Tag Archives: Bigotry

Dalit Voice is inviting pitches for a thematic booklet on injustice and discrimination in formal institutions. Formal institutions often claim to operate through rules and ideas of merit and professionalism with a veneer of neutrality and objectivity. But the everyday life of institutions reveals that they are shaped by the same structural and ideological patterns of discrimination and inequality that shape society more broadly. At the same time, institutional practices themselves help reproduce and shape discriminatory social relations within and beyond those institutions, especially when they wield significant power within society. We want to examine how systems of social power and discrimination exist within and enter institutional life, how they shape the experiences of people from marginalised and oppressed communities, and how institutions in turn affect those who encounter them from the outside.

The call is open for social justice writing on universities and schools, workplaces, courts, government departments, political parties, media organisations, cultural institutions, NGOs, religious institutions, professional bodies and other formally constituted organisations.

Some possible questions include:

• What happens when an institution’s stated rules come up against practices of discrimination and bigotry?
• What does discrimination and bigotry look like in the functioning of a particular institution?
• How do people from marginalised and oppressed communities navigate institutions where they remain underrepresented or unequally situated?
• What happens when discriminatory and bigoted practices within an institution are challenged?
• How have particular institutions changed in response to struggles over social justice?
• How do institutional rules, norms and practices reproduce existing forms of social power or create new forms of discrimination?
• How do people respond to and challenge institutional forms of discrimination?

These questions are intended to suggest possible directions rather than define the scope of the call. Contributors are welcome to approach the theme from other angles.

Formats

1. Long-form essays — 3 pieces
   Approx. 4,000-5000 words
   Honorarium: ₹8,000 per piece

We are looking for deeply researched pieces that investigate a specific institution, question, history, event or development. The research need not be academic. It might involve interviews, documents, archival material, reporting, data or other sources appropriate to the subject. We want essays that have something substantive to establish or uncover, rather than opinion pieces expanded to 4,000 words.

2. Short commentary — 5 pieces
   Approx. 1500-2000 words
   Honorarium: ₹3,000 per piece

These can engage with an institutional development, controversy, decision, debate or question, whether recent or longstanding. We are looking for pieces that offer a fresh way of thinking about the subject and develop a clear argument.

3. Reviews — 3 pieces
   Approx. 1200-1500 words
   Honorarium: ₹2,000 per piece

Reviews of books or other forms of media that offer an entry point into questions of social inequality, discrimination, bigotry and formal institutions. We are particularly interested in reviews that use the work to open up a wider political, social or intellectual question.

Sending a pitch

When sending a pitch, please give us a clear sense of what you want to write, what you want to examine, and why the subject is worth examining. Rather than pitching the broad issue itself, identify a concrete subject through which you can explore the larger questions raised by the theme.

For example, a pitch on “discrimination in higher education” would be too broad. A pitch examining patterns of exclusion in the recruitment practices of a particular university, the handling of a discrimination complaint, the experience of a particular group within the institution, or the history of an institutional policy gives us a clearer sense of the proposed piece.

For long-form essays, please explain what you intend to investigate and what material or sources you expect to draw on. For commentaries, tell us the argument you want to develop. For reviews, tell us the larger question you want to explore through the book.

Priority will be given to pitches from and about communities that experience structural marginalisation and oppression, including Dalits, OBCs, Adivasis, religious minorities, women, queer and trans persons, and other historically excluded groups.

All submissions should be original and unpublished.

Dalit Voice reserves the right to edit commissioned pieces for length, clarity and consistency with the booklet’s editorial requirements.

Submission

Please send:

• A 500 word pitch of your proposed piece
• A short bio less of less than 100 words
• The name of the format you are applying for

Each contributor may submit one pitch only.

Send your pitch to dsa@dalitsahityaacademy.com.

Timeline

Pitch submission deadline: 23 October 2026.

Selected contributors will be notified and commissions confirmed by 30 October 2026.

Accepted contributors will be expected to submit the completed piece by 22 November 2026.

The booklet is being produced on a fixed schedule. If a commissioned piece is not submitted within the stipulated timeline, the commission will be withdrawn so that the booklet can proceed on schedule. If you expect a problem meeting the deadline, please let us know before it passes.

Honorarium will be paid upon submission of the completed commissioned piece.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has raised serious concerns over the treatment of some of India’s most marginalised communities, including Dalits, Adivasi and tribal peoples, Rohingya, Bengali-speaking Muslims, migrants and asylum-seekers. Its findings follow the first review of India by the Committee since 2007 and examine the country’s combined 20th and 21st periodic reports under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The findings were issued after CERD’s 118th session, which also examined Finland, Honduras and Kuwait. This was part of the Committee’s regular review of states that have signed the Convention. CERD’s concluding observations are not court judgments and do not have the force of law. They assess how governments are implementing their obligations under the Convention and identify areas where the Committee finds serious problems.

In India’s case, CERD raised concerns spanning caste, ethnicity, religion, citizenship and policing. One of its gravest concerns was the alleged conduct of law-enforcement agencies towards Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, particularly Dalits, ethnic and ethno-religious groups and non-citizens. CERD recorded reports of excessive force, racially motivated violence, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary and prolonged detention, torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence. It called for prompt, thorough and impartial investigations, with accountability where violations are established.

The reference to Dalits and Scheduled Castes also brings an older disagreement into the review. The Indian government maintains that caste should not be treated as equivalent to race or “descent” for the purposes of CERD. Its submissions nevertheless contain information on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and measures intended to address their disadvantages. CERD’s treatment of caste within its examination of descent and discrimination places caste exclusion within the scope of the Committee’s scrutiny, even as the Indian state rejects that equivalence.

CERD also drew particular attention to Rohingya, Bengali-speaking Muslims, migrants and asylum-seekers. It noted an increase in law-enforcement operations involving these groups, particularly after a 2017 Home Affairs order and the April 2025 Pahalgam attack. Reports of police stops and identity checks based on racial profiling allegedly resulted in arbitrary arrests and detention, torture and other mistreatment. The Committee also raised concerns about deportations and forcible returns involving people who may require international protection.

During the review, CERD Country Rapporteur Stamatia Stavrinaki referred to independent monitoring that recorded more than 1,300 anti-Muslim hate-speech incidents in 2025, including recurring rhetoric attributed to senior officials. India’s delegation responded that legislation enacted in 2023 criminalises acts amounting to hate speech and hate crimes, with additional protections applying when offences target Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It also pointed to freedom of religion as a constitutional guarantee.

But CERD’s observations focused on what these protections mean in practice. Alongside the government’s account of its legal safeguards, the Committee recorded concerns about discrimination, hate speech, violence and the conduct of law-enforcement agencies. It called on India to address hate crimes against Rohingya, Bengali-speaking Muslims, migrants and asylum-seekers, refrain from collective expulsions and ensure access to international protection. This includes respecting non-refoulement, the principle that people should not be returned to a place where they face a serious risk of persecution or other grave harm.

The findings also address citizenship and documentation. CERD noted the absence of adequate disaggregated data on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, ethnic and ethno-religious groups, migrants, refugees, asylum-seekers and stateless people. It highlighted the categorisation of Bengali-speaking Muslims as “non-original inhabitants” and reports that they face more stringent scrutiny during National Register of Citizens verification. The Committee also noted that much of India’s available data on Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and refugees still derives from the 2011 Census, while acknowledging the delayed 2026 Census and its proposed collection of caste data through self-identification.

The treatment of Bengali-speaking Muslims in the NRC process raises a broader question about how citizenship is administered. CERD’s concern is not simply that documentation is required, but that particular ethnic and religious groups are reportedly subjected to different levels of scrutiny. In a political environment where Muslims are repeatedly cast as outsiders or demographic threats, administrative categories such as “non-original inhabitants” can acquire consequences beyond paperwork. The NRC thus becomes part of a wider system in which belonging is subjected to heightened state verification.

The concerns around Rohingya also sit within a longer history of UN scrutiny. A 2025 communication by UN Special Procedures carried allegations that deportation operations against Muslims, including Rohingya, intensified after the Pahalgam attack, involving raids, arrests, ill-treatment and forcible returns. Those allegations came through a separate UN process and were not findings by CERD or a judicial determination.

India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol and has no comprehensive national refugee law. UNHCR therefore carries out protection-related functions for refugees and asylum-seekers in the country. This absence has become more significant alongside changes to India’s citizenship and immigration regime.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was defended by BJP ministers as addressing the unfinished business or “wrongs” of Partition. Yet the CAA was not a refugee law. It created a religion-based route to accelerated citizenship for specified non-Muslim communities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. It did not establish a general system of refugee protection based on persecution or the risk of serious harm.

And in 2025, Parliament enacted the Immigration and Foreigners Act, replacing four earlier laws governing the entry and treatment of foreign nationals. The new law consolidated the state’s immigration powers without creating a corresponding refugee protection framework. CERD’s call for protection against collective expulsions and respect for non-refoulement therefore comes alongside a strengthened legal machinery for controlling and removing foreign nationals, while India still lacks a dedicated process for determining who requires refugee protection. For Rohingya and other asylum-seekers, that leaves a basic question: what domestic procedure requires the danger they may face after removal to be considered before the state deports them?

India’s delegation, led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended the country’s legal framework and its claims of pluralism and equality. The government reiterated its position that caste should not be equated with race or “descent” under the Convention and pointed to legislation addressing hate speech and protections for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

CERD’s findings place those claims alongside reports of how state institutions operate on the ground. The Committee’s concerns cover law-enforcement violence against Dalits and Adivasi and tribal communities, anti-Muslim hate speech, racial profiling of Bengali-speaking Muslims and Rohingya, and the treatment of people whose citizenship or immigration status is under scrutiny.

For Dalit and Adivasi communities, and for Muslims and other minorities whose belonging is increasingly subjected to state scrutiny, the findings also expose how Hindu nationalism operates through state power. Caste discrimination, communal targeting, citizenship enforcement and policing are often treated as separate questions, even as they converge in the lives of communities whose relationship with the state is shaped by unequal power. CERD’s observations bring these questions into the same examination of discrimination and direct attention towards the institutions through which unequal treatment is carried out.