, the non-US members of the G7 caved in and agreed to a side-by-side solution that exempts US multinationals from the global minimum tax provision, which amounts to dumping Pillar Two and with it the OECD agreement. That would also undermine efforts to institute an effective UN convention on international taxation, since leading countries are now likely to opt out of the convention. The link between the decision on the minimum tax and the proposed revenge taxes was clearly revealed when the US Treasury Department asked the US Congress to drop Section 899 because, in Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's words, the US had secured concessions exempting US companies from the OECD's global minimum tax regime. In fact, the Trump administration seems set to destroy all efforts at combating tax avoidance by threatening action against any international taxation measures that target multinational profits. Days after the 'side-by-side solution' was announced by non-US G7 members, Canada declared that it was scrapping a proposed tax on digital services companies that was to come into effect on June 30. The tax involved was a paltry levy of 3 per cent, which was to apply on revenues earned by firms like Meta, Netflix, and Amazon from cross-border provision of services to Canadian clients. But even that small levy was expected to increase Canada's federal government revenues by $5.3 billion over five years. Trump declared the tax a 'direct and blatant' attack on US firms, and suspended negotiations on a deal on reciprocal and special tariffs. Fearing that the tax would upend discussions on that deal, Canadian Prime Minister Mike Carney said that his government had decided to scrap the levy in order to facilitate resumption of trade talks. Global repercussions This too is likely to be a precedent with global repercussions. Many countries, especially in the EU like France have digital services taxes in place. Germany has been considering imposing a 10 per cent tax on global digital platforms like Meta and Google. And the European Commission has been talking of imposing a tax on the advertising revenues of tech firms. All of these are now under threat, as revoking them may be made a precondition for any deal on tariffs, even though there are signs that a baseline 10 per cent reciprocal tariff on imports into the US will remain and only special tariffs above these are up for negotiation. Also Read | Trade is very central to Trump's world view: Navtej Sarna One of Trump's slogans is that he wants to 'Make America Great Again' by bringing back manufacturing that had moved abroad, not least by relying on import tariffs. That could affect the profits of US firms if they are forced to withdraw from low-cost production locations abroad. Simultaneously, he seems intent on fighting discrimination against US multinationals to protect the profits of US firms. The possibility that the two objectives might be in contradiction seems lost on the President. C.P. Chandrasekhar taught for more than three decades at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is currently Senior Research Fellow at the Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst, US.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
26/11 plotter Tahawwur Rana exposes Pakistan Army's terror links
The Election Commission's special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar has sparked controversy, with opposition parties filing petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the move. The revision requires voters added since 2003 to submit proof of date and place of birth, effectively their citizenship. Opposition parties claim this targets poor, Dalit and Muslim voters and could lead to disenfranchisement. The EC maintains the revision is working smoothly, with 2.88 crore forms collected covering 37% of Bihar's voters. However, ground reports show many citizens struggling to provide the required documents. Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa says while roll purification is legitimate, the timing and new procedures raise questions. The Supreme Court will hear the petitions on Thursday. Concerns have been raised about the Election Commission of India's voter registration drive. A former Election Commissioner states there are practical and conceptual issues that need clarification, such as the acceptance criteria for enumeration forms and required documents. He calls for establishing open and credible channels of communication to address doubts, though stops short of saying the EC faces a crisis. The discussion also touches on allegations by some politicians that the EC is acting as a rubber stamp for the government, which the former official suggests should not be assumed without evidence.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
A step away from transparency
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has introduced some new rules and revisions, including a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar before the Assembly polls. This exercise will then take place across the country. In Bihar, the SIR exercise, aimed at removing duplicate entries in electoral rolls, started on June 25. It uses the 2003 electoral rolls as the base. The process includes door-to-door verification and new documentation requirements. The ECI aims to publish the final voters' list by September 30. As part of the process, voters listed in the 2003 electoral rolls — the last time that an intensive revision was done in Bihar — do not have to submit documents unless they are asked. However, those who were not on the rolls in 2003 and new applicants will have to provide proof of date and/or proof of place of birth of self if they were born before July 1, 1987; proof of date and/or proof of place of birth of self and of one parent if they were born between July 1, 1987 and December 2, 2004; and proof of date and/or proof of place of birth of self and both parents if they were born after December 2, 2004. On the surface, this seems aligned with the ECI's broader goal of cleaning the electoral rolls and eliminating ghost voters from the voters' list and ensuring that only eligible Indian citizens exercise their franchise, which is fundamental to a free and fair democratic process. However, there are several concerns. First, many individuals/families from poor, Dalit, Muslim, tribal, and migrant communities often lack formal birth certificates. Second, many others will struggle to produce documents for verifying their parents' place of birth, largely due to historical gaps in State documentation. Third, there may be lack of awareness and clarity around the new requirements. Many voters, especially in rural areas, may not fully understand which documents are needed, how to fill out forms, or where and when to submit them. With limited public outreach, complex paperwork required, and a tight timeline leading up to the final publication of the electoral rolls by September 30, there is a high risk of confusion, errors, and unintentional exclusions, particularly of those already on the margins of the system. Fourth, the process relies heavily on field-level officials (booth level officers and electoral registration officers), who hold discretionary power. While the framework allows for claims, objections, and appeals, the initial verification and decision-making are in the hands of local officers. This may lead to inconsistencies, delays, or biased judgment, especially in areas with limited oversight. Fifth, the ECI has neither committed to publishing the list of names being removed from the electoral rolls, nor has it provided a clear, accessible system for applicants to track the status of their submissions. This makes it difficult for citizens, civil society, and the media to monitor the process, identify errors, or challenge wrongful exclusions, raising serious questions about accountability. The Lokniti-Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) post-poll survey of the National Election Study 2024 revealed a concerning trend. When respondents were asked whether they trust the ECI, 12% reported 'not much' and 7% reported 'no trust at all'. In this atmosphere of suspicion, the ECI has now published a circular directing that all photos, videos, CCTV footage, and webcasts from polling stations be deleted within 45 days of the election results, unless an election petition is filed within that period. Earlier, footage and photos were retained for three months to one year, depending on the stage of polling. This new measure not only limits the time to scrutinise the material, but also shuts off avenues for transparency that existed earlier. While steps such as the EPIC clean up and voter turnout upgrade suggest that the ECI is pushing for efficiency, actions such as deleting polling station footage prematurely, implementing new documentation rules without sufficient public awareness, and failing to disclose names removed from electoral rolls contribute to the prevailing atmosphere of uncertainty and suspicion. At a time when public trust in institutions is under strain, the ECI cannot afford to be so opaque. Krishangi Sinha is a Researcher with Lokniti-CSDS; Sanjay Kumar is Co-Director of Lokniti, and Professor at CSDS. Views are personal
