Latest news with #VinayNarwal
Hindustan Times
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Assam minister meets Vinay Narwal's family
Assam government's revenue minister Keshab Mahanta on Friday reached the residence of lieutenant Vinay Narwal, who was killed in the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, to pay his condolences and also handed over a cheque of ₹5 lakh to the family on behalf of the government. The minister said that the Assam government, under the leadership of chief minister Himanta Biswa Sharma, has decided to honour the victims of the Pahalgam attack. A minister and a senior IAS-level official will visit the grieving families to pay their tributes. They will also provide financial aid to the families. He said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government is completely against terrorism, and has taken revenge through Operation Sindoor.
The Hindu
17-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why laws fall short in combating the surge in cyber-bullying cases
In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, Himanshi Narwal, the wife of slain Navy Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, issued a heartfelt appeal for peace and firmly rejected the vilification of Muslims and Kashmiris. Soon after, the grieving newlywed became the target of a vicious trolling campaign on X (formerly Twitter). Anonymous accounts hurled slurs at her, questioned her loyalty to her late husband, and even called for the cancellation of her pension. However, Ms. Narwal was not alone in facing such online vitriol. Following Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri's announcement on May 10 that India and Pakistan had reached an understanding to halt military hostilities, his account on X was inundated with abusive comments, some of which targeted even his daughter. Mr. Misri was eventually compelled to lock his account, as several diplomats and politicians condemned the toxic trolling culture in unequivocal terms. Emboldened by the anonymity of the internet, faceless trolls have turned into virtual vigilantes, punishing those who dare to question dominant narratives. What regulatory reforms, then, are necessary to ensure that such depravity is no longer met with impunity? Regulatory loopholes A range of terms has emerged to describe contemporary forms of cybercrime, including cyberbullying, stalking, hate speech, and doxxing. Doxxing, short for 'dropping dox' (documents), involves the unauthorised online disclosure of private information, often with malicious intent. This may include home addresses, phone numbers, or sensitive images, leaving victims vulnerable to harassment and tangible real-world threats. Studies show that such abuse disproportionately targets women and minorities, suggesting that these attacks are often driven not just by cruelty or amusement but by organised political motives. The consequences can be severe, frequently escalating to rape and death threats. India lacks a dedicated law specifically aimed at tackling online hate speech and trolling. Instead, a limited number of provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2003, and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, cover certain aspects of cyberbullying. The BNS contains provisions applicable to electronic communications, such as Section 74 (assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 75 (sexual harassment), Section 351 (criminal intimidation), Section 356 (defamation), and Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups). The IT Act supplements these offences with provisions like Section 66C (identity theft), Section 66D (impersonation fraud) and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material electronically). 'The existing regulatory framework is functional but far from complete. No provision squarely criminalises sustained online abuse that does not qualify as 'obscene,' 'threatening,' or 'fraudulent.' Stalking under the BNS is gender-specific—limited to men targeting women—and hinges on intent to engage personally, failing to capture the collective harassment that defines much of online trolling. While cyberbullying may sometimes be shoehorned into offences like criminal intimidation or defamation, these require proof of threat or reputational harm and are ill-suited to counter the rapid, anonymous abuse unleashed by online mobs,' Apar Gupta, advocate and founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, told The Hindu. Moderation or censorship? Mounting domestic and international pressure to curb disinformation and hate speech has compelled social media giants to moderate and remove harmful content. While many advocate for 'self-regulation,' where platforms enforce their own community guidelines, this model has largely failed and faces growing scrutiny. Last year, Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov was arrested by French authorities for allegedly failing to moderate criminal activity on the platform, including the circulation of child sexual abuse material and fraudulent content. Telegram later amended its privacy policy to permit the disclosure of users' IP addresses and phone numbers to law enforcement upon receipt of 'valid legal requests.' Also Read: Should digital platform owners be held liable The challenge is further exacerbated by the gradual erosion of content moderation policies in favour of monetisation. In a damning report released earlier this month, the Centre for the Study of Organized Hate found that X had become a 'high-velocity distribution channel' for hate speech and conspiracy theories, particularly targeting British-Pakistani men as well as other South Asian and immigrant communities. An analysis of 1,365 posts generating more than 1.5 billion engagements revealed that the platform played a central role in weaponising the 'grooming gang' discourse to scapegoat Muslims in the U.K., despite police data showing that most offenders were white men. In India, Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the government to issue blocking orders on grounds aligned with constitutionally permissible restrictions on speech, such as national sovereignty, friendly relations with foreign States, and public order. Platforms that fail to comply risk losing safe harbour protection under Section 79, which ordinarily shields intermediaries from liability for user-generated content. However, experts have warned that these provisions are increasingly being used as tools for online censorship. In recent years, the Union Government has frequently taken down content without notifying affected users — a practice that contravenes the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. While the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 69A, it underscored that blocking orders must be accompanied by cogent reasons to enable judicial scrutiny. Following the Pahalgam attack, X disclosed that it had been directed to block more than 8,000 accounts in India, but said the government had not specified which posts violated the law in most cases. In March, the platform filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court challenging the government's reliance on Section 79(3)(b) to issue takedown orders, arguing that it bypasses the procedural safeguards under Section 69A. Unlike Section 69A, Section 79(3)(b) neither defines what constitutes an 'unlawful act' nor provides for any review mechanism. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting recently informed a Parliamentary Committee that it is reconsidering safe harbour protections for social media platforms in a bid to combat 'fake news.' X has received executive orders from the Indian government requiring X to block over 8,000 accounts in India, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company's local employees. The orders include demands to block access in India to… — Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) May 8, 2025 Judicial interventions In February last year, the Delhi High Court directed X to remove tweets revealing the personal and professional details of a woman who had reportedly posted a critical comment about Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The post triggered a wave of online harassment, with details of her workplace, residence, and photographs being widely circulated. Although these disclosures raised privacy concerns, Justice Prathiba Singh ruled that the incident did not constitute doxxing, as the information was already publicly available. However, the judge acknowledged that while doxxing is not yet a statutory offence in India, it poses a serious threat. She observed that it infringes upon the right to privacy and that, in the absence of specific legislation, courts could invoke tort law to offer redress. Accordingly, X was directed to disclose subscriber information associated with the offending posts. This case highlights the contested nature of what qualifies as public information. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, exempts from its scope personal data that is made 'publicly available', either through voluntary disclosure by the individual or by entities under a legal obligation. However, this exemption is riddled with ambiguity, as the law offers no clear definition for what qualifies as 'publicly available data.' This lack of clarity may facilitate cybercrimes such as doxxing, especially since fragmented data from multiple platforms can be easily aggregated and used for harassment or intimidation — ultimately undermining the law's intended objective. Challenges ahead Experts underscored that enforcement, or rather the lack of it, often determines whether victims can access remedies. 'All laws are only as effective as their enforcement. While posts and accounts are promptly removed when government directives are issued, the same urgency is rarely extended to ordinary users reporting harassment or abusive content,' Mishi Choudhary, technology lawyer and digital rights advocate, told The Hindu. She pointed out that for victims of gendered online abuse, legal recourse is typically a last resort. 'Survivors are often disbelieved or, worse, blamed for the abuse they face. The lack of awareness and institutional support has a profoundly detrimental impact, forcing many to navigate an uphill battle in their quest for justice,' she said. Mr. Gupta agreed, highlighting challenges such as perpetrator anonymity, cross-jurisdictional hurdles, and limited cybercrime training. 'While the BNS has modernised terminology and broadened the scope of online offences, gaps in legal clarity and enforcement persist. Merely creating new offences is insufficient and may even endanger journalists and rights defenders, especially given India's weak rule of law framework,' he cautioned.
The Hindu
17-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why the law falls short in combating the surge in cyber-bullying cases
In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, Himanshi Narwal, the wife of slain Navy Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, issued a heartfelt appeal for peace and firmly rejected the vilification of Muslims and Kashmiris. Soon after, the grieving newlywed became the target of a vicious trolling campaign on X (formerly Twitter). Anonymous accounts hurled slurs at her, questioned her loyalty to her late husband, and even called for the cancellation of her pension. However, Ms. Narwal was not alone in facing such online vitriol. Following Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri's announcement on May 10 that India and Pakistan had reached an understanding to halt military hostilities, his account on X was inundated with abusive comments, some of which targeted even his daughter. Mr. Misri was eventually compelled to lock his account, as several diplomats and politicians condemned the toxic trolling culture in unequivocal terms. Emboldened by the anonymity of the internet, faceless trolls have turned into virtual vigilantes, punishing those who dare to question dominant narratives. What regulatory reforms, then, are necessary to ensure that such depravity is no longer met with impunity? Regulatory loopholes A range of terms has emerged to describe contemporary forms of cybercrime, including cyberbullying, stalking, hate speech, and doxxing. Doxxing, short for 'dropping dox' (documents), involves the unauthorised online disclosure of private information, often with malicious intent. This may include home addresses, phone numbers, or sensitive images, leaving victims vulnerable to harassment and tangible real-world threats. Studies show that such abuse disproportionately targets women and minorities, suggesting that these attacks are often driven not just by cruelty or amusement but by organised political motives. The consequences can be severe, frequently escalating to rape and death threats. India lacks a dedicated law specifically aimed at tackling online hate speech and trolling. Instead, a limited number of provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2003, and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, cover certain aspects of cyberbullying. The BNS contains provisions applicable to electronic communications, such as Section 74 (assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 75 (sexual harassment), Section 351 (criminal intimidation), Section 356 (defamation), and Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups). The IT Act supplements these offences with provisions like Section 66C (identity theft), Section 66D (impersonation fraud) and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material electronically). 'The existing regulatory framework is functional but far from complete. No provision squarely criminalises sustained online abuse that does not qualify as 'obscene,' 'threatening,' or 'fraudulent.' Stalking under the BNS is gender-specific—limited to men targeting women—and hinges on intent to engage personally, failing to capture the collective harassment that defines much of online trolling. While cyberbullying may sometimes be shoehorned into offences like criminal intimidation or defamation, these require proof of threat or reputational harm and are ill-suited to counter the rapid, anonymous abuse unleashed by online mobs,' Apar Gupta, advocate and founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, told The Hindu. Moderation or censorship? Mounting domestic and international pressure to curb disinformation and hate speech has compelled social media giants to moderate and remove harmful content. While many advocate for 'self-regulation,' where platforms enforce their own community guidelines, this model has largely failed and faces growing scrutiny. Last year, Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov was arrested by French authorities for allegedly failing to moderate criminal activity on the platform, including the circulation of child sexual abuse material and fraudulent content. Telegram later amended its privacy policy to permit the disclosure of users' IP addresses and phone numbers to law enforcement upon receipt of 'valid legal requests.' Also Read: Should digital platform owners be held liable The challenge is further exacerbated by the gradual erosion of content moderation policies in favour of monetisation. In a damning report released earlier this month, the Centre for the Study of Organized Hate found that X had become a 'high-velocity distribution channel' for hate speech and conspiracy theories, particularly targeting British-Pakistani men as well as other South Asian and immigrant communities. An analysis of 1,365 posts generating over 1.5 billion engagements revealed that the platform played a central role in weaponising the 'grooming gang' discourse to scapegoat Muslims in the UK, despite police data showing that most offenders were white men. In India, Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the government to issue blocking orders on grounds aligned with constitutionally permissible restrictions on speech, such as national sovereignty, friendly relations with foreign States, and public order. Platforms that fail to comply risk losing safe harbour protection under Section 79, which ordinarily shields intermediaries from liability for user-generated content. However, experts have warned that these provisions are increasingly being used as tools for online censorship. In recent years, the Union government has frequently taken down content without notifying affected users — a practice that contravenes the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. While the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 69A, it underscored that blocking orders must be accompanied by cogent reasons to enable judicial scrutiny. Following the Pahalgam attack, X disclosed that it had been directed to block over 8,000 accounts in India, but said the government had not specified which posts violated the law in most cases. In March, the platform filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court challenging the government's reliance on Section 79(3)(b) to issue takedown orders, arguing that it bypasses the procedural safeguards under Section 69A. Unlike Section 69A, Section 79(3)(b) neither defines what constitutes an 'unlawful act' nor provides for any review mechanism. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting recently informed a parliamentary committee that it is reconsidering safe harbour protections for social media platforms in a bid to combat 'fake news.' X has received executive orders from the Indian government requiring X to block over 8,000 accounts in India, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company's local employees. The orders include demands to block access in India to… — Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) May 8, 2025 Judicial interventions In February last year, the Delhi High Court directed X to remove tweets revealing the personal and professional details of a woman who had reportedly posted a critical comment about Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The post triggered a wave of online harassment, with details of her workplace, residence, and photographs being widely circulated. Although these disclosures raised privacy concerns, Justice Prathiba Singh ruled that the incident did not constitute doxxing, as the information was already publicly available. However, the judge acknowledged that while doxxing is not yet a statutory offence in India, it poses a serious threat. She observed that it infringes upon the right to privacy and that, in the absence of specific legislation, courts could invoke tort law to offer redress. Accordingly, X was directed to disclose subscriber information associated with the offending posts. This case highlights the contested nature of what qualifies as public information. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, exempts from its scope personal data that is made 'publicly available', either through voluntary disclosure by the individual or by entities under a legal obligation. However, this exemption is riddled with ambiguity, as the law offers no clear definition for what qualifies as 'publicly available data.' This lack of clarity may facilitate cybercrimes such as doxxing, especially since fragmented data from multiple platforms can be easily aggregated and used for harassment or intimidation — ultimately undermining the law's intended objective. Challenges ahead Experts underscored that enforcement, or rather the lack of it, often determines whether victims can access remedies. 'All laws are only as effective as their enforcement. While posts and accounts are promptly removed when government directives are issued, the same urgency is rarely extended to ordinary users reporting harassment or abusive content,' Mishi Choudhary, technology lawyer and digital rights advocate, told The Hindu. She pointed out that for victims of gendered online abuse, legal recourse is typically a last resort. 'Survivors are often disbelieved or, worse, blamed for the abuse they face. The lack of awareness and institutional support has a profoundly detrimental impact, forcing many to navigate an uphill battle in their quest for justice,' she said. Mr. Gupta agreed, highlighting challenges such as perpetrator anonymity, cross-jurisdictional hurdles, and limited cybercrime training. 'While the BNS has modernised terminology and broadened the scope of online offences, gaps in legal clarity and enforcement persist. Merely creating new offences is insufficient and may even endanger journalists and rights defenders, especially given India's weak rule of law framework,' he cautioned.
Indian Express
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Operation Sindoor and a ‘new normal': A tragedy seared the nation, response united it
Now that a ceasefire with Pakistan is in place, it is time to take stock of what worked for the government and where it may need to step up its efforts. What worked was the evocatively named Operation Sindoor that captured both the national sentiment after the April 22 Pahalgam killings, as well as what the government intended its response to be. Unlike previous terrorist strikes in the recent past — on paramilitary forces and soldiers in Pulwama (2019) and Uri (2016), and Mumbai, the financial centre (2008) — the attack on tourists visiting the meadow of Baisaran in Pahalgam in south Kashmir, at one level, was an act aimed at women. The terrorists made it a point to kill only men after ascertaining their religion. They shot them point blank in front of women and children, forever wiping their 'sindoor', the vermilion powder many Hindu women apply in their hair parting and which, for many, is more than a visual marker of their marital status. The sindoor is accepted all over India as the foundation of family life and holds deep cultural resonance. In Bihar, at the time of the Chhath Pooja, the sindoor is even longer, and the red line comes right down to the woman's nose, for the husband's long life. In West Bengal, too, the sindoor has an importance of its own. Even in the South, where turmeric is more the symbol of marriage, Tamil women apply a dot of vermilion on their foreheads. There are, of course, women who view the 'sindoor' as a symbol of patriarchy, but that is not how a large number of women see it. After the Pahalgam attack, the nation saw the image of a newlywed woman, Himanshi Narwal, sitting stoically beside the inert body of her husband, Navy Lt Vinay Narwal. It was an image that got seared into the nation's memory, striking a deep emotional chord. The brutality and the pathos of the killings would have touched every family in the country, as the women in the families of the 25 slain tourists were deliberately spared. The sindoor found a mention in Prime Minister Narendra Modi's address to the nation on Monday night, when he said that 'every terrorist, every terror organisation knows the consequence of wiping out the sindoor of our sisters and daughters'. Following the attack, Opposition parties closed ranks with the government, Kashmiris stood in solidarity with the rest of the country, and the communal polarisation the attackers would have hoped for did not materialise. As Operation Sindoor was initiated, the military, in a move of powerful symbolism, fielded two woman officers to brief the media: Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh. This signalled the country's multi-faith, pluralist credentials, contrary to what Pakistan Army chief General Asim Munir spoke about in his April 16 speech: that it was not possible for Hindus and Muslims to co-exist. 'I wept when I saw those two women military officers address the nation together on Operation Sindoor,' a woman from Chennai told me. To many around the country, the officers represented India's strength and India's 'answer' to the Pahalgam killings. Though it is early days to talk about this, by doing what he talked about and striking deep into Pakistan territory — among them, Bahawalpur, Muridke, and Rawalpindi — and by avenging the women who lost their husbands and sons in Pahalgam, the PM may well have ensured the support of a large constituency of women for his future political battles. The Trump test Like the line of 'sindoor', the government has also drawn a new red line militarily, sending out the message that Pakistan would have a price to pay for terror attacks in the future and that the government would see them as an 'act of war'. This is what ordinary Indians wanted — that an appropriate message be sent to Pakistan. Talk to ordinary people, and they do not want a prolonged war that would only lead to loss of lives and bring hardship on all. Apart from the successes of the armed forces, what really worked for India was its soft power: the supportive Kashmiri voices, the resilience of women, and Hindu-Muslim unity. And now politicians will have to resist playing that card for political ends and desist from equating Pakistan with Indian Muslims. This is not to say that Operation Sindoor has not thrown up challenges for the government. It has to now contend with its supporters, particularly those on social media, who feel let down by the pause in military action when they thought Pakistan would be brought to its knees. The PM appeared to address these sections as he did not bring up the word ceasefire. He emphasised that the military had only suspended its 'retaliatory action against Pakistan's terror and military camps'. Then there is US President Donald Trump who has claimed that his administration brokered the ceasefire and would be willing to help the neighbouring countries resolve the Kashmir dispute. The government will now have to navigate a tricky terrain and maintain its ties with the Trump administration while countering the charge on the domestic political front that it has allowed third-party mediation on Kashmir and brought it back on the table, allowing India and Pakistan to be hyphenated once again. However, Modi, in his speech, pushed back on this, saying in no uncertain terms that terrorism would continue to be at the centre of the government's agenda. He was emphatic that the 'new normal' means that 'terror and talks cannot go together, terror and trade cannot go together, water and blood cannot flow together'. The PM said talks with Pakistan from now on would only be on terrorism and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Most importantly, the government will have to imaginatively re-engage with its neighbourhood, while also moving to acquire a clear and definite lead over Pakistan's military capability, backed as the neighbouring country is by China's support and the latest generation of fighter planes and missiles. (Neerja Chowdhury, Contributing Editor, The Indian Express, has covered the last 11 Lok Sabha elections. She is the author of How Prime Ministers Decide)
Scroll.in
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Pahalgam and after: How women are used as instruments of politics and conflict
When four terrorists attacked a popular tourist site in Pahalgam on April 22, they targeted Hindu men, with a few exceptions, and took 26 lives, all men. Intriguingly, the terrorists spared all children and adult women – the wives and daughters of the deceased men. The attack has brought the politics of gender in the conflict to centre stage. Women are being used instrumentally while pushing the larger narrative of payback. On May 6, the Indian forces retaliated with a precision attack, named Operation Sindoor. The state conveyed its desire to avenge the lost lives on behalf of India's widows. While it is viewed as having sent a strong message to those operating what India described as 'terrorist infrastructure', touting this attack as a women-centric narrative warrants attention. The expedient nature of this variety of 'justice' aside, one must ask the question: what actually lies in store for these grieving women? In the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, grief understandably engulfed the country – before morphing into hate. The image of newly-wed Himanshi Narwal, sitting numb in the Pahalgam meadow beside her dead husband, naval officer Vinay Narwal, swept through the media and social media platforms. The image and AI-generated Ghibli versions of it became the symbol of grief, loss and helplessness. 🚨Himanshi Narwal lost her husband in Kashmir, yet she still defends Kashmiris and Muslims. Despite her personal loss, she made a heartfelt appeal for peace, urging people not to turn against Muslims or Kashmiris. This is real India and there are millions of people like her. — Mohit Chauhan (@mohitlaws) May 1, 2025 But soon, an aggressive, hypermasculine narrative of protectionism emerged – the young widow, many decided, must be 'saved' and given justice through revenge. Her image became the conduit for expressing bloodthirst, hate and a tool for garnering communal division. As the Indian authorities announced at a media briefing on the day after Operation Sindoor, by orchestrating a targeted attack on Hindu men, the terrorists aimed to stoke communal distrust. This, the attackers hoped, would fuel a never-ending loop of violence within India. Terror was unleashed and its aftermath generated communal hate and Islamophobia, targeting ordinary Indians who had nothing to do with the attackers. However, amidst the din, women survivors of the tragedy spoke their minds. Some questioned the massive security lapse that had resulted in the attack. Several others emphasised how Kashmiris around the spot became the first responders, taking them to safety when no official help was on hand. While demanding justice, Himanshi Narwal appealed for peace and spoke against hate-mongering against Muslims and Kashmiris. Shortly after, she found herself at the receiving end of vile trolling. The woman who had been held up as the ideal wife and projected as the poster girl of the grief caused by the terror attack was dragged down from the pedestal and her character was besmirched. The hate army abuses & resorts to the character assassination of Pahalgam victim Naval officer's wife. #PahalgamTerrorAttack — Satish Acharya (@satishacharya) May 5, 2025 But why this drastic shift in script? It is because Narwal violated the template of the grieving wife. She was expected to be helpless and lose hope. Her wails would then activate the drums of war. However, her call for peace was an act of defiance and a rebellion against the politics of hate. Why did the terrorists spare the women in the first place? They were not acting chivalrous, not by any measure. They aimed to use women as bearers of their message to the Indian government. The terrorists took the lives of these men, who in traditional society are projected as being the 'protectors' of women, to convey a larger message of hate to the state – the protector of all citizens. Women are being used as instruments of politics. The attackers aimed to use women to spread their message of terror. Hatemongers were angered when Narwal refused to participate in their campaign against Muslims and Kashmiris in India. Both sides aim to portray women as the perfect victims – helpless and voiceless, devoid of agency. Both sides are motivated by hate-filtered narratives in which the lives of these grieving women are nothing but an instrument for their ends. War and conflict have historically been a gendered arena. While war is a male domain, women are systematically excluded from the mechanisms of power, deciding on war. Women, at best, are the conduits in building the narratives of war and conflict. It is not the first time in history that women have been caught in the crossfire of terror, hate, and war. Certainly, this is not going to be the last. However, it is deeply telling that in contemporary India, defying hate in favour of peace is a powerful act of subversion.
